RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms

RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 8:56:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub LadyPact.... and please explain the different uses and needs for 5 handguns and a flak jacket. This was not a collector for pleasure...unless murdering innocents is pleasure to him... This should have been a red flag to all sane people saying this is a nut. Butch Butch, I can't explain why the individual in question has done what he did. That's no more fair than me asking you why the next crazy person discussed is licking paint chips off of the walls. If I owned five handguns, it would most likely be for the purpose of enjoying target shooting. It may not be your idea of fun, but I could totally see that. So, how are you going to determine who just enjoys going to the range from those who want to go off and kill innocent people?

ManOeuvre -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:11:18 AM)
Maybe the USA, and OR state in particular, should make it illegal to shoot people outside of defending yourself? If that law isn't enough to discourage murder, do you think micro-management of personal property will do better?

kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:15:01 AM)
LadyPact this young man had documented mental health issues...and still was given access to killing weapons. I do not expect the 2nd amendment to be overturned... I do not want it to be either but I get sick of people here refusing to admit that our laws, or the enforcement of existing laws, are inadequate. If we are to keep our right to own weapons then we must be willing to regulate their use and do our best to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the unstable. Many here try to say...." We have plenty of laws all we need to do is enforce them"... will this is a crap argument. Here in Missouri we have legislation that if any law enforcement entity tries to enforce Federal gun laws they can be prosecuted and incarcerated? We passed a bill that prohibits any law restricting where a gun can be carried... That means churches... bars... Zoos.... even schools...etc. It is madness. There is a proposal for legislation in Missouri that if a legislator proposes a gun control law he is guilty of a class D felony...are they nuts!!! I am a firm believer that if we... responsible guns owners... do not promote responsible gun ownership then eventually laws will be passed making gun ownership very expensive and we will be limited in the type of weapons we can own and use... It will happen... people will not put up with the fear for our children in schools and in our neighborhoods let alone the fear to go to movies or malls. Just for fun check out this Butch

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:31:37 AM)
kd, I think your post hit the nail squarely on the head. And I think it's a bit of both - lax laws and lax enforcement. This is the very thing that us so-called anti-gun people elsewhere in the world have been saying for a long time. And your last paragraph is exactly what we have here. We can have guns just like you do; but it's much harder to get a license and the number and types are very limited (ie, 'self defense' is not a valid reason to get one). Our laws are very strictly enforced and that is why we have so few gun incidents. The US needs to wake up and realise what the problem is and fix it at the federal level rather than have half-cocked itty-bitty laws that are different all over the country. It needs to be uniform and consistent from coast to coast. Unfortunately, the NRA hold the purse strings to the political debate. So I'm afraid, until the politics are separated and divorced from the lobbyist funding, it's going to be a road to nowhere.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:35:40 AM)
kdsub et al I can certainly appreciate the frustration in reading about these tragedies and finding that it could have easily ben prevented if only XYZ had been in place. It seems to me that passing more laws MAY prevent some shootings, but the laws:shootings prevented ratio is subject to sharply diminishing returns. An infinite number of laws wouldn't prevent every act of violence. There is also a cost against freedom associated with every law passed and enacted, and I think Americans of past and present, moreso perhaps of the past, have been rather uniquely able to register these costs and take steps to avoid debt bondage towards them. While hero worship leaves nearly as fould a smell to my nose as religion does, I think Kirata is wise to point out, if only anecdotally, the expressed attitudes of the men who were made of rather sterner stuff than we, and had had a king in living memory.

kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:46:55 AM)
quote: An infinite number of laws wouldn't prevent every act of violence. We don't need an infinite number of laws... just sensible laws... of course new and or stricter laws will not stop a determined nut...but... how many of these types of incidents do you hear happening in countries with strict gun laws... less but still some...and even if one person was saved would that not be worth a little inconvenience to gun owners? Butch

kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:48:55 AM)
ps... freedom... is not a reason... are your free to rob a bank... are your free to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone... are you free to sacrifice a child on an alter to your God? Freedom is what a civilization allows under its laws. Butch

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:53:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre kdsub et al I can certainly appreciate the frustration in reading about these tragedies and finding that it could have easily ben prevented if only XYZ had been in place. A much lower gun ownership ratio and enforce what laws you do have. quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre It seems to me that passing more laws MAY prevent some shootings, but the laws:shootings prevented ratio is subject to sharply diminishing returns. An infinite number of laws wouldn't prevent every act of violence. True. But..... every other industrialised world has more laws and lower ownership rates than the US by quite a wide margin. We don't have these regular massacres yet the US does. Doesn't that tell you something and hint at the solution?? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre There is also a cost against freedom associated with every law passed and enacted, and I think Americans of past and present, moreso perhaps of the past, have been rather uniquely able to register these costs and take steps to avoid debt bondage towards them. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't own more than, say, 3 or 4 guns?? Nothing. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't carry firearms in any public place?? Nothing.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 9:58:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: An infinite number of laws wouldn't prevent every act of violence. We don't need an infinite number of laws... just sensible laws... of course new and or stricter laws will not stop a determined nut...but... how many of these types of incidents do you hear happening in countries with strict gun laws... less but still some...and even if one person was saved would that not be worth a little inconvenience to gun owners? Butch I wondered when someone would trot out this argument: "Even if it saves only one life, then isn't less freedom worth it?" No...it isn't. Enforce the laws that have been passed. Deal with the criminals harshly. But get over the ideas that: a. Somehow, more regulation (i.e., government) makes things better and b. That it is everyone else's responsibility to nullify the criminal by not only shouldering their responsibility but his also

kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 10:02:02 AM)
Would you not say that harsh laws dealing with gun crime exist...and are not a deterrent to nuts? Has it stopped the senseless killing in our schools and on the streets? Why more regulation?... not more... BETTER Butch

LadyPact -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 10:06:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub LadyPact this young man had documented mental health issues...and still was given access to killing weapons. I do not expect the 2nd amendment to be overturned... I do not want it to be either but I get sick of people here refusing to admit that our laws, or the enforcement of existing laws, are inadequate. If we are to keep our right to own weapons then we must be willing to regulate their use and do our best to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the unstable. Many here try to say...." We have plenty of laws all we need to do is enforce them"... will this is a crap argument. Here in Missouri we have legislation that if any law enforcement entity tries to enforce Federal gun laws they can be prosecuted and incarcerated? We passed a bill that prohibits any law restricting where a gun can be carried... That means churches... bars... Zoos.... even schools...etc. It is madness. There is a proposal for legislation in Missouri that if a legislator proposes a gun control law he is guilty of a class D felony...are they nuts!!! I am a firm believer that if we... responsible guns owners... do not promote responsible gun ownership then eventually laws will be passed making gun ownership very expensive and we will be limited in the type of weapons we can own and use... It will happen... people will not put up with the fear for our children in schools and in our neighborhoods let alone the fear to go to movies or malls. Just for fun check out this Butch Butch, First, thank you for the link. I always enjoy research material. Second, I think we're closer on certain issues than we would believe at first glance. I'm actually not for 'everybody has the right to own a gun'. I honestly believe that, if you commit a felony, you forfeit that right. I'm also a firm believer in anybody committing any form of domestic violence, even lesser forms of DV such as stalking, harassment, etc, should have no access to a firearm in either their personal or professional life. That kind of thing? You've proven the level of crazy that says you are going to harm other human beings. Me? I could probably never hack it if a firearm that I owned got into the wrong hands. At that point? Don't even charge me with a crime. Do the humane thing and put me out of my misery because I would never forgive myself.

kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 10:10:25 AM)
PS quote: Enforce the laws that have been passed. Read my post above... you cannot enforce gun laws in Missouri without the threat of fine and incarceration. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 10:26:47 AM)
Gee, sensible and enforceable gun regulations as a way to slow some access to firearms by complete nuts? You know, it is a sensible and logical response to the problem.... Which is exactly why it wont happen. You seem to forget politicians in the United States could and do fuck up wet dreams! You see, once a person enters into politics, their brain undergoes a fundamental change, they become so fucking stupid as to defy understanding. Look at the wording for the regulation (as passed by congress) requiring school buses to stop at railroad crossings. That particular law has over 1000 pages just dealing with getting school buses to stop before crossing rail road tracks. How fucking hard is it to just say, "Federal Transportation Law xxx.x sub section x. School buses must stop before proceeding across a railroad track?" How the hell did it require 1000 pages? And the present firearm law that states that all individuals treated for mental illness with a history of violence cannot purchase a firearm is a hell of a lot more pages, why because you have to deal with the medical profession and make it so they are compelled to use their fucking common sense to inform the state that Joe Shithead is so nuts that given a gun he is more likely to blow away people than go hunting deer. And god forbid you pass a law that makes parents criminally liable of Junior or Betty Sue gets so pissed off at being picked on or not one of the "in" crowd that they grab daddy's guns and go on a rampage. Hell, I purchase 2000 pounds of fertilizer to be used on my other property and I get a shit ton of Federal agents asking me what I am going to use it for. I have a neighbor that purchases Diesel fuel for his personal tanks on his place and every time he makes a fuel purchase within a couple of days of buying bulk fertilizer amounts, the ATF show up at his door. And he has agricultural permits for the shit on file in Austin and DC for Christ's sake. If you think the powers that be are going to come up with sensible gun laws I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you cheap, and throw in ocean front property in Nevada as a bonus.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 11:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL freedomdwarf quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre There is also a cost against freedom associated with every law passed and enacted, and I think Americans of past and present, moreso perhaps of the past, have been rather uniquely able to register these costs and take steps to avoid debt bondage towards them. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't own more than, say, 3 or 4 guns?? Nothing. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't carry firearms in any public place?? Nothing. Freedomdwarf, I don't have the means of sorting out the cost in dollars of writing, considering, voting upon, ratifying and enforcing a new piece of legislation, but I'm willing to gamble that it's substantially more than nothing. I would guess in the high millions or low billions. The cost in terms how much freedom you're willing to give up is significantly harder to quantify, but are you actually suggesting that a governing authority should dictacte to a private individual how many of a certain piece of real or personal property that person may own? Governments who have done so in the past, and who currently partake have tended towards rounding down. Way down. Freedom's giants, as quoted by kirata, backed up their noggins with their stones and staked the future of the american experiment, as well as their own posterity, on their descendants' capacity to recognize the price of the freedoms they enshrined. There are risks. There would come moments when one's safety, as a person or as a nation, un-bolstered by the faustian contract Franklin urged one not to make, would be in true jeopardy. In such times would a man stand to his full height and strike, or be stricken from the record? I don't know how ease and prosperity have caused this malady of the spine, but the rather vocal pygmies of freedom of today, who find Americans' fascination with the second amendment cute, quaint or dangerous to their taste, ought to remember that giants still do walk this earth. “That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” ― George Orwell

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 11:25:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre There is also a cost against freedom associated with every law passed and enacted, and I think Americans of past and present, moreso perhaps of the past, have been rather uniquely able to register these costs and take steps to avoid debt bondage towards them. quote: ORIGINAL: Freedomdwarf What does it cost to have a law that says you can't own more than, say, 3 or 4 guns?? Nothing. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't carry firearms in any public place?? Nothing. Freedomdwarf, I don't have the means of sorting out the cost in dollars of writing, considering, voting upon, ratifying and enforcing a new piece of legislation, but I'm willing to gamble that it's substantially more than nothing. I would guess in the high millions or low billions. Nope. Politicians aren't paid by the hour or on the number of subjects/laws they debate. They are paid an annual salary whether they sit on their asses pontificating or fillibustering, or discussing a serious issue. It wouldn't cost one red cent more for them to discuss a sensible law or how to enforce it. quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre The cost in terms how much freedom you're willing to give up is significantly harder to quantify, but are you actually suggesting that a governing authority should dictacte to a private individual how many of a certain piece of real or personal property that person may own? Governments who have done so in the past, and who currently partake have tended towards rounding down. Way down. The government already dictate where you can drive your privately owned car. They already dictate how you drive it and at what speed and have mandated that you need a license to do so. Why would a gun be any different? quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Freedom's giants, as quoted by kirata, backed up their noggins with their stones and staked the future of the american experiment, as well as their own posterity, on their descendants' capacity to recognize the price of the freedoms they enshrined. There are risks. There would come moments when one's safety, as a person or as a nation, un-bolstered by the faustian contract Franklin urged one not to make, would be in true jeopardy. In such times would a man stand to his full height and strike, or be stricken from the record? I don't know how ease and prosperity have caused this malady of the spine, but the rather vocal pygmies of freedom of today, who find Americans' fascination with the second amendment cute, quaint or dangerous to their taste, ought to remember that giants still do walk this earth. Interesting that you make this comparison. Other countries (eg, Switzerland) have the same right to bear arms yet they don't have anywhere near the same gun death rate or the regular massacre rate that the US have. The difference is in the laws they have and how well they are policed and enforced. Apparently (according the gospel of Bama), New Zealand has the same laws that the US have, and yet again do not have the gun death rate that the US suffers from on a regular basis. Unfortunately, sadly lacking on both parts in the US. quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre “That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” ― George Orwell Yes.... on the wall "...see it stays there", not being carried in public places.

BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 11:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 kd, I think your post hit the nail squarely on the head. And I think it's a bit of both - lax laws and lax enforcement. This is the very thing that us so-called anti-gun people elsewhere in the world have been saying for a long time. And your last paragraph is exactly what we have here. We can have guns just like you do; but it's much harder to get a license and the number and types are very limited (ie, 'self defense' is not a valid reason to get one). Our laws are very strictly enforced and that is why we have so few gun incidents. The US needs to wake up and realise what the problem is and fix it at the federal level rather than have half-cocked itty-bitty laws that are different all over the country. It needs to be uniform and consistent from coast to coast. Unfortunately, the NRA hold the purse strings to the political debate. So I'm afraid, until the politics are separated and divorced from the lobbyist funding, it's going to be a road to nowhere. You have to enforce current laws before you can begin to determine if they are sufficient. No the NRA doesn't hold the purse strings to the debate, Blumberg alone outspends them. On top of that the MSM has been blatantly pro gun control since the 60's you need to find another boogie man. I realize you don't have to bother with these things in England, but we have that pesky Constitution which doesn't allow most of what you want to do. How about an apology for that lie you told about be doing time?

dcnovice -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 11:54:26 AM)
FR The Orwell quote intrigued me, so I tried to read it in context. Here's the closest I could get: From: "The Complete Works of George Orwell", Edited by Peter Davison, 1998, volume 12 of the 20 volume set. Pages 362-365 - a reprint of an article titled: "Don't Let Colonel Blimp Ruin the Home Guard," published in Evening Standard, 8 January 1941. Entire quote: “Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see it stays there.” https://www.facebook.com/DoctorsForResponsibleGunOwnership/posts/894185860670033 Orwell seems to be setting his much-quoted rifle in the larger context of the Home Guard, aka a well-regulated militia.

BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 11:58:53 AM)
Nope. Politicians aren't paid by the hour or on the number of subjects/laws they debate. They are paid an annual salary whether they sit on their asses pontificating or fillibustering, or discussing a serious issue. It wouldn't cost one red cent more for them to discuss a sensible law or how to enforce it. It is clear that you cannot comprehend Franklins statement that "he who gives up freedom for security gets nor deserves either"

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 12:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 kd, I think your post hit the nail squarely on the head. And I think it's a bit of both - lax laws and lax enforcement. This is the very thing that us so-called anti-gun people elsewhere in the world have been saying for a long time. And your last paragraph is exactly what we have here. We can have guns just like you do; but it's much harder to get a license and the number and types are very limited (ie, 'self defense' is not a valid reason to get one). Our laws are very strictly enforced and that is why we have so few gun incidents. The US needs to wake up and realise what the problem is and fix it at the federal level rather than have half-cocked itty-bitty laws that are different all over the country. It needs to be uniform and consistent from coast to coast. Unfortunately, the NRA hold the purse strings to the political debate. So I'm afraid, until the politics are separated and divorced from the lobbyist funding, it's going to be a road to nowhere. You have to enforce current laws before you can begin to determine if they are sufficient. No the NRA doesn't hold the purse strings to the debate, Blumberg alone outspends them. On top of that the MSM has been blatantly pro gun control since the 60's you need to find another boogie man. I realize you don't have to bother with these things in England, but we have that pesky Constitution which doesn't allow most of what you want to do. How about an apology for that lie you told about be doing time? Didn't you openly admit that on these forums in the past?? Even if you weren't incarcerated, you are certainly a convicted felon (you did admit that). Unfortunately, I don't hold any such accolade as I have never been convicted of any criminal offense and have no criminal record. That aside, it is reported that the NRA do indeed front the money for getting the right political people to represent their stance in both houses. In that sense, they do hold the purse strings to getting their laws passed and others blocked. As for that pesky constitution, it was originally borrowed from the British constitution. We grew up and realised that the gun laws needed a radical shake up, so they did. The constitution was contemplated and drawn up by men. Whatever is given by man can equally be retracted by man. It really is that simple - if anyone had the balls to do it.

LadyPact -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/4/2015 12:13:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 What does it cost to have a law that says you can't own more than, say, 3 or 4 guns?? Nothing. What does it cost to have a law that says you can't carry firearms in any public place?? Nothing. My ex father-in-law had three sons. He taught all of them to hunt. When he was eulogized, all three boys (then men) talked about going out with their Dad. Aside from hunting, he had this .44 mag. I laughed at myself when he taught me to shoot it. He laughed at me, too. quote: What does it cost to have a law that says you can't carry firearms in any public place?? Nothing. I would disagree. I wasn't exactly thrilled when I couldn't carry a gun into a public place when my stalker announced to all of God and sundry that he would follow me to restaurants and any place else I chose to go. It used to scare the sh^t out of me to go out and do so much as buy milk. That piece of mind was stolen from me. If you do better at it than I did, be my guest.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125