Better "stock" up boys

[Flatgo]

better ban thumbs and belt loops too. Pretty easy bump fire without a stock. As bad as it sounds though we are probably a lot better off with a school shooter who has a ar-15 most likely shooting full metal jackets with a bump stock than one with a hunting rifle with bullets designed to kill that they actually aim. All this stems from a media that is completely uneducated on the issue

 

[cornfedkiller]

I don't think it really has to do with healthcare at all. America has a deep-rooted cultural problem that other countries do not seem to have. As silly as it sounds, I think the 1st Amendment is as responsible for this as the 2nd Amendment is. Allow me to explain.

I'm truly convinced that Social Media has caused a rapid decline in American values, ethics, and morality. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, whatever...they're all a part of this whole culture problem. Since their growth, many Americans have developed this insane urge for attention and 'Likes'. People love to blame Millennials (which I do think are a huge part of it), but I've seen grown ass adults do the same thing. How many people do you know have posted the dumbest shit just for attention? Narcissism has gotten out of hand. These shooters have just taken it to the extreme, and the Media makes sure their names are remembered for it. They can't find a way to be famous, so they choose infamy instead.

We need to find a way to rid ourselves of this cultural Attention Deficit Disorder that social media has propagated in the past 20 years. We need the media to take a stand and say, enough is enough; your name will not be remembered forever, the world will never remember who you were but a stinking piece of shit, and parents need to figure out how to hammer some morals into their kids heads from an early age. Take away their iPhones, get them involved in some outdoor activities, show them there's no need to show the entire world every aspect of their life. Be a good person. Raise a good family, and do things for them and yourself, but only because you want to; not because the rest of the world 'Likes' it.

Been saying this for years, and couldn't agree more!

 

[elkduds]

Sure but the problem with that logic is that 98% of these shootings are carried out by people who ARE under the care of a Dr...for...Mental Healthcare. Its the doc that is prescribing them psychotropic drugs whose own inserts state they can cause violent tendencies and suicide. They arent preventing squat but are the underlying similarity in most every one of these shootings. Its definitely not due to the lack of access to mental healthcare - in fact, its just the opposite.

Making up statistics for fun or for profit? If the "mental health care" you are referring to involves getting an Rx from a primary car provider who has a month of training in MH meds, and follow up appointments are 1 or 2 /year with no therapy to address the rage, that is not mental health treatment. The tired rehash of "side effects of medications made him do it," is at best a courtroom defense strategy. In reality, without MH meds/treatment those same people would have become violent much sooner. And the rest of people who benefit from those meds and do not become violent? Without access to MH treatment you would find one in ten of your family/community unable to function. Among veterans and other survivors of trauma, a much higher percentage. The state of mental healthcare for the majority of Americans is the rough equivalent to a bandaid or direct pressure for severe bleeding. Why? Because best-practice MH care is expensive. Without insurance, dedicated MH treatment is basically inaccessible, except in a few big-city free clinics.

Check out the percentage of severely mentally ill people in US prisons.

What do America and Somalia have in common? Teenagers w military weapons killing innocents @ random.

 

[gelton]

Uh, the facts are well documented sir. And the only one that stands to profit are those pushing mass medication. Might want to do some research.

School Shooters & Stabbings Committed by those on Psychiatric Drugs | CCHR International

Every Mass Shooting Shares 1 Thing In Common, NOT Guns

Another Mass Shooting Potentially Linked to Psychiatric Drugs | Markets Insider

School Shootings: Mental Health Watchdog Says Psychotropic Drug Use by School Shooters Merits Federal Investigation | Markets Insider

 

[3forks]

I've always believed that just like law enforcement officers, teachers don't get paid enough.

I saw there's been some discussion on whether arming teachers and training them to respond with deadly force is a good idea...

I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but I do wonder if any teachers are now carrying or arming themselves in response to these incidents.

 

[Sverimerica]

Well, we are talking about the US aren't we? Here we have a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms. How many other countries have that specific right spelled out in a document that is the foundation of their country? Would you agree that owning a hunting rifle is a subset of that amendment? In this country we also have a political class who's end goal is to get rid of guns, period. In the past they have been coy about this message, but they are getting more to the point recently. Some are calling for a repeal to 2A, bans on scary looking guns, etc. A few months back there was some idiot in NY calling for a ban on muskets because of the caliber. This is the thought process that we deal with. In, my opinion they will not stop until everything is gone. If their motives were really about saving lives, they would target pistols.

My point above is that if you want to sit back and watch as they chip away at the second amendment, then at some point the gun that you care about will be next on the list. I'm all for keeping kids safe. I have 2 in elementary school. I'm not all for creating new laws that don't do anything to address the problem while at the same time diminish constitutional rights.

Owning a hunting rifle is a subset of the 2nd ammendment only because we have decided it to be that way. It doesnt have to be. What I dont understand is why this needs to be an all or nothing thing, ie either complete unrestricted access to firearms or zero access. I dont understand why it is threatening to law abiding citizens if gun access is restricted to certain segments of the population.

Total elimination of gun violence will never happen, but hopefully a significant reduction can be achieved?

In a way though, so many guns are already in circulation in America that restricting access will likely increase gun trafficking.

Skickat från min G8142 via Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

These shootings are great for bringing out all the emotional hemophiliacs that would rather trade liberty for "perceived" safety. But if you look at the real numbers........how many Americans have been killed by AR-15's since they first appeared on the scene? Seriously.......add up every death and/or injury from every one of these AR-15 shootings in our history and it will be an absolute pittance compared to so many other means of innocent deaths even in just one year, let alone our history.

But they make for great sensationalistic news stories, and they emit great emotional displays, and they make people look foolish with all their emotional grandstanding. But if these same people were really concerned about saving lives, they would focus their energy where the real numbers are......and that's not with mass shooting deaths (as tragic as those are).

But mass shootings fall right into the left's agenda for tearing away and infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights, so that's where their energy lies. Who cares that only 1000's are killed every year by drunk or drugged drivers, when we can focus on 17 killed by a lunatic with a scary gun instead. That makes much more sense than focusing on the 1000's. And while the left is at it, why not push for legalization of marijuana so we can have even more deaths on the road like we've seen in CO since the legalization. Why focus on those deaths that are a by-product of the left, when shootings are much more emotional and dramatic but affect a much smaller number of Americans. Ya, that all makes great sense.

And people don't think there is an agenda here? SMH.

 

[jmez]

Careful in how you interpret the aritcles. There is no "evidence" in any of those articles that the psychotropic drugs are a cause. There is an association but that is about all you can say.

Right off the bat, rational, sane, clear thinking people do not commit mass murder. You do not one day wake up and decide you are going to walk into a school and slaughter children in cold blood. You are dealing with people that have mental issues, you would fully expect that most all of these people would at some point or another, be on or have been on some sort of psychotropic drug. That does not mean the drug was the causative agent.

You could make the same argument and present "facts" about water causing obesity. 71% of our country is obese and all of them drink water, therefore water is causing obesity. Not all that drink water are obese but the vast majority are. No different than psychotropic drugs. All of the shooters are on some kind of psychotropic drug, but not all people on psychotropic drugs are mass murderers.

I'd guess if you looked at actual numbers there is a much stronger link for water causing obesity than psychotropic drugs causing mass murder.

 

[IdahoElk]

I've always believed that just like law enforcement officers, teachers don't get paid enough.

I saw there's been some discussion on whether arming teachers and training them to respond with deadly force is a good idea...

I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but I do wonder if any teachers are now carrying or arming themselves in response to these incidents.

While arming teachers will probably discourage some shootings it's just a deflection from addressing the much bigger issue causing this violence.
Parents need to stop expecting politicians,laws,police officers,schools and teachers to deal with their lack of parenting skills.
30yrs ago we didn't have these problems and guns were just as if not more readily available,what has changed?

 

[gelton]

I've always believed that just like law enforcement officers, teachers don't get paid enough.

I saw there's been some discussion on whether arming teachers and training them to respond with deadly force is a good idea...

I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but I do wonder if any teachers are now carrying or arming themselves in response to these incidents.

My wifes a teacher and while she isnt a CCW or even that interested in guns she can see through the smokescreen of giving up rights for perceived protection.

Even she is interested in obtaining a CCW and the district here is talking about training that would be much more involved than regular CCW holders in order to carry at school and in the classroom.

BTW - I only use CCW because people understand the terminology. In Texas its License to Carry because it doesn't have to be concealed

Those that wish to curtail our rights thought that open carry would be the end of the world, but it has been law here in Texas for several years and I have never even seen anyone carrying openly.

 

[dotman]

What I find interesting is how schools in urban areas of DC have a security guard, metal detector and bag check no different then when you attend a sporting event yet get out into the suburbs and oh no we can’t have that protection for our kids.

People would rather keep pulling the wool over kids eyes that the world is nice and safe vs protecting them from the evils out there.

I don’t see how having a secure point of entry wouldn’t deter many of these people knowing access isn’t so easy or simple.

 

[airlocksniffer]

What I dont understand is why this needs to be an all or nothing thing, ie either complete unrestricted access to firearms or zero access. I dont understand why it is threatening to law abiding citizens if gun access is restricted to certain segments of the population.

It's not. We have limitations many of our constitutional rights, including the 2A. I think as responsible gun owners we dig in our heels at the idea of any further limitations on who can own what at our own peril. Public opinion has been moving toward more restrictions on the 2A for sometime and it is not out of the question that in my lifetime there will be enough support to change the Constitution without folks sitting down and working together on a solution. But boys want their toys.

 

[jmez]

I don’t see how having a secure point of entry wouldn’t deter many of these people knowing access isn’t so easy or simple.

It would. Here in no where SD where I live our kids grade school has secured entry. Very simple system. All of the doors to the school are locked at all times. If you want in you go to the front door and ring a bell. You are on camera and the office people can see you from windows. You have to state your name and why you are there. They then buzz you in. You walk into an entryway with two sets of doors. The doors that go into the school are locked, you can't go into the school. There is another door to the side that goes directly into the office, you have to go through this door directly into the office before you can get into the school. Simple and effective.

 

[Ta406]

I own 2 safes full of firearms including a few "assault" rifles. I have no problem banning bump stocks. Common sense gun laws sound ok to me. There is the fear mongering part of my mind that says if we give an inch, they will take a mile. I am pretty confident that this administration will not head down that road, so a little more regulation is ok with me.

So define what a “common sense gun law” is. I hear that phase throw around a lot but very few will actually define what that means. A common sense gun law to you might be banning bump stocks. To Dianne Feinstein, it’s confiscation. But of course she’ll never call it that.

The issue I have with any ban is that there are usually loopholes that can be later exploited. Banning bump stocks will do nothing to prevent these tragedies from happening. The problem is is that our society is decaying and until those issues are addressed, no common sense gun laws will do anything to stop this trend.

 

[chuck.u.farley]

Owning a hunting rifle is a subset of the 2nd ammendment only because we have decided it to be that way. It doesnt have to be. What I dont understand is why this needs to be an all or nothing thing, ie either complete unrestricted access to firearms or zero access. I dont understand why it is threatening to law abiding citizens if gun access is restricted to certain segments of the population.

Total elimination of gun violence will never happen, but hopefully a significant reduction can be achieved?

In a way though, so many guns are already in circulation in America that restricting access will likely increase gun trafficking.

Skickat från min G8142 via Tapatalk

Sorry man. You are losing me here. I am all for restricting dangerous individual's access to firearms as long as there is due process. There have been obvious holes in the background check system. Let's get them cleaned up. If people want to address private sales of firearms, then frame it up like that and let people decide. Stop the dishonesty with perpetuating this "gun show loophole"garbage. Stop telling people you can buy a gun on the internet without a background check. I could go on and on about misinformation from the anti-gun folks. Your fundamental argument seems to be that I should trust these very people that can't back their position with data and logic. Instead they use distortion and emotional hysterics. I should trust that these people will stop at some sensible point?? Examine the motive. Nothing they do makes any sense if your goal is really to reduce deaths.

I don't see anyone advocating all or nothing. BTW... bump stocks are stupid and I really couldn't care less what they do with those things. As the conversation has turned to new bans on classes of guns and repealing 2A, then yeah I'm here for the debate.

 

[airlocksniffer]

What I've seen quite often in these discussions is something along the lines of "20 dead is nothing compared to whateverthousand that die from drugs/planes/abortions/etc". It's not really an apples to apples comparison IMO. What makes these situations harder to handle is the location and victims. Not sorry but kids shouldn't get mowed down at school, worshippers shouldn't get shot at church, concert goers shouldn't get killed in the streets of Vegas. Yes people die every day but this is a predominantly American problem which will require a uniquely American solution. Is that arming teachers? Banning semi-autos? I don't have a good answer for that.

 

[jmez]

Most definitely a societal issue. The big question is why? Not a simple question nor is it a simple answer. As has been stated, Canada does not seem to have this issue. Prescription drugs are implicated yet Canada actually has a higher rate of prescribed anti depressant use than the US and European countries.

There are a lot of contributors but I don't think you can simply point to one this such as social media for your answer.

 

[5MilesBack]

But boys want their toys.

Actually, I could easily live quite fine without any of my guns. The real issue is that we have a foundational document that no other nation in the world has, so people need to stop comparing us to the rest of the world........there should be no comparison except for the fact that we indeed have liberties, rights, and freedoms that most in the world dream about having.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that uses the terminology "shall not be infringed upon". That doesn't apply to the 1st or any other amendment, only the 2nd. That makes it pretty clear........for most folks that can use and understand logic. That's why the left has such a problem with it.

Also, when people start throwing around statements like "I dont understand why it is threatening to law abiding citizens if gun access is restricted to certain segments of the population", that is an extreme slippery slope on American citizen's rights. By restricting or taking away my neighbor's rights, does that affect me? Initially......maybe not. But when the government has the power to remove one's rights, then who is next? And who authorized the taking away of that person's rights?

Doesn't anyone find it odd that healthcare providers started asking if there were guns in the home AFTER Obamacare took effect? That should have been a HUGE red flag to all Americans. When the government controls our healthcare.......then they also control the ability to dictate our legal MENTAL state in those regards as well. So when people demand that rights be taken away from those with "mental health" issues, be careful what you're asking for. In socialized medicine........you could be the next declared to have no rights.

Anyone that can't see the progression this has taken either lives with their head in the sand, or they've only been alive for a few years. It's not difficult stuff to see and understand. Even the left understands it.......that's why they push for it.

 

[5MilesBack]

What I've seen quite often in these discussions is something along the lines of "20 dead is nothing compared to whateverthousand that die from drugs/planes/abortions/etc". It's not really an apples to apples comparison IMO. What makes these situations harder to handle is the location and victims.

Of course you see it that way, that's an "emotional" response. The "logical" response is that innocent people died due to someone's else's irresponsible behavior whether it was a shooting at a school, or a drunk driver on the roadway. That's the difference in perception, and exactly what I described a couple posts above........emotional versus logical.

 

[jmez]

What I've seen quite often in these discussions is something along the lines of "20 dead is nothing compared to whateverthousand that die from drugs/planes/abortions/etc". It's not really an apples to apples comparison IMO. What makes these situations harder to handle is the location and victims. Not sorry but kids shouldn't get mowed down at school, worshipers shouldn't get shot at church, concert goers shouldn't get killed in the streets of Vegas. Yes people die every day but this is a predominantly American problem which will require a uniquely American solution. Is that arming teachers? Banning semi-autos? I don't have a good answer for that.

Some good points. I would say that drunk driving deaths are closer to an apples to apples comparison. Roughly the same number of people are killed in this country every year as the result of drunk driving as are killed with firearms. Yet no outrage, no talks of banning alcohol, no increase in restriction of use, no increases in penalties of offenders, etc etc etc. Most of these deaths are innocent people that are driving to church, taking kids to school, going on a family vacation, visiting relatives............................. We had a case here not real long ago, family of 6 in their mini van going on vacation, hit head on by a drunk driver, killed the mother, father, and three children, one child lived. Was nothing more than a three line article on the local news sites.

I'd guess had it been a random act of violence using an AR-15 we would still be hearing about it on CNN and CSNBC.

Why as a society are we immune to that reality yet so entrenched in the gun battle? Familiarity? I think it is because the vast majority of people use and need both cars and alcohol. If it involves something that you use, enjoy, and think you need then, well, shit happens but I'm not the problem and don't make it my problem, I've never driven drunk. With guns, there are just a lot more people out there that don't have them, don't and won't use them, so it is much easier for that to be a target.