Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Another School Shooting
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 02/28/12 03:59 PM
I will just repeat that I believe RIGHTS are to be applied with common sense and not as absolutes,,,, so, even my right to free speech, requires common sense so that it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others,,, a tricky balance to figure out, and not at all the simplistic issue people try to make a 'right' out to be,,, I absolutely agree, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. But if I were to walk around town with a loaded handgun, how am I infringing on your rights? The basis for limiting my right to carry a handgun, is an assumption that I will violate your rights. What other right is preemptively infringed upon? Do I have the right to prevent you from speaking, because you might say something to hurt my feelings? Do I have the right to take your house or car, because you might use them to commit a crime? If not, then what right does the Government have to prevent law abiding citizens from being armed? speaking doesnt kill people UNLESS it causes an environment that is unsafe like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater so, no, you dont have a right to stop me because I may hurt your feelings, but its common sense to prevent it in situations where more than 'feelings' are at stake driving a car is for the purpose of getting from a to b, people have to obtain them legally, they have to register them, they have to indicate they can drive safely,, or they are breaking the law the law has the right to take said car if certain pre requisites arent met to indicate the likelihood that the owner will use it safely that is all I am advocating for in terms of guns they are potentially dangerous, not just in a criminals hands, but in an emotionally unstable persons hands, an impulsive persons hands, an egotistical or bigoted persons hands,, etc I see no ill in using common sense prerequisites to at least ATTEMPT to see that those who own them are capable of using them RESPONSIBLY,,

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 02/28/12 04:02 PM
speaking doesnt kill people UNLESS it causes an environment that is unsafe like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater so, no, you dont have a right to stop me because I may hurt your feelings, but its common sense to prevent it in situations where more than 'feelings' are at stake driving a car is for the purpose of getting from a to b, people have to obtain them legally, they have to register them, they have to indicate they can drive safely,, or they are breaking the law the law has the right to take said car if certain pre requisites arent met to indicate the likelihood that the owner will use it safely that is all I am advocating for in terms of guns they are potentially dangerous, not just in a criminals hands, but in an emotionally unstable persons hands, an impulsive persons hands, an egotistical or bigoted persons hands,, etc I see no ill in using common sense prerequisites to at least ATTEMPT to see that those who own them are capable of using them RESPONSIBLY,, I believe that every state that allows Conceal Carry requires that you pass a CC course, so that is already in place.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 02/28/12 04:28 PM
speaking doesnt kill people UNLESS it causes an environment that is unsafe like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater so, no, you dont have a right to stop me because I may hurt your feelings, but its common sense to prevent it in situations where more than 'feelings' are at stake driving a car is for the purpose of getting from a to b, people have to obtain them legally, they have to register them, they have to indicate they can drive safely,, or they are breaking the law the law has the right to take said car if certain pre requisites arent met to indicate the likelihood that the owner will use it safely that is all I am advocating for in terms of guns they are potentially dangerous, not just in a criminals hands, but in an emotionally unstable persons hands, an impulsive persons hands, an egotistical or bigoted persons hands,, etc I see no ill in using common sense prerequisites to at least ATTEMPT to see that those who own them are capable of using them RESPONSIBLY,, I believe that every state that allows Conceal Carry requires that you pass a CC course, so that is already in place. and I dont have an issue with that, it is good policy, along with a background check of previous VIOLENT criminal activity or mental instability,,,

Lpdon Joined Thu 02/25/10 Posts: 18772	Tue 02/28/12 05:13 PM


Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 06:06 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 02/29/12 06:08 AM
First off, the CC safety course is no more effective at making you safe with a firearm than any given test you took in school was effective at making you proficient in that topic. They only make the anti 2a crowd feel better, which is the only reason for any restriction on carry. The reality is played out here. Dangerous things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dE4UgY7lgI The reality is that parents are to blame. Parents these days do not teach there children how to deal with dangerous things no less dangerous people. Safety courses don't make you safe, it takes full integration of the gun into your life to be safe. Proper gun safety should be taught from an early age. It is my opinion that parents that think banning guns from their home is the way to be safe are deceiving themselves. Guns exist in the environment of modern life, your kids friends may find a gun, and without the proper safety skills your child may make bad decisions. Gun safety http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v-mxvnFLfc&feature=relmfu Obligation of carry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf1TA

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 02/29/12 06:47 AM
nothing makes you guaranteed safe preparation and plans can make us 'safer' with children in a home, those old enough to have grip and young enough not to grasp 'gun safety', an available and loaded gun may even make them less safe, and a less available unloaded gun, of course makes the adult no more safe unless they have enough forewarning of the danger to get to the gun and/or load it before that danger is upon them,,,,

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 07:04 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 02/29/12 07:08 AM
nothing makes you guaranteed safe preparation and plans can make us 'safer' with children in a home, those old enough to have grip and young enough not to grasp 'gun safety', an available and loaded gun may even make them less safe, and a less available unloaded gun, of course makes the adult no more safe unless they have enough forewarning of the danger to get to the gun and/or load it before that danger is upon them,,,, Unless like me its on you at all times. You should watch that obligation to carry video. When you have things in your life worth protecting you should feel obliged to consider what would happen and how you could react in various situations. Your right, nothing guarantees your safety. You can however guarantee you will not negligently discharge your weapon. It does not take much, and locks have nothing to do with it. The ultimate safety is between your ears. Ill try to find the video, but there are examples of kids using weapons to protect adults, and younger siblings, but gun laws make it illegal to allow any person under 18 access to a firearm because protectionist have deemed all kids are the same and all kids cannot be trusted to protect there families. Again the government stepping in to make something illegal that should be up to the family itself to determine.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 02/29/12 07:05 AM
I sgree about our brain it is our greatest weapon and our greatest tool....

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 07:12 AM
This goes right back to gun free zones. The law disarms the law abiding. So now instead of having sheep dogs available to deal with a wolf you now have nothing but sheep, all to support the illusion of safety.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 02/29/12 07:16 AM
This goes right back to gun free zones. The law disarms the law abiding. So now instead of having sheep dogs available to deal with a wolf you now have nothing but sheep, all to support the illusion of safety. sheep dogs and wolves are loosely related, their instinct is just different as are peoples instincts, its just much harder to discern who are wolves and who are sheep dogs and I dont want to give away guns to more potential wolves for the illusion of having safer sheep,l,,

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 08:21 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 02/29/12 08:43 AM
This goes right back to gun free zones. The law disarms the law abiding. So now instead of having sheep dogs available to deal with a wolf you now have nothing but sheep, all to support the illusion of safety. sheep dogs and wolves are loosely related, their instinct is just different as are peoples instincts, its just much harder to discern who are wolves and who are sheep dogs and I dont want to give away guns to more potential wolves for the illusion of having safer sheep,l,, You are still seeing this as you, a responsible person, giving guns away to people you do not know are safe. This is not your right. You have no right to judge others in such a way. Each of us has the right to bear arms, how does your judgement fit into this at all? The role of a sheep dog is to protect the defenseless sheep. The nature of the wolf is to prey on the sheep. These archetypes are reflected in our modern society. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063 Federal and state lawmakers have often opposed repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns.That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt the average citizen to violence in“road rage” or other contentious situations.This paper finds that such cases represent an exceedingly small minority of gun uses by otherwise law-abiding citizens and that a great number of tragedies—murders, rapes,assaults, robberies—have been thwarted by self-defense gun uses. The facts are that far more crime is prevented than accidental deaths attributed to negligent discharge, road rage, or any other caveat the gun control crowd can imagine. All of that while only 2% of the population carries. 2% can make a difference, this tells its own story. I really cant imagine being the 98% anymore, being defenseless, not knowing if someone is going to arbitrarily snuff me out and I have nothing to say about it. its just much harder to discern who are wolves and who are sheep dogs This goes right back to not being in control of your environment. You cannot control, neither can all the laws in the world, the environment. You have to adapt to it, you cannot make it completely adapt to you. There will always be the possibility of meeting your end at the hands of an attacker. These facts are supportive of carrying a firearm everywhere at all times. the number of rapes prevented by women armed with guns exceeded the number of rapes reported by the NCVS This statement needs serious attention from any women not currently carrying a firearm.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 10:30 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 02/29/12 10:32 AM
"In fact, after Colorado’s 2003 concealed carry law was enacted, Colorado State University decided to allow concealed carry,while the University of Colorado prohibited firearms. The former observed a rapid decline in reported crimes, while the latter, under the gun ban they claimed was for safety, observed a rapid increase in crime. Crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame." Even more interesting data . . . Same geographic region two different policies and the effects of those policies.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 01:02 PM
So, in what way did gun laws help prevent this school shooting? No gun zone . . . how come a gun? No gun zones dont work, no gun laws dont work.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 01:49 PM
Just such an important topic to me. http://gunssavelives.net/

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 02/29/12 03:38 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 02/29/12 03:40 PM
This goes right back to gun free zones. The law disarms the law abiding. So now instead of having sheep dogs available to deal with a wolf you now have nothing but sheep, all to support the illusion of safety. sheep dogs and wolves are loosely related, their instinct is just different as are peoples instincts, its just much harder to discern who are wolves and who are sheep dogs and I dont want to give away guns to more potential wolves for the illusion of having safer sheep,l,, You are still seeing this as you, a responsible person, giving guns away to people you do not know are safe. This is not your right. You have no right to judge others in such a way. Each of us has the right to bear arms, how does your judgement fit into this at all? The role of a sheep dog is to protect the defenseless sheep. The nature of the wolf is to prey on the sheep. These archetypes are reflected in our modern society. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063 Federal and state lawmakers have often opposed repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns.That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt the average citizen to violence in“road rage” or other contentious situations.This paper finds that such cases represent an exceedingly small minority of gun uses by otherwise law-abiding citizens and that a great number of tragedies—murders, rapes,assaults, robberies—have been thwarted by self-defense gun uses. The facts are that far more crime is prevented than accidental deaths attributed to negligent discharge, road rage, or any other caveat the gun control crowd can imagine. All of that while only 2% of the population carries. 2% can make a difference, this tells its own story. I really cant imagine being the 98% anymore, being defenseless, not knowing if someone is going to arbitrarily snuff me out and I have nothing to say about it. its just much harder to discern who are wolves and who are sheep dogs This goes right back to not being in control of your environment. You cannot control, neither can all the laws in the world, the environment. You have to adapt to it, you cannot make it completely adapt to you. There will always be the possibility of meeting your end at the hands of an attacker. These facts are supportive of carrying a firearm everywhere at all times. the number of rapes prevented by women armed with guns exceeded the number of rapes reported by the NCVS This statement needs serious attention from any women not currently carrying a firearm. Id like to know the criteria used to decide a rape was stopped with a gun and to read more about who conducted this study I have been sexually assaulted twice, no weapon on either me or the assailant,,,, if it was stopped, how did they determine it was going to be a rape,,where are these things reported? ,,in any case, I Stand by my opinion that the incidence of rape/homicide is low enough that I dont care to see more bullets in the streets with potential to hit wanted AND unwanted targets,,, I dont see a gun as just a product for purchase and its not my right to tell others not to carry one, but it is an option as a voting member of the public to vote on such issues when those who do have the authority to do so bring it up,,,,

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 05:17 PM
Sexually assaulted twice and you still decide to not protect yourself?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 02/29/12 05:20 PM
The police state is almost in place.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 02/29/12 05:24 PM
The police state is almost in place. The only way to avoid it is to bring back personal responsibility. Cant be responsible for yourself in a nanny state when you cant even defend yourself.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 02/29/12 05:26 PM
They should pay more attention to the psychopaths.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 02/29/12 05:29 PM
So, in what way did gun laws help prevent this school shooting? No gun zone . . . how come a gun? No gun zones dont work, no gun laws dont work. I agree 100%. There will always be guns available to people who really want them, legal or illegal. Then law abiding citizens will be unarmed and helpless. They should actually have a class on guns in school and teach everyone how to shoot at the age of 10. My niece and nephew learned how to load, shoot and clean guns from my brother who was sort of a gun nut at an early age.