Another story that proves guns make people safer

Hydro4life

Hydro4life

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Not

Three people killed, two injured, in shooting at gun store in Louisiana

Three people were killed and two were injured in a shooting at a gun store in Louisiana on Saturday.
Deputies were called to the scene at the Jefferson Gun Outlet in Metairie just before 3 p.m., Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joseph Lopinto III said during a press briefing.
Metairie is just a few miles northwest of New Orleans.
One initial shooter fatally shot two people inside the store, according to Lopinto. Both victims were both pronounced dead at the scene.


Several people then engaged the original suspect inside and outside the store, leaving two more people injured with gunshot wounds, the sheriff said.
A press release from the sheriff's office said the third person killed was the original shooter.


www.cnn.com

Three people killed, two injured, in shooting at gun store in Louisiana

Three people were killed and two were injured in a shooting at a gun store in Louisiana on Saturday.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Would this be classified as a suicide or a mass murder? Asking gunfighter nation for guidance.
Click to expand...
“Another story that proves guns make people safer”

wasn’t it someone with a gun that endangered people in the first place? Lol.
 
burnbluntz12312

burnbluntz12312

Well-Known Member
Have we reached a point in society that we are in need of outright banning (banning further as some laws are already in place) weapons (tools) of protection, food gathering and, I'll admit, entertainment? Some people truly enjoy target shooting, skeet shooting, etc. Law abiding, kind and courteous human beings with zero ill will.
As example, and this is a true story, a man is with his 1 year old and 3 year old strapped into their car seats in the back of his vehicle while he is pumping gas. A man gets into the driver's seat of his vehicle and attempts to drive away with the children in the vehicle. The father attempts to remove the male from the car but is stabbed at which time he fatally shoots the car thief to prevent him taking the children. I hope no one can argue the justifiable nature of those actions. I would never want to see anyone lose a loved one to gun violence, especially so their child, but would you be willing to give up your children for someone else's? Just food for thought.

I see a HUGE problem on our governments side however. It has been publicized that the latest shooter, at the grocery store in Colorado, was known to the FBI and allowed to own a firearm. His own family, sister in law, attempted to remove it from his possession. That's failure of our government and elected officials, not other gun owners. This, strictly in my opinion from my life experiences, does not require limiting legal firearm owners but rehabilitation and supporting other men and women in different ways than we currently do.

I see the way we treat those in need of mental health services in our nation, like criminals, not people in need of help. This is exceptionally true of people in low income and poverty stricken areas. I think we are trying to address the issue from only one front when it is so multifaceted. Do we have work to do, legislatively, to keep firearms from the hands of those who will misuse them, yes we do. We have a lot of work to do to support those people and prevent the need to even discuss these laws on such an emergency basis as well however.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
burnbluntz12312 said:
Have we reached a point in society that we are in need of outright banning (banning further as some laws are already in place) weapons (tools) of protection, food gathering and, I'll admit, entertainment? Some people truly enjoy target shooting, skeet shooting, etc. Law abiding, kind and courteous human beings with zero ill will.
As example, and this is a true story, a man is with his 1 year old and 3 year old strapped into their car seats in the back of his vehicle while he is pumping gas. A man gets into the driver's seat of his vehicle and attempts to drive away with the children in the vehicle. The father attempts to remove the male from the car but is stabbed at which time he fatally shoots the car thief to prevent him taking the children. I hope no one can argue the justifiable nature of those actions. I would never want to see anyone lose a loved one to gun violence, especially so their child, but would you be willing to give up your children for someone else's? Just food for thought.

I see a HUGE problem on our governments side however. It has been publicized that the latest shooter, at the grocery store in Colorado, was known to the FBI and allowed to own a firearm. His own family, sister in law, attempted to remove it from his possession. That's failure of our government and elected officials, not other gun owners. This, strictly in my opinion from my life experiences, does not require limiting legal firearm owners but rehabilitation and supporting other men and women in different ways than we currently do.

I see the way we treat those in need of mental health services in our nation, like criminals, not people in need of help. This is exceptionally true of people in low income and poverty stricken areas. I think we are trying to address the issue from only one front when it is so multifaceted. Do we have work to do, legislatively, to keep firearms from the hands of those who will misuse them, yes we do. We have a lot of work to do to support those people and prevent the need to even discuss these laws on such an emergency basis as well however.
Click to expand...
that's because LAW AND ORDER and JUST SAY NO Raygun decided that we didn't need asylums or keep those with emotional segregated from criminal hell no! just put 'em all together and the rest live on the street. neat huh? Police become ROBOCOPS doing it all saving the taxpayer$$$ and now we're basically back to 1890s with mentally ill, homeless and drug addicts living on the streets except the drug of choice was poured over sugar and poison if i'm not mistaken..Absinthe.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
burnbluntz12312 said:
Have we reached a point in society that we are in need of outright banning (banning further as some laws are already in place) weapons (tools) of protection, food gathering and, I'll admit, entertainment? Some people truly enjoy target shooting, skeet shooting, etc. Law abiding, kind and courteous human beings with zero ill will.
As example, and this is a true story, a man is with his 1 year old and 3 year old strapped into their car seats in the back of his vehicle while he is pumping gas. A man gets into the driver's seat of his vehicle and attempts to drive away with the children in the vehicle. The father attempts to remove the male from the car but is stabbed at which time he fatally shoots the car thief to prevent him taking the children. I hope no one can argue the justifiable nature of those actions. I would never want to see anyone lose a loved one to gun violence, especially so their child, but would you be willing to give up your children for someone else's? Just food for thought.

I see a HUGE problem on our governments side however. It has been publicized that the latest shooter, at the grocery store in Colorado, was known to the FBI and allowed to own a firearm. His own family, sister in law, attempted to remove it from his possession. That's failure of our government and elected officials, not other gun owners. This, strictly in my opinion from my life experiences, does not require limiting legal firearm owners but rehabilitation and supporting other men and women in different ways than we currently do.

I see the way we treat those in need of mental health services in our nation, like criminals, not people in need of help. This is exceptionally true of people in low income and poverty stricken areas. I think we are trying to address the issue from only one front when it is so multifaceted. Do we have work to do, legislatively, to keep firearms from the hands of those who will misuse them, yes we do. We have a lot of work to do to support those people and prevent the need to even discuss these laws on such an emergency basis as well however.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "Muh rat to own gun". Nobody is talking about taking yours away from you, unless you aren't mentally stable or are a threat to others. Nobody is talking about that, so calm down.

Is it too much to ask,

Why can't the US have the same low rate of gun homicide and accidental shootings as Canada?
 
burnbluntz12312

burnbluntz12312

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "Muh rat to own gun". Nobody is talking about taking yours away from you, unless you aren't mentally stable or are a threat to others. Nobody is talking about that, so calm down.

Is it too much to ask,

Why can't the US have the same low rate of gun homicide and accidental shootings as Canada?
Click to expand...
I apologize if I seemed hostile, I promise I was not. I am not saying that everyone should own a gun, just that it may be a situational thing and, no pun intended, don't be too quick to pull the trigger. Someday I may be in a situation, god forbid, that my child is affected by gun violence and I am quickly shoved one way in my stand point and opinion. Maybe another day you are fortunate and have your loved ones life saved by a law abiding, gun carrying citizen and you start to lean a little the other.

In the middle somewhere of this whole "Guns are bad" and "Over my dead body" must lie a reasonable solution. For the last 244 years this country has proven that two parties continually arguing for only what they want and rarely reconciling differences is fruitless. Guns are not leaving America, look at recent sales. Who is and how do those numbers of firearms get removed from the residences of private citizens? So moving forward, what is the prevention?

I feel we treat those that need assistance poor and as a society are partially responsible for what is happening, that was my point. No offense was intended, just trying to have some thought provoking conversation.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
burnbluntz12312 said:
I apologize if I seemed hostile, I promise I was not. I am not saying that everyone should own a gun, just that it may be a situational thing and, no pun intended, don't be too quick to pull the trigger. Someday I may be in a situation, god forbid, that my child is affected by gun violence and I am quickly shoved one way in my stand point and opinion. Maybe another day you are fortunate and have your loved ones life saved by a law abiding, gun carrying citizen and you start to lean a little the other.

In the middle somewhere of this whole "Guns are bad" and "Over my dead body" must lie a reasonable solution. For the last 244 years this country has proven that two parties continually arguing for only what they want and rarely reconciling differences is fruitless. Guns are not leaving America, look at recent sales. Who is and how do those numbers of firearms get removed from the residences of private citizens? So moving forward, what is the prevention?

I feel we treat those that need assistance poor and as a society are partially responsible for what is happening, that was my point. No offense was intended, just trying to have some thought provoking conversation.
Click to expand...
So, at this very moment, there are about three guns for every man woman and child in this country. And we have about five or six time the rate of gun homicides in this country compared to Canada. Would adding more guns reduce that number? Can anybody show evidence from other countries where that has happened?

There is nothing wrong with a person owning a gun if they aren't going to harm somebody with it. Taking guns away isn't what is being discussed right now in DC, if ever. So, just stop with the take 'muh gunz away" rhetoric. It's just an appeal to emotion and not based on fact.

Is it too much to ask that the US have the same low rate of gun homicide and accidental shootings that Canada has? If we can agree on that then we can start talking about what to DO instead of jawing about inconsequential lies promoted by right wing media. What about licensing gun owners? What about locking guns up safely according to guidelines posted on the NRA's own website? What about other actions?

The last bit, "I feel we treat" etc. Or the bit about accidents on the highway. OK. That's a separate issue and independent from beginning to address the murder of more than 10,000 people every year. If you really care about that, then call your congressman about it. One has nothing to do with the other.

I'm just being direct. I don't think I've said anything to apologize for and I don't think you have either.

I'm just asking gun owners why we can't have the same low rates of homicide or accidental shootings that Canada has. If we can agree that there is a problem with gun violence in the US and can agree on an objective to meet for reducing it, then I think we can begin to have productive discussions.
 
burnbluntz12312

burnbluntz12312

Well-Known Member
Adding more guns will not, you're correct. Those that feel guns will protect them, own them and carry them. Those that feel they're unnecessary do not. That fact will not change and I will not disagree. No evidence exists that I'm aware of and I doubt ever will.

The current talk in DC is absolutely a ban on what they call "assault style rifles". I personally do not believe that the average Joe needs to walk down Main St. with
an AK-103, it looks poorly for all responsible gun owners, but what they are defining as assault style seems to blur the lines to me. Just as many gun owners do use the "take 'muh gunz away rhetoric" so does the other side put their spin on the topic in the other direction. That's just how the game is played.

I'm completely behind lowering the homicide rate and doing it together, regardless of the side of the fence we stand on. I'm good with licensing, we license for dumber shit in this country, I'm sure we've both experienced it. I can't spray the damn bugs in my lawn "legally" without taking an exam. In my state, for handguns only, you apply with a judge and are granted a permit that can be revoked at any time. It's in a data base, so should you commit an act that the judge feels warrants removing the firearms, they come take them. That seems reasonable to me. Part of that application includes a section about how you will store the firearms, etc.

I'm going to disagree about the treatment of mental health and firearm violence being separate matters. Many of these "mass shooting" cases, not all, when you get to the root of it stem from a mental health problem. It's something that has been festering for months and years, something that people have had time to help correct. Sure, you can say it was this kind of hate crime or that kind of hate crime, etc., at the end of the day many of these mass murderers come from a poor background with no support system, a community that tossed them from home to home if the system did remove them from their family's custody to only then be released to a world with little guidance on how to survive. It may not be the only cause, but it's a factor that can be mitigated. I'd love to address the traffic accident but I truly don't know what that references.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
burnbluntz12312 said:
Adding more guns will not, you're correct. Those that feel guns will protect them, own them and carry them. Those that feel they're unnecessary do not. That fact will not change and I will not disagree. No evidence exists that I'm aware of and I doubt ever will.

The current talk in DC is absolutely a ban on what they call "assault style rifles". I personally do not believe that the average Joe needs to walk down Main St. with
an AK-103, it looks poorly for all responsible gun owners, but what they are defining as assault style seems to blur the lines to me. Just as many gun owners do use the "take 'muh gunz away rhetoric" so does the other side put their spin on the topic in the other direction. That's just how the game is played.

I'm completely behind lowering the homicide rate and doing it together, regardless of the side of the fence we stand on. I'm good with licensing, we license for dumber shit in this country, I'm sure we've both experienced it. I can't spray the damn bugs in my lawn "legally" without taking an exam. In my state, for handguns only, you apply with a judge and are granted a permit that can be revoked at any time. It's in a data base, so should you commit an act that the judge feels warrants removing the firearms, they come take them. That seems reasonable to me. Part of that application includes a section about how you will store the firearms, etc.

I'm going to disagree about the treatment of mental health and firearm violence being separate matters. Many of these "mass shooting" cases, not all, when you get to the root of it stem from a mental health problem. It's something that has been festering for months and years, something that people have had time to help correct. Sure, you can say it was this kind of hate crime or that kind of hate crime, etc., at the end of the day many of these mass murderers come from a poor background with no support system, a community that tossed them from home to home if the system did remove them from their family's custody to only then be released to a world with little guidance on how to survive. It may not be the only cause, but it's a factor that can be mitigated. I'd love to address the traffic accident but I truly don't know what that references.
Click to expand...
There. That's it. "I'm completely behind lowering the homicide rate and doing it together,". I agree with you on that. The "assault weapons ban" is theater and isn't going to go anywhere anyway, so to me, it's not even worth much discussion. The Dickey amendment prevents funding for research into how to reduce gun deaths and violence. That was modified to allow some research and last year's budget included $25 million for research.

I'd like to see more funding for research. In the short term, until better information into research is available, there are a few measures that can be taken, such as restricting future sales of weapons capable of delivering a horrendous amount of destruction. So, perhaps banning the sale of weapons and magazines that contain more than needed for hunting or self defense? I don't know what that number is, but 30 rounds in a semi-automatic gun seems a bit excessive anywhere other than in a certified target range. Also, Canada's laws are working well. Maybe we can leverage from their system of monitoring and controlling the sales of guns. This would require that people register their gun with the government and require gun sales be reported -- all of them. As a non-gun owner, this seems reasonable to me. I don't know where you fall on those actions.

The bit I don't understand about the "mental health" issue is this. I don't know what you are proposing. Are gun owners supposed to subject themselves to a psychiatric exam? If so, are we going subject potential or current gun owners to the decision by a psychiatrist to sort out who can and cannot own a gun? There isn't even criteria for doing that. This is why people like the CO shooter, who clearly was dealing with schizophrenia, can buy a gun. Mental health is not a clear cut science and the outcome for an exam can always be questioned. So I don't understand specifically what you are suggesting. Also, most people with mental health issues are not a danger to others. Seems like a pretty broad brush to paint people with. Another thing -- without clear objective standards, there is most certainly going to be issues where the psychiatrist bias intrudes on the decision. Such as, somebody with bias against certain race, gender or political beliefs.
 
burnbluntz12312

burnbluntz12312

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There. That's it. "I'm completely behind lowering the homicide rate and doing it together,". I agree with you on that. The "assault weapons ban" is theater and isn't going to go anywhere anyway, so to me, it's not even worth much discussion. The Dickey amendment prevents funding for research into how to reduce gun deaths and violence. That was modified to allow some research and last year's budget included $25 million for research.

I'd like to see more funding for research. In the short term, until better information into research is available, there are a few measures that can be taken, such as restricting future sales of weapons capable of delivering a horrendous amount of destruction. So, perhaps banning the sale of weapons and magazines that contain more than needed for hunting or self defense? I don't know what that number is, but 30 rounds in a semi-automatic gun seems a bit excessive anywhere other than in a certified target range. Also, Canada's laws are working well. Maybe we can leverage from their system of monitoring and controlling the sales of guns. This would require that people register their gun with the government and require gun sales be reported -- all of them. As a non-gun owner, this seems reasonable to me. I don't know where you fall on those actions.

The bit I don't understand about the "mental health" issue is this. I don't know what you are proposing. Are gun owners supposed to subject themselves to a psychiatric exam? If so, are we going subject potential or current gun owners to the decision by a psychiatrist to sort out who can and cannot own a gun? There isn't even criteria for doing that. This is why people like the CO shooter, who clearly was dealing with schizophrenia, can buy a gun. Mental health is not a clear cut science and the outcome for an exam can always be questioned. So I don't understand specifically what you are suggesting. Also, most people with mental health issues are not a danger to others. Seems like a pretty broad brush to paint people with. Another thing -- without clear objective standards, there is most certainly going to be issues where the psychiatrist bias intrudes on the decision. Such as, somebody with bias against certain race, gender or political beliefs.
Click to expand...
I guess I should clarify, where I'm at, access to mental health care is TERRIBLE for at risk/low income/poverised youth. I'm thinking we could stem some of these issues years before they occur if we treated these youths instead of just "running them through the system" or allowing them to struggle. Not so much the "were they crazy when they bought it?".

I agree, hunting doesn't require 30 rounds, many loop holes need tidying up. I feel like we fail if we address only the firearm and not the societal issues however.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
burnbluntz12312 said:
I guess I should clarify, where I'm at, access to mental health care is TERRIBLE for at risk/low income/poverised youth. I'm thinking we could stem some of these issues years before they occur if we treated these youths instead of just "running them through the system" or allowing them to struggle. Not so much the "were they crazy when they bought it?".

I agree, hunting doesn't require 30 rounds, many loop holes need tidying up. I feel like we fail if we address only the firearm and not the societal issues however.
Click to expand...
well, yeah, totally agree that if society were perfect, we'd not have an issues with violence. So, you are right in that we should strive to be better.

Not to belabor a point but there are a whole shit load of guns out there and this isn't a perfect society. I mean, world hunger is probably at the root cause of strife. Lets fix that too. Meanwhile, how about taking early steps using ideas proven to work in other countries to reduce gun violence?
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Nobody in Europe is mentally stable enough to own an automatic or assault rifle without being a potential threat to others. If I were allowed to own machine guns I would own a huge arsenal and be a major liability for world peace and go Scarface on peados. 7 shootings in 7 days? Shit, we europeans would have killed all of eachother in 3 days if we had the same 2A.

US gun laws are like female brains to me, I’ll never understand how they can possibly work.

Maple syrup is great to marinade chicken and glaze anything wrapped in bacon, that I do know.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There. That's it. "I'm completely behind lowering the homicide rate and doing it together,". I agree with you on that. The "assault weapons ban" is theater and isn't going to go anywhere anyway, so to me, it's not even worth much discussion. The Dickey amendment prevents funding for research into how to reduce gun deaths and violence. That was modified to allow some research and last year's budget included $25 million for research.

I'd like to see more funding for research. In the short term, until better information into research is available, there are a few measures that can be taken, such as restricting future sales of weapons capable of delivering a horrendous amount of destruction. So, perhaps banning the sale of weapons and magazines that contain more than needed for hunting or self defense? I don't know what that number is, but 30 rounds in a semi-automatic gun seems a bit excessive anywhere other than in a certified target range. Also, Canada's laws are working well. Maybe we can leverage from their system of monitoring and controlling the sales of guns. This would require that people register their gun with the government and require gun sales be reported -- all of them. As a non-gun owner, this seems reasonable to me. I don't know where you fall on those actions.

The bit I don't understand about the "mental health" issue is this. I don't know what you are proposing. Are gun owners supposed to subject themselves to a psychiatric exam? If so, are we going subject potential or current gun owners to the decision by a psychiatrist to sort out who can and cannot own a gun? There isn't even criteria for doing that. This is why people like the CO shooter, who clearly was dealing with schizophrenia, can buy a gun. Mental health is not a clear cut science and the outcome for an exam can always be questioned. So I don't understand specifically what you are suggesting. Also, most people with mental health issues are not a danger to others. Seems like a pretty broad brush to paint people with. Another thing -- without clear objective standards, there is most certainly going to be issues where the psychiatrist bias intrudes on the decision. Such as, somebody with bias against certain race, gender or political beliefs.
Click to expand...
Canada no longer has a long gun registry and all registry records were destroyed.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
Nobody in Europe is mentally stable enough to own an automatic or assault rifle without being a potential threat to others. If I were allowed to own machine guns I would own a huge arsenal and be a major liability for world peace and go Scarface on peados. 7 shootings in 7 days? Shit, we europeans would have killed all of eachother in 3 days if we had the same 2A.

US gun laws are like female brains to me, I’ll never understand how they can possibly work.

Maple syrup is great to marinade chicken and glaze anything wrapped in bacon, that I do know.
Click to expand...
Sap stopped running this week, so sad. Hopefully it will start again. Thank god I have my guns to put the holes in the tree’s, that’s what freedoms all about lol.
 
Last edited:
burnbluntz12312

burnbluntz12312

Well-Known Member
Sir Napsalot said:
Here in OR you can only have 5 rounds in your rifle when hunting, whether it's a semiautomatic or a real rifle
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, legally, semi automatic, bolt action, break action/single shot are really the only rifles you can legally purchase in the US. I'm unsure what you are referring to by "real rifle". I've taught my children all firearms are real firearms.

Fogdog said:
well, yeah, totally agree that if society were perfect, we'd not have an issues with violence. So, you are right in that we should strive to be better.

Not to belabor a point but there are a whole shit load of guns out there and this isn't a perfect society. I mean, world hunger is probably at the root cause of strife. Lets fix that too. Meanwhile, how about taking early steps using ideas proven to work in other countries to reduce gun violence?
Click to expand...
I'm all for it, I've seen countries use gun amnesty programs, the US is too stubborn and deep seated in tradition for that to work with most gun. I think that would work best for the families as gun owners die and families don't know what to do with firearms they have no use/purpose for. Tides are changing, as generations move forward I think we will see less gun owners, I'm unsure about less violence though, be it with guns, clubs, explosives or otherwise. Maybe that's why I'm more for societal change? I've lived rural, can't see another home. Firearms were used when I was a child to bond family, teach safety and put food on the table. I can see it in my children though, they look at it different. I never once had a lockdown drill in school. I never stood in their shoes. Even though they have a home that is not "anti-gun", they still have a different world to experience than I.... and that's ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top