Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 122

Thread: Student Shot In GA Middle School...

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    I understand your perspective. I just wanted you to understand that when you tell us gun-owners that we must "compromise", it's what we've been doing for a century and to be quite honest, we've compromised enough.
    Freestater I respect your opinions and your position that there has already been a lot of compromises made. But here is the truth; society evolves and changes. 100 years ago most people had no idea what Psychology was and the few that heard of it thought of it as a step away from witchcraft. I would argue that the attitudes towards mental issues/Psychology were not that much better 50 years ago (for proof, bring up the notion of people seeking counseling to someone from that generation).

    As new discoveries are made in the field of Psychology gun laws have to be reevaluated to account for people who suffer from those issues and their legal avenues to acquiring dangerous weapons.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 02-03-2013 at 05:59 AM.

  2. #82
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,792
    Chris Kyle was shot and killed yesterday.

  3. #83
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    I would say that the average citizen does not go through the training that a professional law enforcement agent goes through. And I am not just referring to training with how to use the weapon.

    That is what worries me when I hear gun advocates claim that arming everyone will make us safer.
    I go to a range with plenty of LEOs. Some of them are decent shots. Some... not so much. I could hold my own with a majority of them. Of course, now getting ammo to keep my skills sharp will probably be less readily available. Unfortunately, none of this answers my question:

    Under what circumstances is it OK for the police or government officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

  4. #84
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Freestater I respect your opinions and your position that there has already been a lot of compromises made. But here is the truth; society evolves and changes. 100 years ago most people had no idea what Psychology was and the few that heard of it thought of it as a step away from witchcraft. I would argue that the attitudes towards mental issues/Psychology were not that much better 50 years ago (for proof, bring up the notion of people seeking counseling to someone from that generation).

    As new discoveries are made in the field of Psychology gun laws have to be reevaluated to account for people who suffer from those issues and their legal avenues to acquiring dangerous weapons.
    This, I'm in favor of. (I'll probably regret saying so, because the term may become unrecognizable in short order-but that's another topic) Keeping mentally ill people from obtaining firearms is a prudent course of action in my opinion.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Chris Kyle was shot and killed yesterday.
    Incredibly sad, he is a great American.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    I go to a range with plenty of LEOs. Some of them are decent shots. Some... not so much. I could hold my own with a majority of them. Of course, now getting ammo to keep my skills sharp will probably be less readily available. Unfortunately, none of this answers my question:

    Under what circumstances is it OK for the police or government officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?
    It's a loaded question. Police/govt have these weapons to "STOP" the killing of a lot of people in a short period of time here in the U.S.

    Soldiers in the time of war its a dumb question.

  7. #87
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    It's a loaded question. Police/govt have these weapons to "STOP" the killing of a lot of people in a short period of time here in the U.S.
    I assume that the "killing of a lot of people", that needed to be stopped, would be done by a large group of people then, right? Otherwise, an Andy Cuomo-approved gun containing only 7 rounds would be sufficient to stop one or two armed perpetrators, no?

    Sounds like some statistical anomaly, surely the police are well-trained enough (or so I've been told ad naseum) to stop a single or double perpetrator group with a minimum of weapons and ammo. I mean, if it's good enough for me to protect my life....

    Soldiers in the time of war its a dumb question.
    So you're saying that domestic LEOs don't need such weapons?

  8. #88
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Incredibly sad, he is a great American.
    I think you meant "was".

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Chris Kyle was shot and killed yesterday.
    (CNN) -- A former Navy SEAL known for claiming a record number of sniper killings in Iraq was one of two men shot dead at a Texas gun range, allegedly at the hands of a fellow military veteran, officials say.

    Sad that he was apparently killed by a fellow (former) member of the armed services.

  10. #90
    I do not agree with Cuomo's approved laws. Ever since the LA bank robberies law enforcement realized they were out gunned, the LAPD had to ammo from a gun shop as 2 males shot up the city. Police officers should never be put in harms way with inferior equipment.


    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    I assume that the "killing of a lot of people", that needed to be stopped, would be done by a large group of people then, right? Otherwise, an Andy Cuomo-approved gun containing only 7 rounds would be sufficient to stop one or two armed perpetrators, no?

    Sounds like some statistical anomaly, surely the police are well-trained enough (or so I've been told ad naseum) to stop a single or double perpetrator group with a minimum of weapons and ammo. I mean, if it's good enough for me to protect my life....



    So you're saying that domestic LEOs don't need such weapons?

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    (CNN) -- A former Navy SEAL known for claiming a record number of sniper killings in Iraq was one of two men shot dead at a Texas gun range, allegedly at the hands of a fellow military veteran, officials say.

    Sad that he was apparently killed by a fellow (former) member of the armed services.
    And one apparently suffering from PTSD and/or other mental health issues.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    I think you meant "was".
    Sure

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Police officers should never be put in harms way with inferior equipment.
    Should individuals in their homes be put in harms way with that same inferior equipment?

  14. #94
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    I do not agree with Cuomo's approved laws.
    But you do agree with a ban on AR15s, though.

    Ever since the LA bank robberies law enforcement realized they were out gunned, the LAPD had to ammo from a gun shop as 2 males shot up the city. Police officers should never be put in harms way with inferior equipment.
    Again. Two guys. Two. I thought these officers who are the only ones to be trusted with such weaponry are the "well-trained" "experts". Surely, well-trained experts wouldn't need such a crutch as a high capacity magazine.

    A good sniper with a bolt-action .308 could've achieved the same result. The fact is (according to gun-grabbers) that the only purpose of these weapons is to "kill a lot of people in a short period of time".

    I know you don't have an answer that doesn't sound capricious and arbitrary, but I'll ask again anyway.... under what circumstance is it OK for the police or govt. officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

  15. #95
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Sure
    Well, the fellow is no longer with us.

    Just trying to get you to be accurate for once.

  16. #96
    Take a breath. I'm talking about regulating guns not taking them all away. I'm proud of you, shooting a piece of paper as well or better than a bunch of LEO's is wonderful. Too bad that's not LEO's #1 function.
    The LA robbery I am referring too was not just about high capacity weapons. They wore full body amour, the LAPD's rounds were inadequate.



    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    But you do agree with a ban on AR15s, though.



    Again. Two guys. Two. I thought these officers who are the only ones to be trusted with such weaponry are the "well-trained" "experts". Surely, well-trained experts wouldn't need such a crutch as a high capacity magazine.

    A good sniper with a bolt-action .308 could've achieved the same result. The fact is (according to gun-grabbers) that the only purpose of these weapons is to "kill a lot of people in a short period of time".

    I know you don't have an answer that doesn't sound capricious and arbitrary, but I'll ask again anyway.... under what circumstance is it OK for the police or govt. officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

  17. #97
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Take a breath. I'm talking about regulating guns not taking them all away.
    How about ARs? You did say that civilians have "no legitimate use" for an AR.

    I'm proud of you, shooting a piece of paper as well or better than a bunch of LEO's is wonderful. Too bad that's not LEO's #1 function.
    The LA robbery I am referring too was not just about high capacity weapons. They wore full body amour, the LAPD's rounds were inadequate.
    (I'll ignore the thinly-veiled dig) Which would've been more effective vs. body armor: a semi-auto .223, or a bolt-action .308?

    If it's the .308, then why should cops need ARs again, if they're just sooo darn dangerous?

    If it's the .223, then why should cops be allowed to protect themselves with better equipment than those of us they're purportedly there to help defend?

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    And one apparently suffering from PTSD and/or other mental health issues.
    I'm guessing the soldier was on one of the anti-depressant medications. Read the label and they say may cause psychotic behavior including killing oneself or others.

  19. #99
    I guess you and I have different views, maybe because you love guns and I have experienced too many funerals for friends/co-workers who were gunned down responding to help people. I'm not a gun guy, I carry one for work and never understood the fascination with them. I have buddies that feel the same way as you and we still are friends. I'm their reference when the apply for gun permits.

    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    How about ARs? You did say that civilians have "no legitimate use" for an AR.



    (I'll ignore the thinly-veiled dig) Which would've been more effective vs. body armor: a semi-auto .223, or a bolt-action .308?

    If it's the .308, then why should cops need ARs again, if they're just sooo darn dangerous?

    If it's the .223, then why should cops be allowed to protect themselves with better equipment than those of us they're purportedly there to help defend?

  20. #100
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,820
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    I guess you and I have different views, maybe because you love guns and I have experienced too many funerals for friends/co-workers who were gunned down responding to help people. I'm not a gun guy, I carry one for work and never understood the fascination with them. I have buddies that feel the same way as you and we still are friends. I'm their reference when the apply for gun permits.
    So that's a yes on the ARs?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us