Another school shooting - Page 6 - 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

User avatar
By SSDR
#15049404
Godstud wrote:This is not an argument.

Not everything has to be an argument. You sure do love to argue (in an ineffective way). :lol:
This is borne out by facts and reality.

You never state facts nor reality.
#15049405
Godstud wrote: I was not referring to that, but some American's fear of their government being over-thrown. I am not against firearms for home defense, provided they are suited for such. i.e. a small caliber firearm.


Exactly how small a caliber do you want a home defense firearm to be?
#15049408
@BigSteve small enough caliber that it is less likely to pass thru an exterior wall and potentially hurt a neighbor. 9 mm , or .38, is more than sufficient. I am talking a handgun, of course.
Last edited by Godstud on 19 Nov 2019 00:45, edited 1 time in total.
#15049409
Godstud wrote:@BigSteve small enough caliber that it is less likely to pass thru an exterior wall and potentially hurt a neighbor. 9 mm is more than sufficient, and is probably the most popular caliber, anyways.


Image
#15049412
Interesting.

"handgun stopping power is a myth"
#15049419
A bullet needs to penetrate, optimally, 18 inches?

What part of the body is 18" deep? At that level of penetration, the bullet's likely a through-shot, which is almost always preferable to a wound where the bullet which remains in the body.

And I would submit that a .45 with hollow points is going to stop someone a whole lot more effectively than a 9mm without them.

And I only use hollow points...
#15049421
Fine, @BigSteve, but that doesn't mean you need a rifle or high caliber weapon to fire it. A revolver would do the trick, especially if you are well trained in the use of it. You should, of course, be trained well in the use of any weapon you choose to defend yourself or family with, so you don't end up killing yourself or any of them by accident.

I do not think hollow points are legal everywhere, but they are, apparently, in Florida.
#15049433
Sivad wrote:it's funny that liberals will always look for social reasons and environmental causes for everything and anything but on this issue the libtards go into full pathological denial mode and refuse to admit that it's the mass industrial education system, the mass drugging, and the demented culture that's driving this problem. this one is just bad apples for the libtards. :knife:

This type of stuff was predicted back in the 1980s. I think it's interesting that they deny it so vehemently. Even people like Al and Tipper Gore flirted with their Democrat version of a moral majority.

Tipper Gore Was Right, Violent Video Games Are Bad For You

Drlee wrote:I find the very possibility reprehensible.

Did you find Washington's army reprehensible?

BigSteve wrote:Who pardoned what war criminals?

Some overzealous JAG prosecutors stuck it to some military personnel and Trump pardoned them.

Drlee wrote: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.

Some might disagree whether the government is duly elected. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats have spent the last three years trying to overturn the election while spreading mass propaganda suggesting Trump is a foreign agent. Others think the Democrats are trying to effect a coup, and that Trump is no more a foreign agent than Jerry Nadler is fit to do 50 push ups. Civil wars start as a consequence of such things. Our forefathers all committed treason against the United Kingdom.

Drlee wrote: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.

A guy named Steve isn't a militia.

Drlee wrote: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.

That's what General Gage thought. That's why we have a Second Amendment.

Drlee wrote:Younger people are not buying guns like geezers did.

That's because they can't even afford a house of their own.

BigSteve wrote:Gun control will only affect those who obey the law.

Exactly. The ship has sailed on gun control, because people can use desktop CNC machines to make what they need.

BigSteve wrote: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...

They're thinking about unarmed people trying to procure arms in a fit of passion. That's not all that typical.

Drlee wrote:We license car drivers and I know of not a single individual who says we shouldn't yet pea brained fools have convinced our law makers to not license something that is even more dangerous fatality wise.

We should not force people to buy insurance. People should buy insurance because they want it, not because the state forces them to buy it.

Drlee wrote:We require seat belts and they are saving lives but gun locks?

Yes, and the police can use that to pull people over and cite them, even subjecting them to searches. That happens to minorities a lot, and they really don't like it.

Drlee wrote:When I was a little boy I had gun safety training when I was in cub scouts. That is simply not done anymore in any real numbers. Gun safety is not even discussed at a national level.

So did I. They even had merit badges for that stuff. It's those damn liberals and commies that don't want kids learning about gun safety.

Drlee wrote:I imagine the rest of the world is laughing at us.

You appear to do that a lot. You seem to be a shame-based person. Have you ever thought about getting some counseling for that?

Drlee wrote:Oh. And by the way. As we are nattering on about gun control.

Watch Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino". Hmong gangs. It could be in your neighborhood, yet worlds apart.

Godstud wrote:I never said that banning all guns was a solution. I said good gun controls and banning specific weapons.

Ok. That's lovely @Godstud. Now, considering this shooting, and @drlee's mention, both shootings happened in California which has strict gun control laws and ban the sale of AR-15s. How would your gun control proposals have stopped either of these two shootings?

What BigSteve is saying is that your proposals wouldn't have stopped either of these two shootings.

drlee wrote:But one that prudent gun control can.

Except for the two shootings mentioned in this thread, both of which happened in California where there are strict gun control regulations.

drlee wrote:I do not live in a macho fantasy world like so many GI-Wannabees do.

Are you saying that the media's depiction of the military creates "GI wannabees"?

ingliz wrote:Strangely, for a tool that is meant to save your life, gun suicides make up the majority (63%) of US gun deaths.

Right. Which is typically wrapped into gun violence statistics to try to sway people somewhat dishonestly.

Godstud wrote:Gun control laws work to reduce access to firearms, by criminals, of the types that cause the incidents. That's simply a fact you don't like to admit.

They may reduce access to legal firearms. However, in a state like California, with strict gun control laws, we still have the two shootings that have upset @drlee.

Godstud wrote:The threat from foreign takeover, in the USA, is only the stuff of movies.

... and yet the Democrats are trying to remove the POTUS from office based on the idea that he's controlled by foreign powers. :roll:
#15049448
Godstud is correct. The best home defense weapon would be a 12 gauge street sweeper close at hand.

But as usual Bigsteve you have rendered a very shallow argument.

I see that you have completely ignored my statistics. They are too hard for you because they prove that Gun Control saves lives. If these guns were saving lives taking them away would have raised gun deaths particularly in light of the fact that you incorrectly assert that gun control does not control criminals. Obviously from the facts that we posted, it does.

Then you fall back on that old nonsense about "taking guns away". Nobody is saying you can't have guns. What we are saying is that before you should be allowed to have one you should have to prove that you are a responsible person and would be a safe owner. This means background checks (and I reject 48 hours as just nonsense and say however long it takes to do it properly with BOTH federal and local authorities) and demonstrated proficiency in safety (including suicide prevention, storage and the laws regarding when might deploy a weapon in self defense.

In other words people can have weapons if they like for self defense or their idiotic fantasies about saving the country from the creeping communist peril. All we want is that people who have weapons be qualified to own them.

Blackjack made exactly no rebuttal to anything we said so, imagined zingers aside, I need not comment on that post.
#15049479
Drlee wrote:What we are saying is that before you should be allowed to have one you should have to prove that you are a responsible person and would be a safe owner. This means background checks (and I reject 48 hours as just nonsense and say however long it takes to do it properly with BOTH federal and local authorities) and demonstrated proficiency in safety (including suicide prevention, storage and the laws regarding when might deploy a weapon in self defense.

If you don't put a deadline date on something, the government will move like snails. That is the way government works. Even though you may not want to take guns away and ban then, there are those on the far left that do.
#15049531
A better link:
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives
As the US continues to stall on gun control talks, the largest study ever conducted on the topic has found a clear link between firearm regulation and fewer gun-related deaths around the world. Until recently, studies on gun laws have been limited to just one city or country, and have failed to reach consistent conclusions.

But in 2016, researchers took a broader view - the team reviewed 130 high-quality studies conducted in 10 countries over the past 60 years. And while they stopped short of saying they've conclusively proved that gun restrictions equal fewer deaths, the research provides pretty powerful evidence to suggest that it's the case.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific ... aves-lives
#15049541
@SSDR Grow up. The link Thunderhawk put up was not working properly, so I added another. If you don't like it, then too bad. Google 130 studies gun control to find better, and stop bitching. It wasn't for you, anyways.
#15049544
Drlee wrote:Well we had another couple of children killed in a school shooting. I waited a couple of days before posting this to see if anyone else did. Unless I missed a post this is the first one.

And there you have it. Dead kids and not a word and not a chance of action on the elephant in the corner. :roll:


You sound authentically hurt and devastated for family. :roll:
#15049555
Godstud wrote:I do not think hollow points are legal everywhere, but they are, apparently, in Florida.


New Jersey doesn't allow them in a concealed weapon. That's the only restriction I'm aware of...
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049622
Godstud wrote:stop bitching. It wasn't for you, anyways.

I am not bitching. If you think that I am bitching, then you do not know what "Bitching" is. It doesn't need to be for me.
#15049625
Drlee wrote:Godstud is correct.


No, he's not...

The best home defense weapon would be a 12 gauge street sweeper close at hand.


Yeah, but it'll really fuck up the wallpaper...

But as usual Bigsteve you have rendered a very shallow argument.


Not at all...

I see that you have completely ignored my statistics. They are too hard for you because they prove that Gun Control saves lives. If these guns were saving lives taking them away would have raised gun deaths particularly in light of the fact that you incorrectly assert that gun control does not control criminals. Obviously from the facts that we posted, it does.


Statistics can say anything you want them to say, and they will never supersede my own experience...

Then you fall back on that old nonsense about "taking guns away". Nobody is saying you can't have guns. What we are saying is that before you should be allowed to have one you should have to prove that you are a responsible person and would be a safe owner.


How would you do that?

This means background checks (and I reject 48 hours as just nonsense and say however long it takes to do it properly with BOTH federal and local authorities)


That's absurd. There has to be a reasonable time limit, otherwise it's an unwarranted restriction of someone's Constitutional right...

and demonstrated proficiency in safety (including suicide prevention, storage and the laws regarding when might deploy a weapon in self defense.


What sort of criteria would have to be demonstrated to satisfy those requirements?

In other words people can have weapons if they like for self defense or their idiotic fantasies about saving the country from the creeping communist peril. All we want is that people who have weapons be qualified to own them.


In Florida, unless you're an honorably discharged Veteran, you have to attend safety training in order to obtain your CCW.

But, aside from that, you're demanding that someone be "qualified" to exercise a Constitutionally protected right, and that's just a non-starter...
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
The Irishman...

I don't think DeNiro's politics played into it, at[…]

Man, imagine if I'd never done hallucinogens. I c[…]

Bunk. As chair of an impeachment inquiry, Schiff […]

Julian Assange arrested in London

Tories will most def extradite Assange, they've n[…]