Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gamewell45 said:
I’m curious; why do you think that a shot gun nor rifle would do the job?
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised that you would ask such a question, but I am surprised that you would include rifle.

You might as well be asking, we’ll why don’t you use hand grenades to protect your home?

A rifle is a tool designed for one purpose, and very few home invasions would fit that purpose. A rifle is designed for the moment when you may have a long distance shot, where you need to control your breathing, and steady your aim in hopes to hit a vital organ and drop your prey where it stands.

I would rather use my knife than a rifle in most cases of a home invasion.

My knife:



At least I’d have a weapon in each hand and could use the element of surprise. The best I could do with a rifle would be to use it as a blunt force weapon and hope you don’t have your weapon on the ready.

A shotgun, yes can be used for multiple occasions. But I’d have to insist on it being sawed off for home protection. They are just too heavy to be very effective against a pistol. Unless you are on the other side of a door trying to break in and I have time to do what I need to do. Another consideration one should keep in mind is capacity and reload time. Shotgun vs. Handgun = Shotgun loses 99 percent of the time. That one percent would be if the homeowner could have one of those fully automatic shotguns with large clips and grenade rounds. 🙂

I don’t think you realize the number of people who are not only handgun owners, but just enjoy shooting them as a recreation, and the large following there is in competition. Things such as the Bianchi Cup which my FIL shoots in.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I’m not surprised that you would ask such a question, but I am surprised that you would include rifle.

You might as well be asking, we’ll why don’t you use hand grenades to protect your home?

A rifle is a tool designed for one purpose, and very few home invasions would fit that purpose. A rifle is designed for the moment when you may have a long distance shot, where you need to control your breathing, and steady your aim in hopes to hit a vital organ and drop your prey where it stands.

I would rather use my knife than a rifle in most cases of a home invasion.

My knife:

http://www.elinemerchandising.com/media/columbia/4238157.jpg

At least I’d have a weapon in each hand and could use the element of surprise. The best I could do with a rifle would be to use it as a blunt force weapon and hope you don’t have your weapon on the ready.

A shotgun, yes can be used for multiple occasions. But I’d have to insist on it being sawed off for home protection. They are just too heavy to be very effective against a pistol. Unless you are on the other side of a door trying to break in and I have time to do what I need to do. Another consideration one should keep in mind is capacity and reload time. Shotgun vs. Handgun = Shotgun loses 99 percent of the time. That one percent would be if the homeowner could have one of those fully automatic shotguns with large clips and grenade rounds. 🙂

I don’t think you realize the number of people who are not only handgun owners, but just enjoy shooting them as a recreation, and the large following there is in competition. Things such as the Bianchi Cup which my FIL shoots in.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, it just seems to me that a rifle and shot gun are more intimidating, effective and I can tell you that if i was staring down the barrel of a shot gun as opposed to a hand gun, i’d be a lot more worried for my life.

Knives are ok until the person pulls out a shot gun or rifle and then it’d take the gun over a knife any day.

As for the recreational shooters, the hand guns can be easily controlled by keeping them in a secure armory on premises.
 
gamewell45 said:
I don’t know, it just seems to me that a rifle and shot gun are more intimidating, effective and I can tell you that if i was staring down the barrel of a shot gun as opposed to a hand gun, i’d be a lot more worried for my life.
Click to expand...
It depends on the circumstances.

The only gun fight I know of that occurred around here recently a rifle would have gotten the store owner and his wife robbed and killed. Instead he killed one of the robbers and scared the other two away with a shotgun I believe it was.
Knives are ok until the person pulls out a shot gun or rifle and then it’d take the gun over a knife any day.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends. If I’m breaking into your home with knives vs. your shotgun you better get the jump on me from a distance. Within 5 ft. your dead unless you are aiming from the hip with some bird shot which I’ve seen hit dogs in the head and they kept on going. 10 ft. and you might have a chance. Have you ever shot a shotgun? Ever been clay pigeon shooting?
As for the recreational shooters, the hand guns can be easily controlled by keeping them in a secure armory on premises.
Click to expand...
Many of us practice with our pistols on our private property. Not exactly something I’d expect a liberal to understand though. We own 170 acres down here that we hunt, fish and do pretty much whatever we want with…wonder when you guys will start telling people they own too much land and take it away from them?
 
gilliam said:
I see no reason to believe that Loughner would not have used a knife had he not been able to get a gun.
Click to expand...
Had he used a knife, he would probably only killed one person or maybe two before being restrained.
 
kaid100 said:
Had he used a knife, he would probably only killed one person or maybe two before being restrained.
Click to expand...
That’s comical. Way to miss the point. He wouldn’t have used a knife.

You think somehow criminals will not acquire guns if you ban them? You certainly must have some evidence to support this.

I assume you believe if we made drugs illegals they won’t find their way into crimial hands too right? Oh wait…
 
gamewell45 said:
I honestly couldn’t tell you since I don’t partake in either.
Click to expand...
Try hiring some workers with a drug screen in the pre-employment process. You’ll learn real quick how common those drugs and many others are. In Nowhere Kansas and Oklahoma we lose about half of our applicants that have already been screened through the interview process. I can only imagine what the rates are in more urban areas.
 
has anyone considered what this psycho would have done if he had not had a firearm? do you really think he would have tried to use a knife or a club?

anyone can go on the internet and learn how to build a pipe bomb

this guy could have potentially strapped bombs to himself and blown himself and everyone in that safeway up with him

I agree that a person who is mentally unstable should be barred from buying weapons, but in order to stop them we need to change the way we deal with mentally disturbed people. The VA Tech shooter and this kid are perfect examples of the serious lack in affectiveness of how we deal with mental illness.

If we don’t deal with crazy people then there is no way we can keep them from doing crazy things, like killing people with guns, bombs, cars, or anything else that can be used as a weapon to inflict harm (there are plenty more options that can kill lots of innocent people).

Timothy McVeigh was undeniably crazy, he didn’t need a gun to commit mass murder. Any other crazy psycho killer won’t either.
 
The solution is simple. Make it illegal to be insane. Problem solved. Carry on.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The solution is simple. Make it illegal to be insane. Problem solved. Carry on.
Click to expand...
or we can reevaluate how we deal with people who are exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, as this young man obviously was per the testimony of his classmates and friends

we need to help these people and get them treatment before they snap and committ these crimes. this young man needed help, and the people who could have helped him by en large ignored him. the same thing happened with the VA Tech shooter. Now both of these guys committed their crimes and they need to be held responsible as criminals, but we can’t just ignore people like these and hope they will go away.

Guns don’t grow legs and walk down the street and shoot people, they need a person to pull the trigger. We need to help people and deal with those exhibiting these symptoms more affectively. That should be first and foremost in our conversations about this problem. A cry to ban guns turns a blind eye to the real problem at hand.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The solution is simple. Make it illegal to be insane. Problem solved. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Obviously it’s much easier to enforce laws on all the non-insane Americans, who will grudgingly follow any preposterous law which is enacted. Then these kinds of incidents will still happen with the same or higher frequency, no one will ever have a chance of defending himself, his home or his family, and all the Liberals will for some reason be happy about that.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
or we can reevaluate how we deal with people who are exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, as this young man obviously was per the testimony of his classmates and friends

we need to help these people and get them treatment before they snap and committ these crimes. this young man needed help, and the people who could have helped him by en large ignored him. the same thing happened with the VA Tech shooter. Now both of these guys committed their crimes and they need to be held responsible as criminals, but we can’t just ignore people like these and hope they will go away.

Guns don’t grow legs and walk down the street and shoot people, they need a person to pull the trigger. We need to help people and deal with those exhibiting these symptoms more affectively. That should be first and foremost in our conversations about this problem. A cry to ban guns turns a blind eye to the real problem at hand.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the VA guy was getting help however when you do a background check it cannot show if a person is being treated for a mental illness because of privacy laws. So the person can still purchase a firearm.

Another point is what if a person doesn’t want help—you cannot throw a net over someone’s head and drag them to hospital—so it’s a Catch 22.
 
Suudy said:
I think you can, if you can demonstrate the person is a threat to society.
Click to expand...
It takes a court order. He would have to be arrested for threatening behavior. Held long enough for psychiatric evaluations.

My sister in laws mother committed suicide. She attempted twice before she succeeded.
Each time she was admitted to the hospital, but a hospital can not keep you. If you want to leave, you can leave. My sister in laws family tried everything to get her to stay or go to a mental hospital. She refused. They had no authority to make her stay and get help.
She went home after the 2nd time… had round the clock supervision and still… locked herself in the bathroom and killed herself.

This kid is 22… his parents would have no authority over him… no authority to make him get help… no authority to admit him and make him stay at a mental hospital. Maybe they could have sought legal help to get him committed … who knows. Hindsight is 20/20.

I don’t know the answer. We live in a free society.

I do know that the stigma for getting mental help is still there. One trip to the psyche ward and it follows you your whole life.

Tragic.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
It takes a court order. He would have to be arrested for threatening behavior. Held long enough for psychiatric evaluations.
Click to expand...
The Diana Rheem Show on NPR this mrning had a number of Mental Heath experts in a discussion and your anecdotal evidence backs up what they said. It is very difficult to get mental heath commitment for anyone who doesn’t want it, and difficult beyond that to get long-term commitment even if called for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top