Shotgun Forum banner

Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?

4K views 56 replies 17 participants last post by  RandyWakeman 
#1 ·
Yeah, I know this seems like a goofy question to ask on a pro-gun forum, but has anyone else experienced it? Ever since the recent attacks on AR15s, I have experienced a lot more accusations that I'm anti-gun due to how critical I am over AR15s and their owners. Apparently some folks in the pro-gun community seem to think that just because you're opinionated over certain guns or certain types of shooting, that you're a mole for the anti-gun community.

I could go on in more details about it, but I'm sure folks don't want to read a huge wall of text from me ranting.
 
#27 ·
First, why don't you answer my questions rather than pose some pointless unrelated new question in response. Second, requiring people to get training before acquiring a drivers license does nothing to either prevent auto related accidents and deaths nor does it prevent people who possess no valid drivers license from driving. This next part is very important. Please read it carefully and try to understand what it says. The type of person who would commit acts of violence against another person DOES NOT CAREabout passing a background check or about being properly trained on firearms or self defense. Those laws only serve to further restrict and complicate the lives of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I don't know how to make it any clearer or more understandable. The "reforms" you support do absolutely nothing to affect any criminal misuse of guns. Again, it only affects law abiding citizens therefore those "reforms" are the very definition of anti-2A.
 
#28 ·
duckqwacker said:
First, why don't you answer my questions rather than pose some pointless unrelated new question in response.
duckqwacker. First I would point out that you introduced 'practicing your religion' or expressing an opinion' that were the unrelated items to begin with....but alright, in answer to you question, no, I would not require licensing in order to practice a religion or express an opinion. Practicing a religion and expressing an opinion, do not, by themselves cause injury to others. Obviously, as numerous events throughout history can demonstrate, religions and opinions, or ideals, can be used to motivate people to do horrible things. Conversely, putting loaded weapons in the hands of novice inexperienced shooters who have no idea how to use them safely and effectively will most certainly will result in injuries or worse.

duckqwacker said:
Second, requiring people to get training before acquiring a drivers license does nothing to either prevent auto related accidents and deaths
You do not think making people attend drivers ed and a licensing exam to prove they have learned the rules of the road does anything to reduce auto accidents or deaths? You really feel that if we just allowed anyone to go buy or rent a car, get behind the wheel and start driving without any training, there would be no uptick in auto accidents or deaths? I do not envy you trying to support this position? That is crazy to say the least. Are there still auto accidents, of course, but to argue that education, training and licensing tests do not reduce them at all is ridiculous.

duckqwacker said:
The "reforms" you support do absolutely nothing to affect any criminal misuse of guns. Again, it only affects law abiding citizens therefore those "reforms" are the very definition of anti-2A.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you in regards to effective background checks. Some of the shooters in recent shootings should not have had guns yet they were still able to acquire them. If we had an effective system in place, and the background checks were done instantaneously and efficiently they would not be any complication or hindrance to law abiding citizen. Listen, if you are ok with anyone being allowed to own a gun...regardless of criminal past, or mental health history...if you believe that, it is fine, and we can just agree to disagree. If you feel that felons and those whose mental health may pose a risk to others should be prevented from owning guns...well...how do you do that without background checks?

In regards to training, I do not anticipate it to affect criminal activity. I am trying to address a concern regarding ignorance, and the potentially devastating side effect this could create.

Now, if you would kindly answer my question....What is so bad about asking people to get training if they want to use firearms. I see too many novice shooters who obviously have little to no insight into how to safely handle guns. I see lack of muzzle awareness, trigger awareness, safeties off too soon. If you had a child...would you let them go out, get a gun and just start shooting without providing them with some instruction on safe gun handling and proper gun use? Is asking someone to be responsible really such a complication in their life?
 
#29 ·
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.
 
#30 ·
The First amendment is not irrelevant in a discussion about rights. Are you unclear of what a right is? The privilege to drive a car is irrelevant in that same discussion. You keep pitching this false narrative that if someone doesn't support background checks then they are for felons and children buying guns but that's ridiculous. Again, felons by definition don't follow the law so a background check is not going to help. People get guns all the time regardless of background checks. No rational human being believes that training doesn't contribute to a safer individual and a higher degree of responsibility. The problem with government mandates is the proverbial slippery slope. Once the door is open to mandates pertaining to rights those rights will soon be mandated out of existence. When the choice is between a 1% chance of being shot versus a virtual guarantee the 2A will be regulated out of existence I'll take my chances on getting shot. I take a much bigger risk everyday when I get behind the wheel and drive to work.
 
#31 ·
stripersonfly said:
Randy,

EXACTLY, and I agree, and think how much worse it would be if we did not require people to get training on how to drive, and then demonstrate their ability with a driver's exam?

I have tried to demonstrate why training would be a good thing. Let me turn this around. Why is requiring training for firearm usage bad? Assuming that if someone went through appropriate training and they were guaranteed the right to own firearms, why is that bad? What is wrong with that? Firearms are wonderful things. I really enjoy them. I also have a great deal of respect for them, and I think all of your do too. They are very powerful, and if used incorrectly, they can be very dangerous. What is wrong with asking people to attend training to learn how to use them safely?
Driver's exams are hardly extensive, regular, or demanding. Operating an automobile is far, far more complicated than using a gun.

What is wrong is infringing on an unalienable right. This is a huge distinction, as keeping and bearing arms is a right Americans are born with, not a privilege to be dispensed by government, but a right.

There is no right to own or operate an automobile.
 
#32 ·
stripersonfly said:
oneounceload said:
What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.
I feel these types of arguments overlook common sense. First, drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal. We also regulate both of these activities. You need to be 21 to drink, and you need to be of a certain age and taken training, before driving. And our enforcement of these is lousy. Most of the other items you mention (knives, bats, chainsaws, pressure cookers, etc.) require more of a conscious decision and action on the part of an individual to use them to hurt someone else. Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.
More people are murdered by things like "blunt force trauma" than ARs.

I do have an issue letting someone with no knowledge of firearms, someone completely new to firearms, being able to walk into a store, buy a gun and ammo and walk out and hope for the best
I do not even need a DL to BUY a car; I don't need training to buy knives or chainsaws or any other deadly device..........

SHOULD people get instruction? Absolutely. Making a LAW, I am totally against.

But then I am also for removing all warning labels from everything and letting Nature take its course..... :wink:
 
#33 ·
On the subject of background checks, my main personal gripe with it isn't that I'm cheap and don't wanna pay the background check fee. It's isn't the invasion of privacy (although that sucks too). It's the demonizing it does to all us law abiding citizens. When we walk into a gun shop with the intent to buy a gun that very day, all the background check does is make us automatic criminals who are guilty until proven innocent.

For the sake of argument here, let's pretend a magic wand was waved and all background checks disappeared and we never had to go through them again to buy a gun legally. Even without the background checks we are still going to be having to leave our personal information on the paperwork. Do you think that a career criminal is going to risk going back to jail and leave their personal information at a gun shop where the records get checked by the ATF every so often? Of course not! They won't step foot in a gun shop, they'll buy their gun on the street regardless of background checks being gone. That's where background checks fail in my book. The only people they affect is law abiding citizens.
 
#34 ·
stripersonfly said:
oneounceload said:
What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.
I feel these types of arguments overlook common sense. First, drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal. We also regulate both of these activities. You need to be 21 to drink, and you need to be of a certain age and taken training, before driving. And our enforcement of these is lousy. Most of the other items you mention (knives, bats, chainsaws, pressure cookers, etc.) require more of a conscious decision and action on the part of an individual to use them to hurt someone else. Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.
So, guns don't require a conscious decision by someone before shooting someone?
So somehow the gun sucks them into a trance and makes them unknowingly shoot people.
I'm amazed at that point the gun even needs to use a person, just jump up and shoot people on its own.
Son of Sam was lying then when he said his neighbors dog was telling him to kill people, it was his gun the whole time.
When the kid shot up Va. Tech, was it the gun or the chains that told him to chain the doors shut? Smart sneaky gun if it was.

Accidental firearm injuries (including deaths) have never been lower than they are today, yet there are many times more guns in people's hands (and being carried around loaded) than EVER in U S history, yet there is where you are about to hang your hat isn't it?
 
#36 ·
Jim Miller said:
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.
I've run that same test with a 1911 .45ACP. I got the same results and arrived at the same conclusion.
 
#37 ·
It is really a game the liberals are winning. Maser mentioned "career criminals". What the hell is a career criminal doing walking around free? The revolving door of the criminal justice system is a tool to use to enslave the rest of us. No background checks are needed if all the people who cannot be trusted are locked up. There will be those few who go off the deep end without any prior criminal record, but those I think would be the exception. We have to live with all sorts of risks in life. This is just another.
For those who think a background check or another ban would bring safety, I say, be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

I for one do not want to live in a country where only the people in government have the guns.

Jim
 
#38 ·
What is being mentioned boils down to the concept that it is society's fault that an innocent person is turned bad.
Remember the old commercials with the group of teen boys out and about when they see that some negligent person left their keys in a car and the message of, Don't let a good boy go bad.
There is a certain amount of evil in humanity and to enable and excuse such evil is in itself a minor form of mental illness.
Co-dependency is not healthy.
Codependency is characterized by a person belonging to a dysfunctional, one-sided relationship where one person relies on the other for meeting nearly all of their emotional and self-esteem needs. It also describes a relationship that enables another person to maintain their irresponsible, addictive, or underachieving behavior.
https://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-codependency/
 
#39 ·
Vette Jockey said:
Jim Miller said:
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.
I've run that same test with a 1911 .45ACP. I got the same results and arrived at the same conclusion.
I am now almost 9 yrs (or is it 10, not real sure) into a similar test involving a 1911, except that this one is loaded, in Condition 1 carry mode, 8+1 rounds of Mayhem (I love those commercials) ready to make noise.
The only firearm to sew as much panic and panty-wadding abject terror in a liberal as the AR15 is the Cocked And Locked Government Model .45.

That gun doesn't even have to load itself, all it has to do is fling itself out of my holster and start shooting people (one would likely expect me first so I do not interfere in it's nefarious plans).
My employer would frown mightily if I carried at work, but I have other business to attend to often before and/or after work, so every afternoon it winds up in a security-patrolled parking lot (keeps car thievery down) in either a glovebox or a console (depends on vehicle), and similalrly, in all this time it has not seen fit to shoot the car/truck, the car or truck next door, or the person walking by between cars.

If it weren't for folks like Geraldo Rivera who plainly stated an AR15 'alters your personality' just from getting one into your fingers, I'd think this test fairly conclusive that It Isn't The Gun, but, I keep hearing things said by People Who Claim To Know (Ptttttt).
I'm certain his Depends would never survive my saying hello to him in a Stop-N-Rob if he knew about Ol' Loudmouf under my clothing. It would look like he just dropped his Mountain Dew Big Gulp in the floor, except no ice.

I am also no fan of the AR, 13 yrs hauling one around the world for the govt, shooting and cleaning the sum-beach constantly, but you folks who are willing to give the Gun Banners the AR, and the Bump Stock(an even bigger POS), and every aftermarket Timney/Geissele/and everyone else aftermarket trigger (for your dad's Remmy 700 bolt action and 200 others), they will, ABSOLUTELY WILL, come for your Stackbarrel eventually.

The most clear example in current weeks is the desire to "only ban Miltary Style Weapons".
Every firearms the world has ever seen (that was successful) was designed as a Military Arm.
Not just the A15/AR10/SR25.
The Garand, and every other semi-auto action in existence.
The Bolt Action (the Mosin Nagant, the Enfield, The Mauser, the 1903 Springfield, the Remmy 700, and ll their decendants).
The semi-auto shotgun.
The PUMP shotgun.
And, gloriously, the single shot AND double-barreled shotguns (all a Stackbarrel is is a SxS laid up on it's side).
Then there's the Revolver, followed by the self-loading pistol.

In some cases military sales to governments made the companies (large, successful sales allowing the companies to grow and develop more guns).

California is trying to pass (I fully expect the worst from Commiefornia (as well as New York/Jersey)) a law that requires background checks and waiting periods (and face-to-face-only sales) on "firearm precursors".
What is that?
Gun PARTS.
Not just receivers/frames, heavens no.
Barrels, triggers, stocks, bolts, hammers, springs, cylinders, choke tubes, magazines, and on and on.
Already done it on ammunition, at what point will they figure out that ammunition has "precursors" you & I buy?????
Is there REALLY a difference between a shotgun barrel and a length of steel pipe?

Eventually, they'll regulate or ban IT ALL, because they have clearly stated this as their final goal.

No.
We have given away too much already.
There is no legal product industry that is as heavily regulated/restricted as guns ALREADY.

No more.

NONE of the 20,000 gun laws already on the books do anything to 'make you safer', not any more than being effectively strip-searched to board an airplane these days makes you any "safer".
Some people buy into "security drama" though, and they are willing to let more and more of it take over too.

The government who people want to "protect" them, went to court a decade or more ago (likely closer to 2) in order to prove, legally, beyond any doubt, that The Government has absolutely ZERO legally binding requirement to "protect" anyone.
They won, US Supreme Court.

They DID admit to "having a job to do", and that 'job' is to show up after the carnage is all done, pick up the pieces, figure out who did it, and try to find them so they can be given a fair trial, if any laws were broken.

A guy in Tortonto Monday drove a rental van 13 blocks (or so, 1.4 kilometers) ON THE SIDEWALK, killing at least 10 people who couldn't get out of his way.
Was it The Van?
Can we get some Common Sense Van Controls?
Restrictions on powerful engines, restrictions on allowed fuel capacity, only allowed to rent 2 vans a year, only allowed 5 gal. of gas a week, universal background checks and 5-day waiting periods on all rentals and possession transfers. I could think up more on a whim.
Is it not already against the law to drive a van on the sidewalk?
Is it not already against the law to deliberately crash into/run over people with a van, particularly ON THE SIDEWALK?????
From the first hit to his arrest, when the van was stopped,, 26 MINUTES!!!!!!!!

When the delivery truck in Stockholm Sweeden rammed the Christmas Shoppers back in 2016, there was ACTUALLY a city legislator who proposed banning trucks in the city streets at any times when "people were likely to be out and about", basically 5AM-ish to 3AM-ish or so. They could deliver to businesses for that couple-hour overnight window.

This is the same idiot bunch who decided to give Gender Preference for snow removal that winter.
"More men drive than women, more women walk or bicycle. Thus, the sidewalks were cleared FIRST, and the streets LAST.
Google up the results.

"Gender Equal Snow Removal"

No, not a thing more for the Gun Banners, and in fact I want stuff BACK because of laws that do not work.
 
#40 ·
I can see it now! Background check on buying a cord of firewood in California because someone could make a bump stock out of a piece
 
#41 ·
Stripersonfly, I really think you are mistaken when you imply that kids who don't have imeadiate family to teach them are unsafe with firearms.

I am the only person in my family with guns. I'm perfectly safe with them. My brother on the other hand should not own a firearm IMO. It aint just his ignorance about guns and gun safety either. He just does not have the temper for it.

But, you cannot legitimately punish people for a crime that has yet to be committed.
 
#42 ·
For those of you who have written 'tongue in cheek' about their experiments leaving their guns out, and no one has gotten harmed in 10 years. First of all, I am not sure what the point is. I do not think guns will spontaneously hurt someone, and I am not arguing that. I do think that guns in inexperienced hands can hurt someone. I do not think it is onerous or 'punishment' to ask people to get some training on how to use firearms. I do not think it is any sort of infringement on their right. But still, to reply, here is an article that says these types of 'experiments' do not always result in such peaceful endings. In 2015, 265 such 'experiments' where the gun owner did not touch his gun, but someone still ended up hurt or worse occurred.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 2595ad01f9\

oldthompson said:
Stripersonfly, I really think you are mistaken when you imply that kids who don't have imeadiate family to teach them are unsafe with firearms.
Oldthompson,

I understand your point, and realize I am making a generalization that is not fair to everyone, but you are helping me make my point. It is more because of people like your brother that I feel everyone ought to get training. We currently do not possess a good way for a gun shop owner to know if they are selling a gun to a responsible grown up or an idiot. Nor do I want to put them in that position.
 
#43 ·
Once again though stripersonfly, "guns in inexperience hands" equates to "accidental shootings"

Accidental shooting are FEWER in number, annually, today, right now, than they have EVER been in the amount of time such statistics have been compiled in this country.

There is no way to proclaim that gun ownership is not higher than it has ever been in this country. 310 million guns, among 306 million people(2009).
114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns.

Over 120 children 15 years old or younger were killed in gun accidents in 1998.[137] Accidental injuries are most common in homes where guns are kept for self-defense. The injuries are self-inflicted in half of the cases.
On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued 23 Executive Orders on Gun Safety, one of which was for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to research causes and possible prevention of gun violence. The five main areas of focus were gun violence, risk factors, prevention/intervention, gun safety and how media and violent video games influence the public. They also researched the area of accidental firearm deaths.
According to this study (which was immediately buried not to see the light of day until just recently) not only have the number of accidental firearm deaths been on the decline over the past century but they now account for less than 1% of all unintentional deaths, half of which are self-inflicted.



Yes, "inexperience" is a root cause of accidents, but those accidents are fewer today than ever before, so those "inexperienced" are not a major problem (less than 1% of ALL accidental deaths).

How about we try addressing those other 99% of Accidental Deaths instead of punishing me for not harming anyone?
 
#44 ·
Old Stuffer, I agree with what you have written. My posting of that article was not to proclaim there is a huge rise in accidental shooting deaths, but instead was to push back on the 'experiment' comments about guns left in a 'safe' place by there owners never cause a problem. In fact, they can cause a problem.

Again, I do not see asking a prospective gun owner to get training, or demonstrate they are knowledgeable in fire use and firearm safety as 'punishment' or an infringement of their rights. Contrary to what Randy had written earlier, the right to keep and bear arms is not a right we are born with. Instead it is a right that is provided to us by our constitution, and in fact in many places it is a right, just like our right to vote, that you are not able to exercise until you are a certain age.

Why does the constitution mandate a certain age for voting, or to hold certain offices. It was to ensure that prior to coming into these rights, a person had enough life experiences to hopefully develop the knowledge and wisdom to exercise these rights with respect and prudence. I feel the same sort of approach should be applied to the second amendment.
 
#45 ·
Just for the sake of discussion, let's give the Gun Banners the AR, and the Bump Stock, and anything that "makes a gun shoot faster" (all the binary triggers, electronic triggers, AND Jerry Miculik's Finger),Where exactly does that alter the "accidental shootings by children"?

Not one worthwhile bit.

The huge vast majority of "accidental" shootings are done with Handguns, not long guns. That includes the people who Dick Cheney someone, or some idiot deer hunter who shoots at a deer atop a hill (sky for a backstop), MISSES, and hits a guy driving his truck down a country road a mile or 2 away (yep, been done).

In order to make any reasonable impact on 'accidental' shootings, you have to impact handguns, not AR's.

"Accidental shootings"...............how does a magazine that holds 10 rounds, or 15, 20, or 30, of ANY importance to "accidental" shootings.
A lot of the "accidents" happen with no magazine in the handgun (yet the chamber had a live one in it), so even "0-round magazines" will not stop Accidental Shootings".

Age, yes,, let's go there...

So,, obviously 18 yrs old is no longer a fully-righted "adult" in this country.
Yet they are allowed to join the military, use real actual machine guns and explosives, and DIE for the country that limits their rights.
They are allowed to vote too (and usually do for leftists).
Let's go with "when they reach maturity" then.
A 2013 study published in Cerebral Cortex offers a scientific explanation behind the common notion that men take longer to "act their age" than women do. According to the study, it's rooted in the fact that the female brain establishes connections and "prunes" itself faster than the male brain.

"It seems that the process starts a few years after birth and continues to occur until around 40 years old," co-author Sol Lim, a graduate student at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, told Mic.
https://mic.com/articles/111226/science ... .JrmvGKzdr

So,, according to that study, people's brains aren't "mature" until around 40.
Men grow up at 43 - 11 years later than women
OK,, so, no voting, no military, and no gun rights until 43 (32 for women) (but by all means they have Free Speech Rights against the government, and all the other amendments to the Bill Of Rights,,, except the 2nd).

How old was the Professional Gambler who shot up the concert venue in Vegas last year???????

What "governmental offices" does the Constitution actually put an age on as a requirement?
I am only aware of ONE. The Presidency (and by further court rulings over the last 200 years the Vice Presidency) but the Constitution itself says nothing about the age of the VP.

Any other office anyone 18 yrs old or older can hold.

Some states (and cities) have candidacy age laws, but if I have missed all the Federal ones please enlighten me.
I found 2 others I was unaware of, Senator (30) Representative (25).

So, since you can't be a House Member until 25, should THAT be the age you get Gun Rights, or 30, or 35?
Plaxico Burres was 30 when he Glocked himself in NY (in fact, with ah illegal firearm carried illegally as well)
Apparently 30 is too young.

In 2007 there were 54 children under 13 killed by accidental shootings.
In 2007, 999 children drowned.
In 2007 the total of gun-related deaths up through age 19 was 137.
There are 30X more guns in private hands than pools, yet pool drownings outnumber gun deaths almost 100:1 and for children under 5, 500:1.
Nobody is banning swimming pools, or cars.

Once again, those "accidents" are almost entirely the realm of SHORT guns, not long ones.
But people want to ban AR15's, and some people are more than happy to give in to them.
Those handgun "accidents" are now almost entirely again, the Modern Striker Fired High Capacity Pistol (with the trigger dingus).
If you want to make an impact on 'accidental' shootings, you get rid of the MSFHCP.
Yet, people are willing to give them the AR15.
Yet I will also oppose the banning of the Glock and all it's Clones (the Smith & Glockon, the Glockfield, the Glockus, the Heckler & Glock, Glocketta, Glock Saur, is Colt the only maker without a MSFHCP with trigger dingus?), and I am also no fanboy of the MSFHCP.
 
#47 ·
When did "mass" school shootings begin in this country, of students?

Guns were ALLOWED in schools until the elder Bush's 1990 GFSZ law was signed making schools Free Fire Zones.

I say that to be clear, prior to Charles Whitman the ONLY death of more than 2 people at a school was 5, and that was faculty/administration at the hands of a member of faculty due to grievances. 1940.

Charles Whitman, 1966. 17 dead.

Nov. 66, a guy who admired Speck and Whitman, at a beauty college. 5 dead

Feb. 68, S. Carolina State U, 3, protesters, by the national guard.

May 1970, Kent State, 4, again, National Guard and violent protesters.

Dec. 74, Olean NY, but he shot 3 passers by of the closed school.

July '76, Cal State Fullerton, 7 people.

November '85, Spanaway Washington, 3 dead, 2 plus the female gunman (1 was ex-BF)

Now, the GFSZ is law from here on out:

October 1997, Pearl High School, 3 killed, Mom, Ex GF, and a 3rd female.

April '99, Columbine H.S., 15 dead.

March 2005, Red Lake Minnesota, 10 killed including the school security guard

April 2007, Va. Tech, 33 dead.

Feb. 2008, Baton Rouge La, 3 dead.

Feb. 2008, Northern Dekalb Ill, 6 dead.

Feb. 2012, Chardon High School, 3 dead.

April 2012, Oikos Univ, Oakland, 7

Dec. 2012, Sandy Hook, 28 dead.

Jan. 2013 Hazard Ky, 3 dead.

June 2013 Santa Monica, 6

October 2014, Marrysville Pilchuck High, 5 dead.

Oct. 2015, Umpqua Comm. College, 10 dead.

February 2018, Parkland, 17 dead.

I ignored the Enoch Brown school massacre, because it was 1764 and was perpetrated by the Delaware tribe.

So,, 42 dead in Mass Shootings (3 people or more) before the GFSZ law.
128 killed after the GFSZ law.

Now, let's look at ALL of them.

19th century (began 1840's)
31 people killed in School Shootings in 60 yrs.

20th century prior to Charles Whitman
74 in the 66 yrs prior to Charles Whitman, including any "mass" ones listed above.

Post Charles Whitman to the GFSZ law, 34 years:
120 in those years until 1990.
Why so many? Guns were not uncommon in schools prior to 1966.

89 more to round out JUST the decade closing the 20th Century, POST GFSZ law.
Wasn't that supposed to STOP these shootings?

107 deaths in schools from School Shootings just in the 2000's alone.

Add 56 between 2010 and Parkland.

Add 7 more SINCE Parkland.

105 people killed in School Shootings before Chuck Whitman took out 17 people, in almost 200 years.
120 killed JUST from Whitman until Schools became Gun Free
89 killed in just 10 yrs after schools became Gun Free
170 SO FAR in the 21st Century.

What has been the big change?

Guns have always been around, they have always been available, why is it that since the mid 1960's these shootings are so common anymore?
 
#48 ·
Oldstuffer,

In regards to your question about age limit for government offices, the constitution imposes and age limit for President at 35 years, Senators are 30 years of age, House of Representatives at 25 years of age. 18 to vote.

You cover a lot of ground in your post but a few items I wanted to touch on.

1 - I do not support gun bans or magazine bans.
2 - I am not a fan of gun free zones
3 - I do not want to stop anyone's from participating in their right to possess a firearm (except as I had mention, felons and individuals with mental health issues where they present a danger to themselves and/or others)
4 - There is no wrong type of firearm. From pistols to AR's to bespoke SxS shotguns, they are all fine in my opinion.
5 - I do not want waiting periods, or onerous background checks. We have the technology to make this happen
6 - Someone wants to gut a gun license and the do not have any of the concerns I have mentioned, they should get some training and get one, guaranteed.

In answer to your question about what has changed to cause many of the issues we are seeing, well a lot has changed. A couple of items that have struck me include:
1 - Political correctness run amuck. Many parents no longer control their kids correctly, punishment for crimes have been reduced, rights mental patients being pushed to an extremes. All of these are well intentioned, but the unforeseen repercussions were not anticipated
2 - Between video games and movies there is a glorification of violence that has caused are children to become somewhat immune to it.
 
#49 ·
Rights are something you are born with. That is why they are considered natural and unalienable. Our rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are only enumerated by it. You have not posted anything new or groundbreaking in the way of ideas to solve the gun "problems" in this country. Many other countries have tried all these liberal ideas and more. In many cases those stricter policies on guns have made things much worse. You're way behind the curve on this.
 
#50 ·
OldStufferA5#1911 said:
When did "mass" school shootings begin in this country, of students?

Guns were ALLOWED in schools until the elder Bush's 1990 GFSZ law was signed making schools Free Fire Zones.

I say that to be clear, prior to Charles Whitman the ONLY death of more than 2 people at a school was 5, and that was faculty/administration at the hands of a member of faculty due to grievances. 1940.

Charles Whitman, 1966. 17 dead.

Nov. 66, a guy who admired Speck and Whitman, at a beauty college. 5 dead

Feb. 68, S. Carolina State U, 3, protesters, by the national guard.

May 1970, Kent State, 4, again, National Guard and violent protesters.

Dec. 74, Olean NY, but he shot 3 passers by of the closed school.

July '76, Cal State Fullerton, 7 people.

November '85, Spanaway Washington, 3 dead, 2 plus the female gunman (1 was ex-BF)

Now, the GFSZ is law from here on out:

October 1997, Pearl High School, 3 killed, Mom, Ex GF, and a 3rd female.

April '99, Columbine H.S., 15 dead.

March 2005, Red Lake Minnesota, 10 killed including the school security guard

April 2007, Va. Tech, 33 dead.

Feb. 2008, Baton Rouge La, 3 dead.

Feb. 2008, Northern Dekalb Ill, 6 dead.

Feb. 2012, Chardon High School, 3 dead.

April 2012, Oikos Univ, Oakland, 7

Dec. 2012, Sandy Hook, 28 dead.

Jan. 2013 Hazard Ky, 3 dead.

June 2013 Santa Monica, 6

October 2014, Marrysville Pilchuck High, 5 dead.

Oct. 2015, Umpqua Comm. College, 10 dead.

February 2018, Parkland, 17 dead.

I ignored the Enoch Brown school massacre, because it was 1764 and was perpetrated by the Delaware tribe.

So,, 42 dead in Mass Shootings (3 people or more) before the GFSZ law.
128 killed after the GFSZ law.

Now, let's look at ALL of them.

19th century (began 1840's)
31 people killed in School Shootings in 60 yrs.

20th century prior to Charles Whitman
74 in the 66 yrs prior to Charles Whitman, including any "mass" ones listed above.

Post Charles Whitman to the GFSZ law, 34 years:
120 in those years until 1990.
Why so many? Guns were not uncommon in schools prior to 1966.

89 more to round out JUST the decade closing the 20th Century, POST GFSZ law.
Wasn't that supposed to STOP these shootings?

107 deaths in schools from School Shootings just in the 2000's alone.

Add 56 between 2010 and Parkland.

Add 7 more SINCE Parkland.

105 people killed in School Shootings before Chuck Whitman took out 17 people, in almost 200 years.
120 killed JUST from Whitman until Schools became Gun Free
89 killed in just 10 yrs after schools became Gun Free
170 SO FAR in the 21st Century.

What has been the big change?

Guns have always been around, they have always been available, why is it that since the mid 1960's these shootings are so common anymore?
And not one single gun has ever killed anyone.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top