Another mass killing...what's wrong with the world today?

[adc100]

Originally Posted by orangelloSE-R

The only fix for the "gunshow loophole" would be to register all the firearms out there; i don't see people falling for that again after the Jewish holocaust and all. Without a complete registration, they would never be able to accurately track sales between individuals or of firearms previously sold from one individual to another individual.

Yea..that's not happening. The challenge of OBama, Holden (the Fast and Furious Gun runner) and Biden (Happy the Clown) is to come up with some legislation that sounds credible to the public yet doesn't pi55 off gun owners.

I have decided that I will get the 442 Smith asap...even a used one. I am selling my friend my .380 Sigma for $100. So hopefully I'll get the thing for a bit over 200 net. Down the road I'll get another 442 and sell my 9mm S&W off.

[adc100]

nk goodness we will be safer bc we have more gun laws. Fortunately for OBama his children are escorted and watched by armed guards while in school. The rest of us..not so much.
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-takes-pare...ZQkzoAJkvQtDMD

I realize its b s bs because they re more of a target. But then the Government should provide armed guards to women that have a protection order against their husbands...just saying.

Also Rosie O'Donnell has armed guards when in NYC...yet others are not allowed to carry to protect themselves. You can tell I'm bored.

[txspeccer]

Originally Posted by adc100

You can tell I'm bored.

Must be

As I mentioned earlier, the status quo shall continue. These are feel good measures, nothing more. Especially since I doubt there will be any intrusion on privacy rules contained in HIPAA (despite his declaration), which is unfortunate. We will never keep guns from "evil" people, but certainly can do more to keep them from the known mentally ill.

[Y2K SE]

Originally Posted by adc100

But then the Government should provide armed guards to women that have a protection order against their husbands...just saying.

So you understand why the President's children need a different level of protection than most people's children, but not why they need a different level of protection than women with potentially crazy husbands?

You like to remind us all that this country is broke, so who's paying for all these new armed guards?

[adc100]

Originally Posted by Y2K SE

So you understand why the President's children need a different level of protection than most people's children, but not why they need a different level of protection than women with potentially crazy husbands?

You like to remind us all that this country is broke, so who's paying for all these new armed guards?

Its just sarcasm...but we seem to be able to waste money on anything and everything. We borrow $44,000 per second. As a matter I really don't support putting armed guards in all schools. And I am really unsure about arming teachers.

[easy life]

Hello everybody,

I understand to some it's a lifestyle not a hobby. I don't agree with some of the laws or the changes being made. And as some have mentioned we're just too knee deep in problems that some things are just irreversible.

I saw a documentary on the doc channel which showed a very unbiased depiction of the gun debate. It showed how much red tape and $$$ law abiding citizens need to go thru depends on states.

It really got me intrigued to own one. I've never shot a gun so I'd plan to take a class. I Don't plan to go hunting since i'm an animal lover. I'm looking to go to ranges shooting targets with a hand gun and rifle. And also wanna protect my family against zombies
We'll see what this new year brings..

[cden1]

If the idiots who run this state get their way, I'll have to buy liability insurance on the single shot .22 my Dad bought for me in 1962 for $10. This is the state where the guy with 10 DUI's kept getting his license reinstated.

[adc100]

Originally Posted by cden1

If the idiots who run this state get their way, I'll have to buy liability insurance on the single shot .22 my Dad bought for me in 1962 for $10. This is the state where the guy with 10 DUI's kept getting his license reinstated.

On the average the average person is much safer no matter what they are doing than if they were in a car driven buy the the late (happily) Teddy Kennedy.

[hatchnet]

Here is the problem I see with requiring gun owners to have Liability Insurance. You will never be able to have enough insurance to cover something happening How do you put a value on human life? By the pound, age, experience? You cant, If you are involved in an accidental shooting and the person dies, you are screwed. The insurance will never cover what the persons family thinks is enough for the loss.

[adc100]

Originally Posted by hatchnet

Here is the problem I see with requiring gun owners to have Liability Insurance. .

True. Honestly..a realistic value needs to put on a human life..as callous as it sounds. OBama (not to be political) said that if his 500 million dollar program saves one life, its worth it. Sorry..I beg to differ. Its not affordable duuuuuhhh. But the majority of the population can't really come to grips with this issue.

Do I think my wife is worth 500 million? Of course..but as a practical matter, spending 500 million to save her life is not justifiable and possible, as much as I would spend it to make it possible. But I don't have that money and neither does the government.

But as long as the majority of ignoramuses in this dumbed down USA think the way they do this USS Titanic will take us all down together....the Intelligent, the Dumb, and the Dumber.

[txspeccer]

Originally Posted by adc100

On the average the average person is much safer no matter what they are doing than if they were in a car driven buy the the late (happily) Teddy Kennedy.

Yep, and on the average a person who does not own a gun or keep one in his/her residence is less likely to be hurt or killed by a gun.

If staying safe is the primary goal, gun ownership isn't the answer. Of course, I think everyone in this thread realizes this perpetual debate is more about ideology than reality. Which is why it's ultimately impossible to ever intelligently address gun violence.

[cden1]

I read in today's paper that some kid in NM shot his family of five. The big issue was what kind of gun did he use. Not WHY he did it. When I was a kid back in the 50's and 60's I don't recall any mass murders like we have today and guns were readily available without any kind of paperwork. This is a societal change which like a cold is being treated for the symptoms and not the cause. You can ban guns but we will still have a bunch of mental cases running around out there. Oh yeah, part of the MA liability law is that if your gun is stolen and used to commit a crime, you are also guilty of that crime. I think we have identified a large group of the mental cases. What's next? If my car is stolen and used to rob a bank, I go to jail? This whole issue is out of control.

[adc100]

Originally Posted by txspeccer

Yep, and on the average a person who does not own a gun or keep one in his/her residence is less likely to be hurt or killed by a gun. .

True..but overwhelmingly it will be a suicide...which is yet another government failure to allow medically assisted suicide. But yes I would even agree that the "House gun" is more likely to take out another family member rather than someone who breaks in.

But the Gubernment doesn't have the right to make that judgement based even on overwhelming statistical evidence.

[txspeccer]

Originally Posted by adc100

But the Gubernment doesn't have the right to make that judgement based even on overwhelming statistical evidence.

Legally speaking, that's up for debate.

With every day that passes, I believe the founding fathers really did just want to eff with us when they drafted the Second Amendment. It's probably time for a "well regulated infringement".

[adc100]

Originally Posted by txspeccer

Legally speaking, that's up for debate.

With every day that passes, I believe the founding fathers really did just want to eff with us when they drafted the Second Amendment. It's probably time for a "well regulated infringement".

The following is just for argumentative purposed. I doubt we disagree a whole lot.

To me, the founding fathers felt we needed to be allowed to have guns to defend both ourselves (even from the State), and the State. The Pa. Constitution says exactly that. And Pa. was one of the 3 most influential states. Arguably the founding fathers didn't see the conundrum we now have. Then again they surely felt that crime would be controlled. And they could not foresee the irrationality of not executing those responsible in a timely manner. Yet the same liberals that want to release murders back on the streets have a problem with my right to put them where they belong (6 feet under).

Originally Posted by txspeccer

If staying safe is the primary goal, gun ownership isn't the answer.

Unfortunately reality being what it is, I see no alternative to arming myself. Criminals will always have guns. Police can not be stationed everywhere..including my bedroom at night. Granted most of us can avoid areas and situations where odds against our safety go up.

Statistically you are still safe going to church, movies and any other public place. And I am a big fan of statistics and going with the odds. Still there is a part of me that says, "Wait a minute..it doesn't cost me anything to stuff my .380 in my pocket...so why not?" The wife comes from a "Gun family"...more or less. She feels it it is not necessary but doesn't object.

OBama and his elite gun grabbers ()and family), Rosie ODonnell and other wealthy folks have privilege of armed guards...why shouldn't I have the same protection? Now if all guns from criminals disappeared and I could be certain that only checked out mentally competent folks could carry...what would I do? I probably would not feel the need to carry in "Gun Free" zones. But when I hike off the beaten path I would still want that right. And I of course would want the right to protect my self and the wife at home.