Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
machete, chainsaw
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe the number of casualties would have been even close to what it was had he used a machete or chainsaw?

Comparing a machete to an AR-15 is like… Well, have you ever personally used both weapons?

I have personally trained with both knives and assault rifles - I can tell you right now I am a much more deadly force when armed with an M-16 then I am with a machete.
 
Last edited:
If you want stricter gun control, repeal the second amendment and pass legislation. Any further restrictions are gross violations of the constitution without a repeal of the second amendment.

That said, murders committed with rifles of any type are so statistically insignificant that it’s really not even worth debating.

The biggest killer is handguns, so if you really are intent on saving lives, go push for a handgun ban.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

2014 - Number killed with rifles (of all types, not just AR’s and similar) 248
Handguns - 5,562
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
The purpose is to allow the people repel invasion and (though local and/or state govts) the ability to over throw the govt by force if necessary
Click to expand...
Balogna.

Should people be allowed to own M1 Abrams and nuclear subs too then?

Guess who will win in a battle between 324,000,000 civilians armed with AR-15’s vs 1,000,000 professional US Military warriors with all the US Military technology at their hands?

Good luck going up against an A-10 Warthog or F-35 with your peashooter AR-15, lol.

It’s 2018, not 1799.

Unless the US Military itself rose up with the People against the Government, any rebellion of the People will be UTTERLY and BRUTALLY quashed - with much ease and incredible swiftness.
 
Last edited:
I will say this, a gun ban would save me tons of money 😂

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
What we need are more security forces with guns acting to protect schools. Why aren’t schools seeking out protection for their wards? Why aren’t they implementing procedures that include an armed protectorate? Why aren’t they teaching kids the proper use of guns, including a respect for them and those who use them properly instead of just spreading fear and a hopelessness leaving them emotionally adrift?

All these school shootings also demonstrate when there is ZERO resistance available when an active shooter is present. Why do their plans to protect NEVER consider legitimate protective resistance?

It’s almost like saying there was a shooting in my neighborhood so let’s even ban the police from guns. It’s pretty much the same logic when you move towards legislation to remove guns from a situation. And the above quote repeated by Jefferson is then quite clear… More gun control is the anti solution.
 
I’m jealous… Those are phenomenal pieces of weaponry.

I do think people who already own assault-style weapons should be grandfathered in, in most cases.

I’ll take that AK style rifle at the end.
 
Last edited:
JButky said:
hy aren’t schools seeking out protection for their wards? Why aren’t they implementing procedures that include an armed protectorate? Why
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t have to be that way… But it’s possible that may be a good solution - to an extent.

Why not a combined approach though?

Why not your suggestion PLUS more gun legislation?
 
I really get the desire to stop these things from happening, but if you look at the FBI data rifles are the least likely to be used. I get that the mass casualty incidences are more high profile and garner a bigger emotional response but I think we need to set aside emotions when speaking about laws that will effect 320 million people.

I do think individual states should be able to enact legislation. Back in the day the federal bill of rights did not apply to the states, and the individual states could enact legislation on an as needed basis. I think this is the right answer. States that want to ban whatever, should be able to. That’s what the whole point of decentralized federal government was for, one size doesn’t fit all in a huge diverse country such as this.
 
Good points.

Banned AR style weapons in Cali, NY and Mass would be great for the People.

Whereas banned AR style weapons in Tex or Arkansas would be a nightmare.

Heck, in TX the Church shooting showed this principle at work. If only another law abiding AR armed citizen was already at the church as security, the massacre couls have been totally avoided.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Will of the people and all. If people in those states don’t like the rules of where they’re at they are free to move somewhere that more accurately reflects their views.

Now, on the flip side, by that same logic states wouldn’t be held to the 4th amendment, 1st amendment, etc. and it would be the duty of the people to see such amendments passed in their state constitutions if those protections are desired. I think certain groups like the ACLU would have a fit over that reality.
 
Spyridon said:
f only another law abiding AR armed citizen was already at the church
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how the church would feel about it, but I do carry at Mass generally. And I sit specifically where if someone came in shooting I wouldn’t be a first target and direct fire from their flank without being shot at myself and hopefully minimize the number of people on the other side of a potential shooter.

Just a glock 43 with an extra mag, but most shooters stop as soon as they encounter any resistance. And hopefully in podunk Kentucky it never becomes a need.
 
I totally understand the desire to see Government de-centralized and power placed more squarely in the hands of the States and People.

The US Federal Govt. Bureaucratic apparatus has grown to gargantuan portions which would make Stalin and Mao envious.
 
Flor said:
Do you imagine that Papa Francisco keeps an assault rifle under his bed ?
Click to expand...
I imagine Papa Francisco has the well armed Swiss Guard at his front door, and even under his bed if he so chooses. Heck most celebrities and power figures have armed body guards. Not me though, I have to guard myself.
 
What about a heavy deisel pickup truck through the main hallway between class changes, or a fertilizer bomb like in OKC?
 
IWantGod said:
Accept in the case of a bomb, this is not easily attainable for a 19 year old. and chainsaws and machetes while legally attainable would not have caused as much damage as the AR-15. The chances of survival is evidently increased. Obviously.
Click to expand...
True. However, even 1 life taken at a school is still TOO many. I want things in place that take the number of deaths down to ZERO.

Stricter gun laws will not lower the number of school deaths to zero. But better school security (similarly to how we secure our office buildings and industrial plants will.

As Christians, we pray and hope that all the children and faculty who have died in mass murder tragedies at schools are now with God in Heaven. So while we still pray for and morn the dead, we also have hope that they are in a better place that we are. Therefore (from a Christian perspective) the true victims of a school massacre are the survivors. Whether 17 children or 1 child is killed by a mass murder at a school, the kids will still be traumatized.

What this kid did was terrorism. While terrorists want to kill people, their main goal is to cause fear, trauma, & chaos. Such fear, trauma & chaos would have been equally established with a chainsaw… and perhaps even more so with less deaths.

Point is… (again I’m not a gun owner) by removing guns, we don’t really make our kid safe because other weapons can be used. All we do is make it easier for tyranny to one day take over the United States. As a nation, if we continue to make the same mistakes as the Roman Republic, a fate of tyranny is in our future just like it was in theirs.

God Bless
 
Spyridon said:
40.png
phil19034:
machete, chainsaw
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe the number of casualties would have been even close to what it was had he used a machete or chainsaw?

Comparing a machete to an AR-15 is like… Well, have you ever personally used both weapons?

I have personally trained with both knives and assault rifles - I can tell you right now I am a much more deadly force when armed with an M-16 then I am with a machete.
Click to expand...
Please read my previous post (the one right above this one). It’s not about the number dead, it’s about the terror inflicted.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
40.png
phil19034:
The purpose is to allow the people repel invasion and (though local and/or state govts) the ability to over throw the govt by force if necessary
Click to expand...
Balogna.

Should people be allowed to own M1 Abrams and nuclear subs too then?

Guess who will win in a battle between 324,000,000 civilians armed with AR-15’s vs 1,000,000 professional US Military warriors with all the US Military technology at their hands?

Good luck going up against an A-10 Warthog or F-35 with your peashooter AR-15, lol.

It’s 2018, not 1799.

Unless the US Military itself rose up with the People against the Government, any rebellion of the People will be UTTERLY and BRUTALLY quashed - with much ease and incredible swiftness.
Click to expand...
Come on. If there was a civil war, do you really think the entire US Military would be on one side? No. Just like the last civil war, they would be on both sides.

Also, do you really think the US Military people would use nukes in their own neighborhoods during a civil war?

If we don’t have the ability to fight the govt (with force if necessary) then we should simply throw the Bill of Rights out in the trash. What you say about this being the 21st century vs the 1780s is exactly what many who are against the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment say. They say “it’s the 21st century, not the 1700s - we are beyond the myths of Christianity and God.”

An attack on any part of the Bill of Rights is an attack on the entire US Constitution.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
And yet we see countries with relatively strong militaries - Lybia, Egypt, Iraq etc. be overthrwn by small, devoted militants who started with only small arms.
 
Apples to airplanes. You won’t find anyone who supports the deregulation more than me but the idea that the average gun owner has a chance against the US government is ludicrous.

Syrians, Libyans, etc. are receiving massive amounts of foreign weapons, anti tank, anti air, etc. plus air support and training from established powers.

The revolutionary war was not won by the colonials. It was won by the French keeping the British tied up and supplying arms and training. Without the French the Brits would have crushed the rebellion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top