Gun Legislation

[GoCubsGo]

Hey Roland, are any of these people less dead or less wounded?

[O Really]

I know you have a wealth of knowledge about guns, Roland, but this thread isn't generally about guns. It's about the use of guns in crimes, and related legislation.

Here's how the Troutdale Chief Anderson was quoted, "Padgett ...fired an AR-15 rifle, but also had a semi-automatic handgun, a knife, and nine loaded magazines capable of holding "several hundred rounds." Here's the article that quote came from...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-school- ... d=24093516 In the vid, the Chief uses the term "AR-15 style" rifle.

There are a lot of other articles that say the same thing, or carry the same statement from the Chief. But again, what possible difference does it make - to the dead and the families as well as to this discussion - if it was an AR-15 or something similar?

[O Really]

Maybe he thinks it says, "A well regulated minutiae being necessary..."
You've got to admit, it takes a pretty hard core gun, ummmm "enthusiast" to argue over whether the police chief identified the rifle correctly by name for his press conference and ignore what the kid did his weapon of choice.

[Roland Deschain]

I know you have a wealth of knowledge about guns, Roland, but this thread isn't generally about guns. It's about the use of guns in crimes, and related legislation.

Here's how the Troutdale Chief Anderson was quoted, "Padgett ...fired an AR-15 rifle, but also had a semi-automatic handgun, a knife, and nine loaded magazines capable of holding "several hundred rounds." Here's the article that quote came from...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-school- ... d=24093516 In the vid, the Chief uses the term "AR-15 style" rifle.

There are a lot of other articles that say the same thing, or carry the same statement from the Chief. But again, what possible difference does it make - to the dead and the families as well as to this discussion - if it was an AR-15 or something similar?

Thank you. Was that really so difficult? All I was asking was for a citation. Just like your leader incessantly demands when someone opposes her. My point was not really about whether the gun in question actually was an AR. It was about some media outlets choice to simply use the term "assault rifle". That term is becoming more and more widely used to refer to any and all semi-automatic rifles, or those that just look scarey. I love your choice of wording though....must be taking lessons from Billary "what difference does it make"? Well I'll tell you, it makes a LOT of difference because blindly following lemmings, like yourself and others, do not know and can not define what an "assault rifle" is. All you know is the media keeps screaming that they are bad and must be banned. You are allowing yourselves to be manipulated, through fear and sensationalism, in order to push an agenda. That is the difference and there are many people who understand it.

[O Really]

Well I'll tell you, it makes a LOT of difference because blindly following lemmings, like yourself and others, do not know and can not define what an "assault rifle" is. All you know is the media keeps screaming that they are bad and must be banned. You are allowing yourselves to be manipulated, through fear and sensationalism, in order to push an agenda. That is the difference and there are many people who understand it.

It matters not whether I or anyone else understand or can define "assault rifle." Understanding that it is generally used in a broad and technically incorrect manner doesn't change the fact that it is general usage. "Band-Aid" is a brand, and the company works hard to protect it, but that doesn't keep people from calling all plastic bandage strips "band-aids" and everyone knows what they're talking about. The truck driver involved in the Tracy Morgan crash was driving an "18-wheeler." If somebody said he was driving a Kenworth and he was really driving a Peterbilt, would it change the story?

But I see - you're concerned because you still think the jackboots are going to come take away our guns. It's been so long since anybody set forth a serious proposal that might actually limit purchase of anything that I forgot about that. But I'm not one who wants to ban the AR-15 "type" firearm. I want to have the parents of this particular kid held criminally negligent for not taking sufficient precautions to keep a 15-year old from stealing their guns. I want the "opps" defense tightened up significantly ("opps, my gun 'accidentally' went off" ... "opps, I thought he was a deer/burglar/zombie/whatever") I want the same cultural change as has happened with other products - make them socially sleazy or unacceptable. I want people to do like those soccer moms in Georgia did - call the cops about the guy walking around with his (legal) firearm openly carried and say they wuz skeered. Social engineering is way better than bans and prohibition.

[O Really]

As you imply, creating a straw man is all that Roland Deschain has when he's screwed up a weapons ID and is floundering, and all he's ever able to beat up. Since he returned I don't think anyone here has mentioned banning assault rifles. You and I certainly haven't.

But the Bogey Man is still under the bed (or at least in the White House) It reminds me - remember "Bloom County"? The kid with the "anxiety closet" where he kept all his fears and monsters?

[Roland Deschain]

My bad, GoCubsGo (whose post you're too inept to quote competently) did post about it before me. See how easy that is, Roland Deschain? If you had any "nuts" you'd be able to do it, too. Now, explain to us what difference it makes that you responded to both of us and with your response coming just 3 posts after mine. Good luck.

...Exactly..point proven!

Lie, again, you poor child. Everytown's wording was exactly as WaPo reported, which you've already called "more accurately". You're just too unaccountable to admit that you got duped by what RWNJ gunhugger websites claimed Everytown said.

Already have it is bold above...a gang member shooting someone in a school parking lot after midnight or someone committing suicide does not make it a "school shooting". I can drive my car down Charlotte Dragway...that doesn't make it a race... (subsequent whining ignored)

LOL! It is you driving (shooting) on a race track (school building or on school or campus grounds). Once again, you fail even the simplest English.

LOL! "inside a school building or on school or campus grounds" + "shooting" does = school shooting. It's not my problem if your RWNJ gunhugger website tries to redefine words and you're gullible enough to swallow it.

It's a scream how Roland Deschain consistently swallows whatever some RWNJ gunhugger website tells him and then is incapable of applying any skepticism or brainpower to it even when the means to do so is handed to him on a silver platter.

Run away, Roland Deschain, run away.

OOOPS! It appears that CNN agrees with me:

CNN has drastically revised a claim it made, which was based on a graphical map from a pro-gun control group, which purportedly showed that 74 school shootings have occurred in the U.S. since the Sandy Hook massacre in Dec. 2012....

...Everytown for Gun Safety, which is backed by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, headlined their graphic “School Shootings in America Since Sandy Hook,” suggesting that the shootings it listed had a link of some kind to Sandy Hook — in which Adam Lanza killed 26 people at an elementary school.

....It acknowledged that many of the shootings listed by Everytown did not fit the profile of a Sandy Hook-type shooting, in which the attacks are seemingly random....

“...CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon – a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school,” said CNN.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/cnn-s ... z34WUVghbc

FIFTEEN...LOL...that is a far cry from 74 Johnson reduced the number to only seven either way, 7 or 15, the deception by Everytown has been thoroughly exposed! Like I said keep drinking the kool aid though!

[Roland Deschain]

It matters not whether I or anyone else understand or can define "assault rifle."

Sure it matters. Maybe not to you but to all knowledgeable gun owners it matters a ton. See all you fools know about an "assualt rifle" is that is looks scary, is a semi-automatic, and usually mistakenly refer to them as "automatics". Then as the clamoring for "bans" start anything that looks scary or is a semi-auto get included due to stupidity. So YES, it matters! Your saying it doesn't just proves your own ignorance.

Understanding that it is generally used in a broad and technically incorrect manner doesn't change the fact that it is general usage. "Band-Aid" is a brand, and the company works hard to protect it, but that doesn't keep people from calling all plastic bandage strips "band-aids" and everyone knows what they're talking about. The truck driver involved in the Tracy Morgan crash was driving an "18-wheeler." If somebody said he was driving a Kenworth and he was really driving a Peterbilt, would it change the story?

But I see - you're concerned because you still think the jackboots are going to come take away our guns. It's been so long since anybody set forth a serious proposal that might actually limit purchase of anything that I forgot about that.

Might want to pay closer attention. Feinstein is at it again:

...Well it seems that Sen. Dianne Feinstein in California is never one to let a good shooting go to waste, as immediately following the mass murder perpetrated by Eilliot Roger, the liberal Democrat introduced a new gun control bill in Congress.

The new bill calls for the allowance of “firearms restraining orders” on any individual who is considered to be a threat.

From the Gateway Pundit, via Right Wing News:

The bill would prevent an individual from purchasing new guns and give law enforcement the right to confiscate existing guns if the individual is determined to be a threat.

The scariest part of this proposed legislation is the idea that anyone can ask for one of these restraining orders. So, for example, if a gun control activist got ahold of a sign-in sheet from a local gun range, they could start spamming the judicial system with these “gun violence prevention warrants,” claiming that they believe these individuals to be about to commit a crime, and send a squad of police officers to their doorstep to confiscate their firearms. For their own good, of course.

Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/democrat ... 8FEbUEV.99

But I'm not one who wants to ban the AR-15 "type" firearm. I want to have the parents of this particular kid held criminally negligent for not taking sufficient precautions to keep a 15-year old from stealing their guns.

The guns were secured and he defeated the security. What else do you want?

I want the "opps" defense tightened up significantly ("opps, my gun 'accidentally' went off" ... "opps, I thought he was a deer/burglar/zombie/whatever")

I'll agree with that to a point. The question again becomes what is "reasonable security". If my guns are locked in a safe with action locks and an 18 year old gets into the safe, cuts the action cable, and then shoots himself in the face would that gun owner still be liable?


I want the same cultural change as has happened with other products - make them socially sleazy or unacceptable. I want people to do like those soccer moms in Georgia did - call the cops about the guy walking around with his (legal) firearm openly carried and say they wuz skeered. Social engineering is way better than bans and prohibition.

Well good luck with that. It seems that you will be on the loosing side as there is now a greater push for OPEN carry, it is gathering momentum, and passing in lots of places.

[Roland Deschain]

Poor Roland Deschain, having humiliated himself by swallowing what Glenn Beck said Everytown said without having the initiative to check for himself and proving that he's too illiterate to understand the phrase "school shooting", he now humiliates himself again by swallowing what Tucker Carlson says CNN says without having the initiative to check for himself.

A closer look: How many Newtown-like school shootings since Sandy Hook?

...Everytown says on its web site that it gleans its information from media reports and that its list includes school shootings involving a firearm discharged inside or on school grounds, including assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.

CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Newtown or Oregon -- a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school. That works out to about one such shooting every five weeks, a startling figure in its own right...

Nowhere does CNN say or hint that it's drastically revising anything. Rather, it makes the distinction between all school shootings, which Everytown said all along comprised its list, something Tucker Carlson again fails to tell dupes like Roland Deschain, and "situations similar to the violence in Newtown or Oregon" which is a wholly different yet still "startling" list.

As has so often been the case, the particular issue at hand matters less than Roland Deschain's gullibility, illiteracy and laziness.

In red in your own "citation". Thank you for VERIFYING my statements.

As so often has been the case vrede, in her haste to seem superior, has proven herself a blathering idiot to stupid to realize that her own post verifies what she is adamantly trying to disprove.

[GoCubsGo]

What I find more disturbing is that 15 shootings is somehow an acceptable number.

[O Really]

I want the same cultural change as has happened with other products - make them socially sleazy or unacceptable. I want people to do like those soccer moms in Georgia did - call the cops about the guy walking around with his (legal) firearm openly carried and say they wuz skeered. Social engineering is way better than bans and prohibition.

Well good luck with that. It seems that you will be on the loosing side as there is now a greater push for OPEN carry, it is gathering momentum, and passing in lots of places.

[/quote]
Not so fast, Grasshoppah - sure there is a lot of legislative effort on behalf of their NRA masters, but when you look at what real people are doing, you look around and rarely find gun racks with weapons in the back window of pickup trucks anymore - formerly a common sight. You get things like the Georgia soccer moms; you get retailers associations and chambers of commerce encouraging their members to establish their own "no weapons" policies and clear signage. You used to see little kids all the time "killing" each other with cap pistols - now a lot of mamas aren't letting their babies play cowboys.

Cultural change is slow, but then again, it was "only" 40 years ago when about half the adult population was smokers, cigarette machines were everywhere, schools turned a blind eye to smoking behind the gym, and even the legal age for cigarettes was 16. Now, not so much - what smokers are left are hovering in the alley, and a recent report showed a record low percentage of teen smokers. Yet cigarettes are still legal and readily available at every bodega and grocery.

[O Really]

But I see - you're concerned because you still think the jackboots are going to come take away our guns. It's been so long since anybody set forth a serious proposal that might actually limit purchase of anything that I forgot about that.

Might want to pay closer attention. Feinstein is at it again:

...Well it seems that Sen. Dianne Feinstein in California is never one to let a good shooting go to waste, as immediately following the mass murder perpetrated by Eilliot Roger, the liberal Democrat introduced a new gun control bill in Congress.

The new bill calls for the allowance of “firearms restraining orders” on any individual who is considered to be a threat.

From the Gateway Pundit, via Right Wing News:

The bill would prevent an individual from purchasing new guns and give law enforcement the right to confiscate existing guns if the individual is determined to be a threat.

The scariest part of this proposed legislation is the idea that anyone can ask for one of these restraining orders. So, for example, if a gun control activist got ahold of a sign-in sheet from a local gun range, they could start spamming the judicial system with these “gun violence prevention warrants,” claiming that they believe these individuals to be about to commit a crime, and send a squad of police officers to their doorstep to confiscate their firearms. For their own good, of course.

Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/democrat ... 8FEbUEV.99

But I'm not one who wants to ban the AR-15 "type" firearm. I want to have the parents of this particular kid held criminally negligent for not taking sufficient precautions to keep a 15-year old from stealing their guns.

The guns were secured and he defeated the security. What else do you want?

I want the "opps" defense tightened up significantly ("opps, my gun 'accidentally' went off" ... "opps, I thought he was a deer/burglar/zombie/whatever")

I'll agree with that to a point. The question again becomes what is "reasonable security". If my guns are locked in a safe with action locks and an 18 year old gets into the safe, cuts the action cable, and then shoots himself in the face would that gun owner still be liable?


I want the same cultural change as has happened with other products - make them socially sleazy or unacceptable. I want people to do like those soccer moms in Georgia did - call the cops about the guy walking around with his (legal) firearm openly carried and say they wuz skeered. Social engineering is way better than bans and prohibition.

Well good luck with that. It seems that you will be on the loosing side as there is now a greater push for OPEN carry, it is gathering momentum, and passing in lots of places.

[/quote]

I'm sorry - I missed the part of Feinstein's bill that talked about banning weapons. Looked more like restrictions on people who made somebody skeered. With about the same level of proof as SYG.

What else do I want on "security"? How about secure enough a 15-year old can't get to them. That takes more than one lock.

[Roland Deschain]

Not so fast, Grasshoppah - sure there is a lot of legislative effort on behalf of their NRA masters, but when you look at what real people are doing, you look around and rarely find gun racks with weapons in the back window of pickup trucks anymore - formerly a common sight.

Yes that was a common sight..back in the days when soft side scabbards were all you had for transport. Today's hard side cases make the need to transport guns in racks obsolete. That is a matter of function...not "cultural change"

You get things like the Georgia soccer moms; you get retailers associations and chambers of commerce encouraging their members to establish their own "no weapons" policies and clear signage. You used to see little kids all the time "killing" each other with cap pistols - now a lot of mamas aren't letting their babies play cowboys.

And you also have knee jerk, no common sense zero tolerance policies, where a first grader gets suspended from school for eating his pop tart into teh shape of a gun. So we don't have "cap pistols" any more but we do have paintball, air soft, and video games out the wazoo. Again not a cultural change....technology has changed

Cultural change is slow, but then again, it was "only" 40 years ago when about half the adult population was smokers, cigarette machines were everywhere, schools turned a blind eye to smoking behind the gym, and even the legal age for cigarettes was 16. Now, not so much - what smokers are left are hovering in the alley, and a recent report showed a record low percentage of teen smokers. Yet cigarettes are still legal and readily available at every bodega and grocery.

And tobacco is still responsible for far more deaths than firearms!

[Roland Deschain]

I'm sorry - I missed the part of Feinstein's bill that talked about banning weapons. Looked more like restrictions on people who made somebody skeered. With about the same level of proof as SYG.

You did not mention a ban you said:

you're concerned because you still think the jackboots are going to come take away our guns.

The bill limits the ability of a person to purchase and allows police to confiscate the guns of a person. I'd say that would qualify as taking away, especially when it is based solely on the subjective complaint of "I'm skeered by this person"
[/color]
What else do I want on "security"? How about secure enough a 15-year old can't get to them. That takes more than one lock.

I gave you an example using two locks. Just how many locks do you want 3, 4, 6? What is enough in your book and then what if all of them are defeated? Still want to hold the owner responsible

[Roland Deschain]

What I find more disturbing is that 15 shootings is somehow an acceptable number.

It is not acceptable, one is not acceptable. However, 15 is a far cry from the blatant lie of 74 that is being purported by Bloomberg and Everytown. To me fifteen is a pitiful indictment of the state of our society. Even more disturbing is the fact that when one of these shootings happen the gun control crowd immediately begin to focus on the tools used by these KILLERS or than the killers themselves. Yet, we still have the bleeding heart crowd that will beat the drums of "human rights" against institutionalizing people like Lanza. Instead of focusing on an object used why not focus on the mental health care system of this country and see if we can help the PEOPLE that are using those tools.

[GoCubsGo]

The mental health care in this country is as sad as the gun control laws. But tell me, how many kids do you think Lanza would have killed with a knife or axe?

[Roland Deschain]

The mental health care in this country is as sad as the gun control laws. But tell me, how many kids do you think Lanza would have killed with a knife or axe?

I don't know and neither do you. Maybe more, maybe less, he for sure would have killed some. Would it make those deaths less significant if they were stabbed or hacked to death, rather than shot????

[bannination]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHeXC7L85s

[O Really]

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/29/firearm ... ry_safety/

On Saturday, Krysta Gearhart, was shot by Geoffrey Hawk, “In Case of Emergency” owner, while he was demonstrating the usage of a concealed and carry holster. According to WNEP, police said a plastic model of a gun is typically used during demonstrations.

“Often times that is what is utilized,” explained Sergeant Leonard Rogutski, of the Bloomsburg Police. “This time the vendor used a real gun.”

In this case Hawk demonstrated with a semi-automatic .380, and though no magazine was attached, there was one round in the chamber.

Negligent, irresponsible Idiot. If the DA let's him go with an "opps" defense, she should sue his ass.

[bannination]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

Yeah guns! Let's make sure they're brain dead easy to get! (82 shot, 14 dead.)