US Gun Massacres: Groundhog Day? (READ MOD WARNING)

CollardGreens

You can always reload the shell in a bullet. They are so expensive now it's a shame but never less, they are flying off the shelf.


I had to call around several places to find ammo last night for shooting this weekend, National Gun day on Saturday the 19th. This is a new "holiday" in support for ranges and gun shops.

Hey folks, it's a sport! Skeet/target, all fun IMO. Should we ban golf balls? I'm sure a golf ball has killed somebody at some point (go ahead anti-gun folks, run with it, lol)

clairefontaine

So the NRA must love Obama since is he is making sales sky rockets. Must mean production will increase too to meet demand. More jobs in that sector?

CollardGreens

LOL Claire, I reckon you are right! Obama really is stimulating the economy.

(I spent $187. USD on 100 .308's! It hurt but folks will spend that much on golf shoes).

rockonollie

Sure I might as well give in......keep the chat lively......

CollardGreens wrote: »

Hey folks, it's a sport! Skeet/target, all fun IMO. Should we ban golf balls? I'm sure a golf ball has killed somebody at some point (go ahead anti-gun folks, run with it, lol)

I've never seen a golf ball kill 20 people in less than a minute!

MrMister

Blay wrote: »

That has been trotted out before as a solution...it's a non runner.

Has it...and how come?

rockonollie

MrMister wrote: »

Has it...and how come?

CNN did a piece on the gun trade in egypt.....where backround checks are so strict that the majority of people can't get a gun....and bullets are about $5 each.

Hasn't stopped gun crime, the gun and ammunition black market would be one of the biggest industries in Egypt (if it was legitimate)

You have to regulate within a limit......go beyond that limit and regulation is useless.

CollardGreens

(RockonOllie's post, I still don't know how where the repost button is)

"I've never seen a golf ball kill 20 people in less than a minute!"

---

Ok Rockon, you got me there.

If I may add to the mix, I've worked in the medical field for years. Doctors/hospitals have killed more ppl than guns in America. My big brother that got me into guns at a ripe age of 12yo died at the hand of doctors in 09'. I'm an only child to my parents because of this. Have you or anyone else checked the stats on the deaths and screw ups in hospitals? It floored me, I didin't have any idea. Now, this is a bit OT and probably for another thread but just think about the new health care we are facing. Doctors that screw up + the gov in charge of our health??? Flipping scary!

Currently I'm out of the medical business as to help care for my parents but I can tell you this......I'd die at my place of work on the floor before I'd let them take me to the local hospital where I live so they can kill me slowly.

Back to the guns, again......background checks for ALL guns and no guns to the mentally messed up ppl.

rockonollie

CollardGreens......i totally agree with you on the healthcare system.....and I am sorry for your family's loss......

but we can't ban everything that ever caused a death......and i'm not calling for a ban on guns.

I agree with you that there should be background checks on all weapons sales.....and especially looking at the regulations (or lack of regulations) with the private sale of weapons.

I am a gun owner, and i think that gun ownership is an important right.......I just fail to see, and am yet to hear a valid reason, for a citizen to need to own military/assault style weapons.

Witcher

MrMister wrote: »

Has it...and how come?

A lot of people in the US reload their own ammo, it will drive purchases underground and most importantly it would be unconstitutional..you would be stopping people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

People should think before they share their ideas..if gun control in the US was as simple as people make it out to be then a past president would have made these changes already.

MrMister

There have been 926 gun deaths since the Sandy Hook shootings but it seems that the gun nut answer to all gun violence is to arm everybody. The NRAs asinine solution to the problem is to arm teachers and hire armed security guards. The gun manufacturers must be laughing all the way to the bank. More guns = more profit.

Even Retired US General Stanley McChrystal recently said on TV

Retired General Stanley McChrystal wrote:

"I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

Unfortunately, even the mere mention of reasonable gun control brings shrieks and foaming at the mouth from the gun-nuts.

Blay wrote: »

and most importantly it would be unconstitutional..you would be stopping people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be preventing them from bearing arms. You just wouldn't be selling them bullets.

Blay wrote: »

People should think before they share their ideas..if gun control in the US was as simple as people make it out to be then a past president would have made these changes already.

Not really. Politicians, whether they have a D or an R after their name, work for their donors and not the average citizen.

Witcher

MrMister wrote: »

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be preventing them from bearing arms. You just wouldn't be selling them bullets.

Yes you would. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure the US remains a 'free state'...the citizenry can't ensure that without ammunition. Thus removing their access to it is breaching their constitutional rights.


Not really. Politicians, whether they have a D or an R after their name, work for their donors and not the average citizen.

That's why Clinton and now Obama are trying gun control eh? If Obama pushes this through it will be at the expense of the Democrats because the NRA will remember it in 2016

.

rockonollie

MrMister wrote: »

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be preventing them from bearing arms. You just wouldn't be selling them bullets.

Yes it would.....it's the right to bear arms......not the right to own a gun.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to possess a firearm to protect your state and country when needed.......if the government were to prevent you from purchasing bullets with the guns....they are preventing you from being able to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.

Your argument is ridiculous.

CollardGreens

Thank you RockonOllie for the condolences. We miss him terribly as do his 2 daughters.

What may be the difference is the area we were raised in (and I'm just guessing here) but where I am in the country near the back swamps in SC (coastal) all the kids grow up with all kinds of guns and to stay true to our ancestors, we are rebels...still.

If I'm out walking in the woods and see a gator after my dog, I'm blasting it! I don't want my 5 shot 38, I want to put so many holes in that gator it will be fit for a belt buckle! My neighbor found a third of her dog floating in one of the swamps. Gators can run fast. Copperheads all over the place, they can move fast and are hard to get with just a shot or two.

Food for thought...oh, and please send cooler weather, in the 70's and dang skeeters everywhere ~ I'm not that good a shot, lol!

MrMister

rockonollie wrote: »

Yes it would.....it's the right to bear arms......not the right to own a gun.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to possess a firearm to protect your state and country when needed.......if the government were to prevent you from purchasing bullets with the guns....they are preventing you from being able to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.

Your argument is ridiculous.

The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear "arms". It doesn't specifically name guns. A pitch fork is an arm. So is a spear. You are not being denied the right to bear arms.

rockonollie

Oh don't worry......folks are brought up with their guns here too.......

It's a matter of pride that I'm a better shot than my father-in-law.

You don't want our weather........we had 65 last week......everything started to grow....then killed by frost this week. False srpings cost us any fruit on our peach trees the last 2 years

CollardGreens

Your father in law is probably grateful that you are able to protect your family!

My ex husband is probably grateful I didn't have my gun on quite a few occations (lol)

rockonollie

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/butler-county/Sheriff-proposes-hiring-retired-cops-as-substitute-teachers/-/13601510/18171302/-/a7vy9a/-/index.html

What???

CollardGreens

Amen on that RockonOllie! How are they qualified to teach (but I've seen teachers that should have no business teaching). On the flip side I would like guards in schools. All the new tax money should pay for it IMO. The children are more important than money. If we can guard money it seems like a no brainer to put guards in schools.

rockonollie

CollardGreens wrote: »

Amen on that RockonOllie! How are they qualified to teach (but I've seen teachers that should have no business teaching). On the flip side I would like guards in schools. All the new tax money should pay for it IMO. The children are more important than money. If we can guard money it seems like a no brainer to put guards in schools.

Yes, I'm fortunate enough to live in, and have my wife teaching in, a school district that does have armed officers in all their schools.......but they are still schools, you can't just put retired cops in a classroom and tell them to teach the class because you want to have someone armed.

Let the teachers teach and let the current/retired cops protect the schools however they can find a way to do it......but to suggest hiring cops as substitute teachers is ridiculous

rockonollie

Of course i'd fully support hiring retired cops with education degrees as substitute teachers

clairefontaine

If I lived in a place with alligators and snakes and god knows what, I'd probably want a gun. If I lived in NYC or Chicago or Boston. No way, probably put you in more danger unless you're an expert like a cop. Such a vast country that people have no idea how the other side lives.

rockonollie

Coyotes are our problem here......they'll run off with your dog if they get half a chance.....another reason to own a firearm.....once they get frenzied, not much less than a bullet will stop them.

CollardGreens

If I lived in a place with alligators and snakes and god knows what, I'd probably want a gun. If I lived in NYC or Chicago or Boston. No way, probably put you in more danger unless you're an expert like a cop. Such a vast country that people have no idea how the other side lives.

I don't know how folks in those 3 cities live because I've only been to NYC out of the three (Loved it btw) but from looking at the crime rate of the three, I'd feel safer with the alligator!

Most of the cops here are hunting buddies with the locals so both the locals and the cops are pretty good shooters.

I work with a lady from Chicago and she loves it here. Come on down with the other northerners to the crystal coast Claire ~ not much crime and the ocean breeze & sunshine will do wonders for your spirit!

clairefontaine

CollardGreens wrote: »

I don't know how folks in those 3 cities live because I've only been to NYC out of the three (Loved it btw) but from looking at the crime rate of the three, I'd feel safer with the alligator!

Most of the cops here are hunting buddies with the locals so both the locals and the cops are pretty good shooters.

I work with a lady from Chicago and she loves it here. Come on down with the other northerners to the crystal coast Claire ~ not much crime and the ocean breeze & sunshine will do wonders for your spirit!

Yep. The alligator can't shoot you back or mug your handbag where you keep your gun and then use it on you.

To change the subject a little bit, I found this passage written by William Pollack, PHD in "Real Boys; Rescuing Our Sons from The Myths of Boyhood" and it made me think of Lanza and others.

"Violence is also about shame and honor....By learning how to fight and striking out against others who may be younger, weaker, or less skilled at combat, our young aggressor attempts to respect old Boy Code rules that call on him to do everything possible to protect his honor and prevent shame. We've already spoken of a boy's exquisite sensitivity to shame and the toughening up he does to protect himself against it. Violence of course, is a boy's attempt to one step further - to thwart shame and dishonor by going on the offensive, by hurting another human being."

Overheal

I don't watch Hannity because I think he's a bit of a prick but the old man had him on the TV and he had an impressive bit where a competition shooter came on and she went over several common weapons: the AR-15, another rifle, a harmless-looking shotgun, a baretta, etc. - she fired 3 shots of each; when she got to the shotgun, your jaw dropped to see the huge difference in calliber between a 12-gauge slug and and the 7.62; if you saw them both on the rack though, a plebian would have been more fearful of the AR-15 for looks. I'd personally rather be shot with an AR-15 during a home invasion than a 12-gauge: at least with the AR-15 there would be something left of you.

CollardGreens

Partial of Overheals post : .....she fired 3 shots of each; when she got to the shotgun, your jaw dropped to see the huge difference in calliber between a 12-gauge slug and and the 7.62; if you saw them both on the rack though, a plebian would have been more fearful of the AR-15 for looks. I'd personally rather be shot with an AR-15 during a home invasion than a 12-gauge: at least with the AR-15 there would be something left of you.

A lot has to do with the ammo used too. Put a slug shell in a 12G and it will blow a hole you can put your arm through on somebody. A regular shotgun shell has lots of pellets so you essentially get sprayed with a bunch of little bullets (hence, nobody can miss the target if it's pointed in the general direction of the target).

Saturday (19th) is the day for supporting the NRA here in the states by purchasing guns/ammo or visiting the local ranges so I'm taking a friend that has her husbands 12G to the local outside shooting range and teach her how to shoot. I'll have my 12G and several other guns so she can try all kinds. (this lady is from NJ where the laws are very strict so this is why she hasn't shot before ~ I think NJ crime rate is pretty high, much higher than here in the Carolinas). We are hoping to get in some skeet shooting too.

A frightening thought....2 post menopausal women with lots of guns, lol :eek:


[Note to Claire: I think it's foolish for a woman to carry a gun in her purse, somebody takes your purse like you mentioned, the gun is gone! personally I use an inside the waistband holster, the fat will keep it from falling down my pants (grin) . ]

clairefontaine

rockonollie wrote: »

Yes, I'm fortunate enough to live in, and have my wife teaching in, a school district that does have armed officers in all their schools.......but they are still schools, you can't just put retired cops in a classroom and tell them to teach the class because you want to have someone armed.

Let the teachers teach and let the current/retired cops protect the schools however they can find a way to do it......but to suggest hiring cops as substitute teachers is ridiculous

Columbine had an armed guard and Virginia Tech had its own police unit that included a swat team.

rockonollie

clairefontaine wrote: »

Columbine had an armed guard and Virginia Tech had its own police unit that included a swat team.

Yes.....no amount of security is going to completely prevent these things from happening.......but I feel better about her working in a school with a couple of armed officers than in one without

Overheal

CollardGreens wrote: »

A lot has to do with the ammo used too. Put a slug shell in a 12G and it will blow a hole you can put your arm through on somebody. A regular shotgun shell has lots of pellets so you essentially get sprayed with a bunch of little bullets (hence, nobody can miss the target if it's pointed in the general direction of the target).

Yes, a birdshot, or waterfowl shot. She used one of those too. It made a larger hole than the slug, in addition to some pelleting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J_K3sUT3d4

My correction, the AR-15 calliber was .223, and Manic Moran I spotted a little stagecraft by Hannity: do you happen to know if semi-auto 12-gauges are going to be part of the proposed bans or not?

clairefontaine

According to an NBC poll, Americans blame absentee parents and hollywood for these massacres.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/19/NBC-Poll-Absentee-Parents-And-Hollywood-To-Blame-For-Gun-Crime?utm_source=BreitbartNews&utm_medium=facebook

It would also be useful to think about the pressure American machismo puts on its boys and more recognition of male depression.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

My correction, the AR-15 calliber was .223, and Manic Moran I spotted a little stagecraft by Hannity: do you happen to know if semi-auto 12-gauges are going to be part of the proposed bans or not?

Probably. Some are certainly covered here in CA. With regards to rate of tank production, I'll wager they are trapped by the tender requirements: congress must obtain the items which meet the requirements at the lowest possible cost as part of their responsibility to the taxpayers. Deliberately inflating costs is likely prohibited even if for good reasons.

Reason banning bullets won't work on a legal rationale is that if you have a right, you have the ancillary right to whatever you need to exercise it. Otherwise the right is pointless. I can't say you have the right to free speech, then ban printing presses, radio stations, Internet access and TV in order to stop you from exercising.

For firearms, this was directly addressed in Heller vs DC. The 2A inherently provides the right to a functional firearm, which means unlocked and ready for use. Which thus also means bullets.

Also addressed in a 7th Circuit case, Ezel vs Chicago. Chicago tried to ban shooting ranges. City argued that 2A said nothing about ranges, and that shooters could use a range in a neighboring town. Court said that if you have a right to a firearm for self defense, you have the right to practice for it so that you can exercise it properly. The 1A example the court gave was trying to ban bookstores in the city because people could buy books in the next city over or banning a church because worshipers could drive a bit. They didn't appreciate it.

rockonollie

News just broke, watching CNN here at work.....another shooting, this time on a college campus in Texas......multiple injuries, no reported fatalities, shooter(s) are still at large.