Obama falters again on Oregon Shooting Speech

When Obammy takes this approach , it would not be a stretch to think He is behind the hack on Mercers profile, marking him as a conservative.

 

Why do you guys always assume that knives are the only alternative to guns? Do you not remember that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold also used explosives at Columbine? You could actually argue that explosives have the potential to be much more deadly than guns. Especially considering that most of these mass shootings end in suicides. So it's not like the killers are trying to get out alive. Thus if you take guns out of the equation, what's to stop these people from strapping explosives to themselves and running into these places and blowing everybody up? Isn't that what we already see in the middle east? Do you really want that here? Or are you going to start banning any kind of ingredient that could possibly be used in creating homemade explosives too? Just ban, ban, ban. Ban everything. Until eventually you can't buy anything at all anymore.

How far are you going to take this? At what point does this stop being a practical solution? Like I said, wouldn't it be more effective to just restore humanity and respect for human life?

 

You can make gun powder without buying anything at all. Info is readily available in online Army manuals. All men and women should know how to do this. Our freedom may depend on it.

https://archive.org/details/milmanual-tm-31-210-improvised-munitions-handbook

 

WHO shot him? Hint: Wayne LaPierre was literally eviscerated for making this suggestion.

I think you have me confused with someone who thinks that is somehow relevant to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. I blame the propane lobby for the actions of Harris and Klebold.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. I blame the propane lobby for the actions of Harris and Klebold.

 

You know what I'm talking about. You can always find isolated incidents if you go looking for them. But this kind of thing didn't become a regular occurrence until Columbine. Nowadays, they're so common that we don't even have time to process one before another one occurs. Can you name all of the mass shootings that have happened since Columbine off the top of your head without having to look them up? I can't. Because there have been too many. And that was exactly my point. It's undeniable that the frequency of these events is accelerating. Which means we're moving in the wrong direction as a culture.

 

Sigh… reading my post is not relevant to the discussion? Wow, that's rude. Fine, how many mass shootings have there been in airports? One, LAX in 2013. That proves methods other than arming everyone can stem the tide that is mass murder in the US.

 

Nope. That is just factually wrong.

 

No, I can't name them all. It's sad that there are so many. I wasn't really busting your chops on the Texas Tower thing. I just remembered that one. It's something I have thought about with so many soldiers returning with PTSD and the news about the VA not treating them timely.

We are moving in the wrong direction. What frustrates me is that there are the two fringe elements that either believe all guns should be confiscated and banned and the other that thinks we should arm everyone using vigilante justice, while the vast majority of people in the middle don't want to do away with guns, but want some sensible gun laws. The two extremes shout over each other and nothing happens. It's time for the sane middle to speak out, if we can be heard above the screams.

 

Then you bust the people the that are proxy buying ammo. Not very hard...besides you could easily regulate small game permits and you would know who is buying what when so it would be easy to track. You obviously didn't think your response through because it is nonsense.

 

Having proper restrictions and background checks on gun buyers? The sophistry behind trying to suggest that knives and swords are as lethal and dangerous as guns is just overwhelming. If swords and knives were as lethal as guns we would still be issuing them as military weapons. That point is just silly.

 

Hate to break it to you but your notion that mass shootings started in 1999 is wrong, I mean by a lot wrong. Mass shootings have occurred at least since 1891 when a man opened fire on school yard with a shotgun. None were killed but it was sign of things to come. There were a total of 909 mass shootings in the U.S. between 1900 and 1999. So your figures are just a little bit off.

As to your hypothesis of left versus right that is just silly. The founders were considered the radical left of their day. Before the communists in 19th century a Red was considered a republican, that is small r by the way.

Bottom line as long as there have been guns there have been gun deaths. The history of this country is littered with the dead from gun violence.

 

So what you're saying is that you'd rather cling to your political rhetoric than save actual lives. At least you've shown me where your priorities lie.

 

The difference is obvious. It is far harder to make or get explosives than it is to get a gun. The point is to prevent as many mass shootings as we can. A large number of mass shootings occur because the shooter has reached a crisis or breaking point. The ease of and availability of guns and ammo make possible for them to more lethal than they otherwise would be. Thus preventing more than a fair number of mass shootings. If you had read my posts which you obviously didn't I said this would not impact mass murderers like the Columbine shooters. There was a planned (for months) and orchestrated attack. They were not in crisis and did not reach a breaking point but were methodical planners. Many of the mass shooters are not and are people in mental health crisis or have reached a breaking point where their anger cannot be controlled. People like that are not going to spend days and weeks making pipe bombs. Besides the nasty little secret is that is easier to track people making purchases of pipe bomb material than it is people buying guns and ammo because our effed up laws.

 

Don't know where you got that from. My interest is how to prevent the largest number of mass shooting in shortest amount of time. My proposal is an effective way of doing that. Nothing in my response indicates that I am clinging to anything. It was your figures about mass shootings that were wrong. It was your hypothesis about political ideology that was wrong. Ergo any conclusions that you drew from those incorrect presumptions is equally flawed.

In other words...pot meet kettle.

 

No, I see your point. As far as you're concerned, quite literally nothing is worth reconsidering any of your stances on anything. Not even the lives of innocent children. You don't really care if your positions work. You just need to defend them because they make you feel morally righteous. The rhetoric is more important to you than the lives. I get it. I think it's sick. But I get it.

God help you.

 

Boy you must be really angry that I exposed your incorrect statistics and flawed hypothesis. I sense a great deal of anger. You have not countered any of my points but spewed rhetoric about how sick you think I am and how I am only interested politics. Dude, you don't even know me. You cannot possibly get that from my posts in this forum or on this board. I have one goal...to make this country a better place to live than it is today. Just because I don't subscribe to your political perspective does not make me sick nor interested in only scoring political points. It makes me different than you.

If you want to continue debate on this topic I would ask you to stop the rhetorical nonsense and explain why having a mandatory wait period for purchasing guns and having tight restrictions on the purchase of ammo and the tracking of the purchasing of ammo would not help prevent mass shooting that are a result of a psychological break in the would be perpetrator. You have not even touched on those points much less try to refute them. You have just spouted rhetoric.

 

I'm sick of him (and other heartless left-wing people like him) for callously rushing to turn yet another tragedy into an opportunity to advance a warped political agenda that would not save a single life. For G-d sake, we still don't know how this guy even obtained the guns (e.g. did he buy them from a licensed dealer, did he buy them illegally, did he steal them, etc), and Obama has the nerve to say that failure to pass the Manchin-Toomey gun control law in 2013 is the reason why this happened?! It is so scary that Obama can look straight into that TV camera and, with the utmost confidence, spout out lie after lie (even after he admitted multiple times in the past that the Manchin-Toomey bill would not have stopped most mass shootings) while most of the facts surrounding this case are not even known: This guy absolutely disgusts me.

That's absolutely ridiculous. You have as much blood on your hands as those in Congress who voted against the unconstitutional Manchin-Toomey bill.

 

Name any of those that have any relevancy to what happened?

How many more women do you want raped? How many more people do you want robbed, beaten, knifed, and murdered? Firearms prevent 2.5 million crimes and 200,000 rapes each year.

Would 1,000,000 more women raped and 25,000,000 more victims be enough for you?

 

Explain how exactly are the regulation I stated preventing people from owning guns.

On another note do you have the source for your figures. I don't want nor need a link just the source so I can determine its validity for myself.

 

It's not Obama's or Congresses fault, rather its the fault of the state which dictates gun control laws. Obama needs to stay out of it and let the state deal with it.

 

The anti-gunners are responsible for these deaths. All victims of all mass shootings were unarmed and unable to defend themselves. This was a rule on that campus. Mass shooters pick locations where they believe there is no armed resistance.

Obama is not offering solutions, he's trying to increase mass shooting in the future as what would be the effect of his obtaining what he and Democrats want.

Find any mass shooting were a victim had a firearm for self defense. You can't.

 

Honestly, I'm over with this silly jabbering of these people who still tell that right of firearms should not be changed and so on. And this cynical BS jabbering of those extremists who want to make people believe that such things would not happen if teachers and people in general are better armed to self protections against such criminals should ask and answer themselves one single question only:

Why was this person armed and from where did he get the arms and what gave him the right to have these arms?

 

More guns = less gun violence

With logic like this it will be a wonder if the nation sees the 22nd century.

 

The more ability people have to self defense firearms is reduced, the more mass killings there are. If you go way back in American history, you will find mass firearms shootings were all but unheard of, though high capacity magazines had come into existence. Back when people were far more often armed and there were no restrictions where a person could have a firearm, mass killing was very rare and usually done with explosives.

Disarming people has made mass shooter murderers basically assured by the government they get to kill a lot of people before anyone might oppose them. This used to not be so. There were NO gun free zones. Historically, Americans used to be far more armed with firearms than now when in public.

 

That's just as stupid as the conservative argument that says "sure gays can get married... as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex,"

You are now dancing on the slippery slope of of semantics. You DO want to disarm law-abiding citizens. Just be honest about that.