Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Obama's solution to end gun violence...

[binaryterror]

Dez, there is no illegality to breach of confientiality agreements if a doctor or lawyer reports possible incidents with a patient in regards to violence to themselves or other people.

I see this no different.

Let's stop being PC and start banning crazy people.

[BubbaEinstein]

My big problem is the absolute hypocrisy of our elected leaders. The killing of those children was horrible in a way that can't be described and I completely understand the "people" reacting to it. My issue is with the politicians. Not long ago, a little girls birthday party was ended by gunmen with "assault" rifles...her, her friends and family all murdered. These assault rifles were not stolen, they were provided for by the USA as part of the "fast and furious" scandal. So, when our government gives assault rifles to criminals and they end up killing kids (and our own law enforcement) it's ok, the media doesn't care, the majority of the population doesn't care, and the president doesn't think anything serious needs to be done about it. These are all facts...just think about it for a while...


r the record, I don't support ANY of the proposed gun legislation (I own quite a few and plan to buy more in the future). We have a ranch and when I'm out there a gun is a tool, just like a tractor or anything else...so that's where I'm coming from. FYI I've used my assault rifle out there 3 times in the last two months in situations where the magazine capacity made the tool effective (hogs/coyotes).

[dkf]

Originally Posted by dezfan

Instead of addressing one of the major issues behind so many of these shootings, Obama's EO's could actually prevent people who might seek out the help of a mental health professional do to the fear being falsely or mistakenly accussed.

There are going to be some whom take the "Better safe than sorry" approach. I will go one step further and say there will be people whom stop going to psychiatrist or therapist and/or even go so far as to stop taking a pertinent medications.

We have already have pediatricians sticking their nose where it does not belong asking about gun ownership of the parents. There are a lot of doctors whom are against guns I would even say a majority of them are.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

Dez, there is no illegality to breach of confientiality agreements if a doctor or lawyer reports possible incidents with a patient in regards to violence to themselves or other people.

I see this no different.

Let's stop being PC and start banning crazy people.

Believe me BT, it's not about Political Correctness. It's about preserving people's rights and protecting them from the ever growing creep of government interference into every aspect of our lives.

A trained mental health professional making that determination is much different than a social worker or a nurse. Having experienced the inadequacies of social workers in the field of vocational rehab. I shutter to think that these same individuals could be then be empowered to make mental health decisions.

I don't want disturbed individuals having access to fire arms any more than anyone else. At the same time, I don't want an unqualified individual having the authority to make a determination that carries with it this kind of authority.

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Postclanker

I'm not a proponent of gun control...but I'd like to address the topic of this thread:

"Guns don't kill people,people kill people"

guns empower a cowardly f%$# form getting up close and personal with whomever they'd like to kill. How many would be murderers would be detered from doing such if they had to smell the breath of their victim...or kill them with your hands, if the "smelly breath" analogy escapes you.

actually guns make everyone equal.

No matter how big the assailant is, no matter how agressive the assialant may be...the defendant who is armed, is thier equal...no matter how small, or weak the victem may be.

If YOU the VICTIM had to WAIT until the assailant was CLOSE enough
to use your knife, or mase, or ?? then you have much greater chance of
being killed, or seriously injured even if you prevail.

YOur acting like the assailants think rationaly....
some are like rabid dogs....they have no cares...maybe they are dope fkd, maybe they are just full blown eveil.

some are calculated.....they know you are without gun....and so are they....they just have to overpower you.
Your defemce????hand to hand....very close and personal...and some criminals like it liek that.
criminals are far more seasoned in such things, annd as a rsult, have the upper hand, along with the eliment of suprise.

BUt forget that...cuz the criminal will still have his gun....he's a criminal.


there is 3 main reasons clyd barrow got away from the law for so long..

#1, he usually had the jump on them...the cops may have suspecion who they was looking at, but clyde knew what he was about to do.
#2, he had superiour weapons..clyde took advantage of one of our nations strategic advanteges.....and gained supperiour firpower..
cops was undergunned to take him out.
#3, he had more experience in simulare situations than his victims did...he was seasoned

You want to remove these advantages from your assailant.
be alert....dont be taxting when you should be aware of your surroundings.
be armed....the better your means of defense, the better your ability to defend yourself
train...know how to use your weapoms of choice, proficiently.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by rock hard

actually guns make everyone equal.

Only if everyone has one.

People are ultimately responsible for what they do, but firearms are still an enabler to those who would not otherwise assault someone.

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Its funny, I stopped at a small convenience store yesterday, and the clerk behind the counter had the radio on.

I won't tell you what kind of music it was, but it involved guns, a shootout, and taking a bullet to the chest.

Three guesses as to what he was listening to...

Marty Robbins and the song was El Paso ????

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

Marty Robbins and the song was El Paso ????

Could be. Wasn't in there more than a minute. If it was El Paso it sounded different than I remembered.

edit: watched it on youtube...it wasn't el paso

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Only if everyone has one.

People are ultimately responsible for what they do, but firearms are still an enabler to those who would not otherwise assault someone.

have to disagree with that.

the 1st weapon used, was the rock cain used to kill his brother.


like rocks, guns cant kill....people kill.

a gun cant kill you any more than a ball bat can.
it can be used to kill..by an assailant...but a persons negative motives dont come from the weapon.....no matter if its a rock, like cain, or a gun.

Its foolish to place the blam of ones actions, upon the weapon the used to attack.

a weapon, from rocks to guns, can also be used to save life.
if fact, guns prevent many crimes just by pulling it out..
It makes the assailant realise your not easy prey, your his equal.

If an assailant has no weapon, and your armed with a rock, you have the advantage.

The better the weapon, the better the advantage.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by rock hard

have to disagree with that.

the 1st weapon used, was the rock cain used to kill his brother.

And if there were no rocks, Able might have stuck around a bit longer.

I'm not saying that they are solely to blame, only that they can empower people to do bad things that they might not otherwise do, but that is true of anything that can be wielded as a weapon. When was the last time you heard of a drive-by stabbing?

They also work equally well the other way and empower people to protect themselves.

A defensive advantage can also be an offensive advantage.

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

And if there were no rocks, Able might have stuck around a bit longer.

I'm not saying that they are solely to blame, only that they can empower people to do bad things that they might not otherwise do, but that is true of anything that can be wielded as a weapon. When was the last time you heard of a drive-by stabbing?

They also work equally well the other way and empower people to protect themselves.

A defensive advantage can also be an offensive advantage.

the anger, rage is already there...a rock is used, cuz it was a toll available.
attemtping to say he would not have killed without the rock is....foolish.

If he was physically superiour to his brother, he could just strangle, or beat to death with bare hands.

If he is less physical, he can calculate a strategic moment....maybe push em off a cliff or something.

either way, the tolls used are not the cause of the anger of the evil, or the reason for the death of the inocent

its just like the thread says....guns dont kill...people do.

[boosted4lyf]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Could be. Wasn't in there more than a minute. If it was El Paso it sounded different than I remembered.

edit: watched it on youtube...it wasn't el paso

Sounds like youth of the nation by P.o.d.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by rock hard

If he was physically superiour to his brother, he could just strangle, or beat to death with bare hands.

If he is less physical, he can calculate a strategic moment....maybe push em off a cliff or something.

Very true, and I'm not arguing that it couldn't be done in a different manner. I'm saying that firearms can facilitate violence just as easily as they can prevent it. It all depends on who is holding the weapon and what their intent is.

If you decide you are going to cause someone bodily harm, you're going to do it with the best possible means. Since guns are pretty much at the top of the technological food chain, they are a pretty efficient choice.

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Very true, and I'm not arguing that it couldn't be done in a different manner. I'm saying that firearms can facilitate violence just as easily as they can prevent it.

Nothing has facilited more violence than speach.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by rock hard

Nothing has facilited more violence than speach.

Very true. You yourself are on the verge of making my head go *pop*.

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Very true. You yourself are on the verge of making my head go *pop*.

pop a top instead

[GySgt Hartman]

I cannot disagree more to your reckless statement.

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

...but firearms are still an enabler to those who would not otherwise assault someone.

"Who would not otherwise assault someone", seriously is this what you think?

Guns do not control peoples minds and turn them into maniacs, that's what the media wants you to think.

They are a tool that can be used for good (defense) or bad (assault), but that all depends upon the intent of the operator.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Very true, and I'm not arguing that it couldn't be done in a different manner. I'm saying that firearms can facilitate violence just as easily as they can prevent it. It all depends on who is holding the weapon and what their intent is.

If you decide you are going to cause someone bodily harm, you're going to do it with the best possible means. Since guns are pretty much at the top of the technological food chain, they are a pretty efficient choice.

true, but removing the gun, doesnt remove the chain....there will still be a top weapon of choice...but the firearm was the weapon that made the peasant with no armor, equal to the knight with armor.

[GySgt Hartman]

Originally Posted by rock hard

...but the firearm was the weapon that made the peasant with no armor, equal to the knight with armor.

Or a 98lb woman defending herself against a 300lb attacker.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by GySgt Hartman

I cannot disagree more to your reckless statement.

"Who would not otherwise assault someone", seriously is this what you think?

Guns do not control peoples minds and turn them into maniacs, that's what the media wants you to think.

They are a tool that can be used for good (defense) or bad (assault), but that all depends upon the intent of the operator.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

People are still 100% responsible for what they do. I have no delusion about that. They still have to make the choice to pick up that weapon, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. I am still of the opinion that guns, by themselves, as inanimate objects, unthinking and unfeeling, hold no responsibility to someones injury or death.

As you put it, they are tools that can work either way, which is basically the same thing I said.

A person that could not otherwise defend themselves adequately can have an advantage by carrying a gun, but so can the person who would not otherwise be able to carry out any sort of physical assault.

Originally Posted by rock hard

but the firearm was the weapon that made the peasant with no armor, equal to the knight with armor.

*pop*