Another school shooting - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15049177
Assuming people who are for stringent gun controls are "gun haters" and ignorant, is ridiculous. I served in the infantry, myself.

Civilians do not need semi-automatic rifles with magazines. Period. A bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine is all you need for any hunting, and self-defense is not what you use a rifle for.

I'd take automatic handguns out of the hands of civilians unless they had exceptional training(special permit) and reason to own one(eg. a police officer, in national guard). A revolver serves as a good home defense weapon, and they are NOT fast to reload, unless you are trained very well(speedloader).

A gun registry allows police to know when they go to a residence and a gun may be a factor. Knowing who owns guns isn't a secret in most places, as well, so your idea that the government would never know you had guns is kind of laughable.

Gun controls reduce the incidence of mass, and school shootings as they make the guns harder to access. That's simply a fact. I doubt it will ever remove the possibility of school shootings and the like(a societal problem for the USA), but you could do things to prevent them from occurring.

Note: Canadian infantrymen called magazines "clips" sometimes, even though we were often told by our superiors, that it was incorrect. It was a slang hold-over from Vietnam.
#15049199
@ingliz We all know that @Drlee was not talking about chargers/stripper clips and that for shooters of a certain age the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' are interchangeable (Example: In the 60's, Remington Arms when marketing their wares in the popular gun press would invariably call their rifle magazines, clips).


Actually may be correct. I am quite certain I used the term "clip" long before I joined the army. I did, however, use stripper clips a whole lot. That is probably why it came to mind that we referred to magazines as "clips" during the Vietnam war era and later. It really doesn't matter though.

@Godstud Godstud is correct about what is necessary for home defense. If I felt that my security system was not enough for defense and that I had a particular danger to my family from home invasion I would keep a 26" (18" barrel) 12 gauge pump shotgun at hand. Better than a pistol and infinitely better than an AR-15. With the right biometric lock very safe.

Rant on:

I am not going to give an inch on this. I was a very content gun owner for most of my life. I grew up in cowboy country and spent many a weekend in my youth with a rifle in my hands. If you looked at the trucks in my high school parking lot there were gun racks in many if not most of them. But then something happened.

Completely unlike when I was a kid I started seeing grown men talking about taking down the government of the United States. I had absolutely never even heard that notion from my father's generation or other members of mine. All of a sudden men were joining militia groups to protect themselves from...what? Liberals? Commies? Armed blacks?

I remember when I was a kid people discussed protecting our country from a Japanese invasion. They pointed to the number of homes that had rifles and said that the Japanese army would have had to face an army of millions of men. That made sense. But they never mentioned using guns to settle what is, in the final analysis, a political disagreement. Never.

Now we have people like Big Steve who think it is just fine to contemplate this. They try to have us believe that their "right" to own an AR-15 is based upon the notion that they may use it to overthrow the duly elected government of the US because they disagree with the politics of that government. This is treason. It is contemplating the murder of our own children over a political disagreement.

Oh I get that the founders fought off the British. They did not do it in today's climate of air power and surveillance. More importantly they did not do it with small bands of roving civilians popping British soldiers with squirrel guns as popular songs would have us believe. They did it with "well ordered militias". So when the constitution was created it enshrined these militias in the constitution. The founders did not intend to put the power to unseat them in a guy named Steve with an assault rifle. They intended to put it in the hands of the state militias.

Well those times are over. What we have now is a more and more polarized country. We have the increasingly fascist republican party that I just left for that very reason. We have grown adults fantasizing about taking on the United States Army, comprised of their own children, because they think the government is too liberal. Or too brown. Or after their guns. Or killing unborn babies.

No other way to parse it. When a citizen thinks that the rifle in the closet is there to kill a United State Marine, they should absolutely NOT be allowed to have it. Period. So the right wing gun nuts are destroying the future of gun ownership one asshole comment at a time. People are waking up. Younger people are not buying guns like geezers did. The more educated a person is the less likely to own a gun. Republicans own guns at a rate of almost three times that of democrats. But democrats outnumber republicans by a substantial margin. (42 million to 30 million.) The worm is turning.

I feel about this issue like I do about all of the cock fighting I see these days. I have had enough macho posturing. I spent my life in boys clubs (including the army) and frankly am disgusted with adult men who believe that they are going to puff up and blow the house down. I am sick of people my age whining about "lib'rals" all the while seeing their doctor on medicare, drawing a social security check, and buying their home on a government guaranteed loan. Then watch them pull out their wallets and show you the grand kids attending college on government insured loans and Pell grants because they spent the money that should have gone to paying for these kids education on SUVs and $1500.00 assault rifles. They just can't see that they are sucking on the government tit as much or more than any of the poor black families they like to whine about consuming services. They have somehow contrived to believe that they somehow earned this shit.

Real conservatives believe in paying their own bills but not this crop of fools. Oh did you see them whine about Obama when the Bush administration tanked the economy. Oh did they bitch when Obama bailed out the banks saving their jobs and homes. They get in the cool Silverado or GMC pickup and forget that Barak Obama, against tremendous political pressure, (and his on political preferences) bailed out the company that made them. (And now makes the most popular car in China. In fact General Motors exports more cars to China than it sells in the US.)

These people are just stupid. They are politically so tribal that they can't even bear to look at the truth. They are too pumped up with self importance that they can even imagine that some other idea may have merit. I am sick of them and am going to call them out when I see them. If they feel insulted they can go fuck themselves.
#15049203
Drlee wrote:What a fucking joke. I know you revel in painting me a "gun hater" even though I have shown you I am the opposite. But untruthfulness is the key trait of braggarts and bullies.

I don't dislike the AR-15. As a matter of fact I used to own one many years ago. I had one when I was stationed in the states. (My own, not my issued M-16.) It was fun, I thought then, to go to the firing range and rip off 10 or 20 rounds annoying all of the other shooters and spending money like a fool even though I reloaded for it. Then I came to realize what a piece of shit is was for any legitimate purpose other than amusement. And not very good for that. It was worthless for hunting and the worst possible choice for home defense. (Oh maybe a .25 pocket rocket is worse but just barely.)

I have come to realize though that in the wrong hands it is a threat to the public that goes beyond any special snowflakes need to play soldier or imagine himself leading a charge against the 1st Armored Division. Nope son, there is nothing about these weapons (and the Ruger for that matter) that justifies there being abroad in the land. Especially in the hands of blow-hard chickenhawks.


Well, your uneducated opinion is noted.

It's completely dismissed, but it's noted...
#15049205
Go away @BigSteve. No one cares what you think. Calling a medical doctor/Vet uneducated, is the epitome of foolish.

QFT,@Drlee. You hit the nail on the head. BS won't address anything you say, because he can't. He has no argument. He can only fling poo.
Last edited by Godstud on 18 Nov 2019 02:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15049206
Godstud wrote:Assuming people who are for stringent gun controls are "gun haters" and ignorant, is ridiculous. I served in the infantry, myself.


Hehehe... yeah, okay...

Civilians do not need semi-automatic rifles with magazines. Period. A bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine is all you need for any hunting, and self-defense is not what you use a rifle for.


The opinion a Canadian living in Thailand doesn't carry a lot of weight. I don't have to explain "need" to you...

I'd take automatic handguns out of the hands of civilians unless they had exceptional training(special permit) and reason to own one(eg. a police officer, in national guard). A revolver serves as a good home defense weapon, and they are NOT fast to reload, unless you are trained very well(speedloader).


I'd take automatic handguns out of the hands of civilians, too.

Thankfully, there aren't too many civilians who have them...

A gun registry allows police to know when they go to a residence and a gun may be a factor. Knowing who owns guns isn't a secret in most places, as well, so your idea that the government would never know you had guns is kind of laughable.


Every time I hear whining about gun violence, registering guns is always brought up as a measure to make things more safe.

Tell me one mass shooting where people would've been safer had the weapons been registered.

As for police knowing what home might have a gun, that's a failed argument. If a cop pulls me over, he has no way of knowing if I have a gun or not, and I'd be willing to bet that more cops are shot during routine traffic stops than knocking on someone's door...

[quote]Gun controls reduce the incidence of mass, and school shootings as they make the guns harder to access. That's simply a fact. I doubt it will ever remove the possibility of school shootings and the like(a societal problem for the USA), but you could do things to prevent them from occurring.

Gun control will only affect those who obey the law.

Period.

You guys act like new gun laws will result in a criminal suddenly deciding to turn his guns in,

That's silly...
#15049209
Godstud wrote:Go away @BigSteve. No one cares what you think. Calling a medical doctor/Vet uneducated, is the epitome of foolish.


Your hypocrisy shines with the light of a thousand suns.

If his opinion is foolish and uneducated, I will say so. Your opinion of that could not possibly matter less to me...

QFT,@Drlee. You hit the nail on the head. BS won't address anything you say, because he can't. He has no argument. He can only fling poo.


I think I've addressed everything with addressing.

Perhaps if he could offer something more relevant, I'd respond more.

I already know you can't do it...
#15049210
As an American, your opinion is still worth as much as mine. Your fanciful arrogance is misplaced.

Note: Automatic pistol = American synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. Your ignorance is noted.

I served in the Canadian Infantry from 1986-1989. Whether you believe me or not holds as much relevance as whether I believe your "claim" of being a Vet.

Gun laws work. That's a fact you cannot dispute just by "saying so".

Stick to flinging poo, @BigSteve. It's the only thing you are partially good at.
Last edited by Godstud on 18 Nov 2019 02:28, edited 1 time in total.
#15049211
Godstud wrote:Go away @BigSteve. No one cares what you think.


And, I gotta' tell you, knowing that you want me to go away pleases me to no end...

:lol:
#15049212
You don't have to remain ignorant just to fit in with your fellow American mouth-breathers in Florida. You can change.

Why you even bothered to post here, when you obviously care nothing for children being killed, is a mystery.

Oh right, you care about guns.
#15049213
Godstud wrote:As an American, your opinion is still worth as much as mine. Your fanciful arrogance is misplaced.


No, the opinion of a Canuck living in Thailand is pretty meaningless...

Note: Automatic pistol = American synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. Your ignorance is noted.


How foolish.

I've been a gun owner for over 40 years and have never heard anyone who actually knew what they were talking about call a semi-automatic handgun an "automatic handgun". Such is uttered only by the clueless.

But I know you're incapable of simply admitting you're wrong, so go ahead and run with it. I figure it should be good for a few laughs...

I served in the Canadian Infantry from 1986-1989. Whether you believe me or not holds as much relevance as whether I believe your "claim" of being a Vet.


Wow, a whole three years.

What combat experience do you have?

Gun laws work. That's a fact you cannot dispute just by "saying so".


I challenge you to explain how. Please be very specific...
#15049214
Godstud wrote:You don't have to remain ignorant just to fit in with your fellow American mouth-breathers in Florida. You can change.

Why you even bothered to post here, when you obviously care nothing for children being killed, is a mystery.

Oh right, you care about guns.


What a monumentally stupid thing for you to say.

Go back and read my post about the school shooting at Santana High School in 2001. Or you can choose to remain ignorant.

Even Peter Ruiz, the campus security supervisor at the time, and who remains a friend to this day, thinks more gun laws are stupid.

I'll defer to his opinion over yours any day...
#15049218
@Godstud wrote:
Assuming people who are for stringent gun controls are "gun haters" and ignorant, is ridiculous. I served in the infantry, myself.




Bigsteve said: Hehehe... yeah, okay...


That pretty much tells me what I already suspected. No veteran would speak that way about the service of another.

How about it @Hindsite You are a retired Soldier. Will you stand up for Godstud and his service against this personal attack?

I thought not. So many people claiming to be veterans and not acting like it.
#15049219
BigSteve wrote:No, the opinion of a Canuck living in Thailand is pretty meaningless...
Yes. Worth as much as yours. :D

BigSteve wrote:I've been a gun owner for over 40 years and have never heard anyone who actually knew what they were talking about call a semi-automatic handgun an "automatic handgun". Such is uttered only by the clueless.
They are often called "automatics". I am right. You are wrong. Too bad. I guess you don't know as much as you think you do, as a quick google search will show you that I am correct.

BigSteve wrote:But I know you're incapable of simply admitting you're wrong, so go ahead and run with it. I figure it should be good for a few laughs...
Why do I have to admit being wrong when you are in error? :?:

For example, the term "automatic pistol" technically refers to a machine pistol which is capable of firing multiple round bursts for a single pull of the trigger,although in popular US usage it is also used as a synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol

BigSteve wrote:Wow, a whole three years.
What combat experience do you have?
Irrelevant to the discussion, but you'd know, if you were actually educated, that Canada was in no wars during that time... aside from the Cold War.

This is, of course, as relevant as your experience(service), which I, in no way mock.

I assume you can read?
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific ... aves-lives
#15049223
Godstud wrote:They are often called "automatics". I am right. You are wrong. Too bad. I guess you don't know as much as you think you do, as a quick google search will show you that I am correct.


40 years and I've never heard it.

Google doesn't trump my own extensive experience...

For example, the term "automatic pistol" technically refers to a machine pistol which is capable of firing multiple round bursts for a single pull of the trigger,although in popular US usage it is also used as a synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol


Well, shit, if Wiki says it, it's gotta' be true! LOL!

Irrelevant to the discussion, but you'd know, if you were actually educated, that Canada was in no wars during that time... aside from the Cold War.


Oh, I'm well aware of that. I'm just stunned by the fact that you've chosen to be honest...

This is, of course, as relevant as your experience(service), which I, in no way mock.

I assume you can read?


I asked you to explain how gun control laws make people safer, and you've failed to do that. You've failed to do that because you can't do that. You can't do that because they don't.

But I'll give you a chance to redeem what is slowly turning into an absolute laughing stock of an opinion.

How would banning AR-15's have made anyone in Santa Clarita safer? How would making 30 rounds magazines illegal have made anyone in Santa Clarita safer?
#15049224
Drlee wrote:That pretty much tells me what I already suspected. No veteran would speak that way about the service of another.


Oh, bullshit. You question mine all the time, so cry me a fucking river...
#15049225
@BigSteve I asked you to explain how gun control laws make people safer, and you've failed to do that. You've failed to do that because you can't do that. You can't do that because they don't.


He did prove it. He posted 130 studies.

Let's turn to my field. Public Health. The National Center for Health Statistics published the following:

Background checks on firearm purchases from a licensed dealer are required by law under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. A follow-up study found the Brady Bill stopped 2.1 million gun purchases between 1994 and 2014—an average of 343 purchases per day.[3] The law blocked 1 million felons, 291,000 domestic abusers, and 118,000 fugitives from purchasing a firearm.

The Brady Bill allows states to decide whether local law enforcement or the FBI will do a background check within that state. A two-year study showed that having background checks done at the local level resulted in a 27% lower rate of gun-related suicides and 22% lower rate of gun-related murders. [4] One reason for this impact could be that local law enforcement agencies have more information to help them ensure that people who want to hurt themselves or others don’t get a gun. Another possibility is that states requiring background checks by local law enforcement agencies also have stricter gun control laws.

Although the Brady Bill stopped many potential crimes, there have been accounts of failure to report felons to the federal database. In November of 2017, Devin Kelley entered a church in Texas and killed 26 people. It was later learned that the Air Force failed to report Kelley, and dozens of other service members charged with serious convictions, to the federal gun background check database.[5] If Kelley had been reported, he would have been stopped from buying a gun because of his previous domestic violence conviction. The lack of reporting isn’t unique to the Air Force. The Army has the worst record, with 41% of convictions unreported, while the Navy failed to report 36% of convictions, and the Air Force failed to report 14%.[6]

Other problems with the federal background check database came to light in November of 2017. Tens of thousands of individuals convicted of felonies were taken off the database in February of 2017 after the Department of Justice changed the definition of a “fugitive from justice” to apply only to those who crossed state lines.[7] It is unknown how many of the felons purged from the list subsequently bought guns.


And this:

Missouri’s permit-to-purchase law is often cited by people in favor of stronger gun control. The permit-to-purchase law required that people get a permit from local law enforcement before purchasing a gun. When Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase law in August 2007, research indicated a 55-63% increase in the firearm homicide rate per year during the four years following the repeal.


And this:

In 1995, Connecticut passed a permit-to-purchase law, and over the next 10 years the state saw a 40% drop in firearm homicides.[9] There was no drop in non-firearm homicides, indicating that it was likely the permit-to-purchase law that prevented gun deaths. These studies suggest that requiring a permit before purchasing a gun could help reduce gun-related homicides.


Now Steve. There is some evidence from an impartial source that has no agenda other than the health and safety of our nation. What evidence do you have to refute it? (Note to others. Here comes an insult and no attempt to refute any of the specifics above.)

Note that the Republican answer to these inconvenient reports is to try to keep the government agencies charged with public health from doing any studies at all. How very typical.

Now I am going to add another gun control measure I favor. I would add those convicted of violent misdemeanors to those not allowed to own or possess a firearm. I might allow that after five years the person could petition the court in which they were convicted to allow them to purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun but pistols, no go. And, of course, I would require all gun sales to go through a background check including private sales. The local gun store could simply charge for doing this and hold the firearm until the check is completed. Who could object to that?

I suspect that the people who would object to it are those who believe that they have some God given right to own an unregistered firearm. But they are dangerous fools.
#15049229
Drlee wrote:Now I am going to add another gun control measure I favor. I would add those convicted of violent misdemeanors to those not allowed to own or possess a firearm. I might allow that after five years the person could petition the court in which they were convicted to allow them to purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun but pistols, no go.


Verbal abuse is classified as a violent misdemeanor.

How hard would it be for a person to file a complaint against another after an argument, stating that they felt they were "verbally abused"?

Are you willing to have your right to own a firearm taken away because you raised your voice?

And, of course, I would require all gun sales to go through a background check including private sales. The local gun store could simply charge for doing this and hold the firearm until the check is completed. Who could object to that?


How about any sane individual?

If I'm selling a gun to someone, why would I allow a dealer to "hold" it? How does that make sense?

The local gun store can still charge for conducting a background check, but there should be no reason why it can only be done pursuant to an immediate purchase. A person should be allowed to have it done any time he wishes. If it is done pursuant to an immediate purchase, though, the dealer can simply inform the seller of the status of the background check. There's no reason in the world to let a dealer "hold" the gun.

I suspect that the people who would object to it are those who believe that they have some God given right to own an unregistered firearm. But they are dangerous fools.


And people who think it's a good idea are ignorant fools.

I'm only dangerous to those would wish to do me or my loved ones harm. If someone does that then all the registering in the world isn't going to magically protect them.

And I've got news for you, MacArthur, I do have the right to own unregistered firearms. I know this because I can walk into a store, buy a gun and walk out with it and it never gets registered. I can then turn around and give that gun away if I want, and my actions are well within the law. Every single legally owned gun in my possession is unregistered.

But your veiled insult aside, there is no logical reason to register a firearm. That's nothing but some stupid feel good tactic by the non-thinking libs who want to appear as though they're doing something about gun violence.

I defy you to explain how registering a firearm makes anyone safer.

Note to others: This is where he chickens out and makes some lame excuse for not doing so...
#15049232
And as I predicted he posted no evidence to refute my published and peer reviewed statistics. He did as predicted pound his chest about what a bad ass he is.

And he resorts to an absurd example:
Verbal abuse is classified as a violent misdemeanor.

How hard would it be for a person to file a complaint against another after an argument, stating that they felt they were "verbally abused"?

Are you willing to have your right to own a firearm taken away because you raised your voice?


:lol:

That the best you got? :lol:

Just for the record, ATF calls this "violent":

(1) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law;
(2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon;


So rest your mind special snowflake. You are in no danger of someone framing you for raising your voice, and even if they did it would not affect your arsenal. Though perhaps in your case with your anger issues, it should.

And I've got news for you, MacArthur, I do have the right to own unregistered firearms.


No you don't. Three states require registration of all firearms including transfers and private sales and all states could if they wanted to. So you may think you have a right but, actually, you don't.

I defy you to explain how registering a firearm makes anyone safer.


I already did. I posted evidence to prove it. After I predicted you would you chose to ignore it. Have an adult read my posts to you slowly. :roll:

As we say in Texas. Big hat, no cows.
#15049236
Yes, @Drlee Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to own unregistered firearms, or that there should not be good gun controls in place to prevent military grade firearms from being in the hands of civilians(especially the mentally ill, or criminals). It does not mean that firearms shouldn't be regulated, either.

A right to bear arms does not mean that you should have more than firearms used for personal defense or hunting weapons. i.e. revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment is not specific on types of guns, although if it were updated, it should.

It would be, I think, reasonable for Americans to have to have their weapons insured, against theft or misuse, as well as being licensed in safe use and storage of said firearms.

Direct example of gun control - After the Port Arthur shooting in Australia(Tazmania) in 1996, they banned certain firearms, and since then they have not had a similar incident. It worked, in short.
#15049271
Drlee wrote:And as I predicted he posted no evidence to refute my published and peer reviewed statistics. He did as predicted pound his chest about what a bad ass he is.

And he resorts to an absurd example:

So rest your mind special snowflake. You are in no danger of someone framing you for raising your voice, and even if they did it would not affect your arsenal. Though perhaps in your case with your anger issues, it should.


It's not an absurd example at all, and I've no anger issues at all. I just have little patience for ignorance and idiocy.

Some years back I worked as the Photography Director for a large summer camp in Pennsylvania. I'd been seeing a woman who worked there (we'd been seeing each other prior to that; we were old friends), and we lived in the same cabin but different rooms in that cabin. One night we had an argument about something stupid, but it convinced me the relationship wasn't worth the effort. I'd asked her to return some things of mine she had and, as she was gathering them, I stood in her doorway. She handed the items to me and slammed the door, which hit the toe of my hiking boot. The door bounced back open.

After camp was over; about three weeks later, the St. John's County Sheriff came knocking on my door. She'd filed for an order of protection against me on the basis that I had "violently kicked in her door in and shouted at her" while I did it (neither of which was true).

Then he asked if I had any guns, explaining that he would have to take them until the matter was settled. I told him I did not, and he handed me a notice to appear. The bitch of it was that the court was in Monroe County, North Carolina.

She never expected me to show up and, if I didn't, the judge would've simply found in her favor. She knew that I owned guns and knew that if the judge granted her the order of protection that I would lose them. It would also impact my ability to work at a summer camp ever again (which she knew I really enjoyed). She was floored when I walked into the courtroom.

In short, there was no reason to grant the order and the judge told her that, and basically chastised her for wasting the court's time.

But the point is that I could've lost my right to own a gun over something that had never happened.

Perhaps you can't see the problem there [rule 2: insult removed - Prosthetic Conscience]

No you don't. Three states require registration of all firearms including transfers and private sales and all states could if they wanted to. So you may think you have a right but, actually, you don't.


As the law stands right now, I do. Whether they "could" do it or not isn't a factor. The fact of the matter is that I do have that right under the law in Florida, and the majority of States in the country recognize and honor my CCW.

When I told that Sheriff that I didn't have any guns, he smirked a bit. Damn near everyone in Florida has guns, and that's certainly true in the more affluent neighborhoods like my community. He didn't believe me for a second, but he also didn't press it because he knew there was no way to compel me to turn them over, simply because there was no way for him to prove I had them....

I already did. I posted evidence to prove it. After I predicted you would you chose to ignore it.


No, you didn't.

Let's say I was required to register my sweet new Kimber. If I then decide to shoot someone, how is the fact that the gun is registered going to make the person I choose to shoot safer?

Here's your answer: It won't...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 11

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]