OT Steve Kerr Golden St. head coach says it best about gun violence as a public health issue
- Thread starter bullmarket
- Start date
I don't need you and your feed store cousins to worry about defending me and my loved ones from the government. 75-80% of the military would be fighting next to you. Have you already built your compound and are your boys ready.
Meanwhile the massacres go on and on. But you don't give a shit because you, Jeb,Cletus, Billy Bob and the boys have your weapons ready for combating the possible government tyranny. I will sleep well knowing you have my back.Yes you do... and you don't even know it. But we'll do it anyway.
Think as you will... but you Sir, do not get to take my guns. Now if you really want to do something for mass killings, concentrate on the mental health aspect. Last Sunday's killer escaped a mental hospital 5 years ago. FIVE FRIGGIN' YEARS AGO... but bought a gun each year for the past four years. Why? Because someone didn't do their job and because we don't go after crazies like we used. Escaped crazies killing people used to be Halloween horror movies... not anymore.
I got your back.
So is the issue the loss of human life or that guns are scary and the public should not have access to long guns? There is no such thing as an assault rife and all guns that aren't bolt action or single shot are semi-automatic including handguns. If the issue is loss of human life, well gun deaths don't even crack the top 10 for causes of death. Should we ban sugar or automobiles? Those two kill way more people than guns. Private citizens are almost completely eliminated from owning firearms in China yet they rank 6th globally for murders and the US ranks 9th. Guns are prevalent here so 71.5% of murders in the US involve firearms but the statistical data shows that eliminating guns doesn’t equate to lower murder rates. Plus over the last 30 years the number of murders involving a firearm in the US have dropped by more than 50%. There are about 100 activities that kill 13,000 people per year. Why aren’t we crusading to ban those?
It's pretty simple because they want our guns.
I've always found it fascinating that people who claim they want to save lives and make this country safer by going after assault/military style weapons. It's because they allow themselves to be pulled in by the emotional response to singular tragic events where large numbers of people are killed. Meanwhile, you never hear a peep from those same people when it comes to gun related deaths from handguns which is BY FAR more of a problem than gun related deaths by rifles/assault weapons. And the numbers AREN'T EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE!!!!
I mean for gods sakes, the FBI data on homicides in 2014 showed there were more murders from knives or cutting instruments in this country than by rifles/assault weapons. There were even more murders committed by blunt objects than with rifles/assault weapons. But hey...let's get those assault weapons off the streets!!!
I mean for gods sakes, the FBI data on homicides in 2014 showed there were more murders from knives or cutting instruments in this country than by rifles/assault weapons. There were even more murders committed by blunt objects than with rifles/assault weapons. But hey...let's get those assault weapons off the streets!!!
A lot of people fear inanimate objects. The uninitiated fear knives, guns, hammers, bottle rockets, rocks, arrows and whatever else you can possibly conceive of as causing death. These things don't cause death, people cause death. That fact doesn't change if you ban weapons, you just change the demographics of who kill people.
Those who want to kill others will use suicide vests or even just machetes to do the evil deeds. You only take away weapons from those who will abide the law, not those you want to actually take them from.
You can't stop the people who are committed to killing people. Chicago has the strongest laws against guns in the US and yet they are stained with the highest gun death ratio in the US.
Those who want to kill others will use suicide vests or even just machetes to do the evil deeds. You only take away weapons from those who will abide the law, not those you want to actually take them from.
You can't stop the people who are committed to killing people. Chicago has the strongest laws against guns in the US and yet they are stained with the highest gun death ratio in the US.
Perfectly said my friend. . Absolutely perfect when you said.....
Oklabama said: "What I am against are these military type weapons that people can buy with all these crazy number of rounds that can be shot. No one needs to have that kind of weapon."
THE majority of Americans agree with you Oklabama (See LINK Below) even the police and law enforcement agree, These weapons put the police at great risk.
You nailed what in the opening post in this thread Steve Kerr said and the police don't want the public to have those kind of weapons.
LINK...from November 6, 2017 Three days ago. Majority of Americans want gun control policies including banning assault style weapons includes 54% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/bipartisan-gun-control-policies-majorities/index.html
Last edited:
Why aren't you against other weapons that commit far more murders annually than the military/assault weapons you are so adamantly pushing to ban?
Your vaunted Steve Kerrs remarks are a joke. When he mentions the car safety industry it really shows he doesn't have a clue. It's absurd that people can listen to that and actually buy into the idea that he may be into something with his remarks. He doesn't have a clue.
Why aren't you using your energy to push to ban alcohol which is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually?? Alcohol is responsible for FAR MORE deaths annually and it's not even remotely close.
What do you plan to do when people turn to using handguns to commit mass murders like the VTech and Lubys shooters did? You gonna push to ban handguns then??
See, naive thinking people like you don't see the precedent that banning a certain weapon creates.
There are millions upon millions of law abiding citizens in this country who own these weapons. Yet you want to ban these millions from owning these weapons because you can't find a way from keeping them out of the hands of a handful of people a year who use them to commit murder.
But hey...lets ban a firearm just because you buy into the emotional response to singular tragic events cuz it makes you feel as if you are making an impact on savings people's lives.
I come from a ranching and banking heritage in Osage and Kay County, Ok. My family are about as Republican as it gets. Yet, my father kept one rifle at the main ranch house...a Winchester for shooting coyotes. He did not allow hunters on any of his 8000 acres; why, because he feared they would accidently shoot one of his polled herefords. The idea that owning firearms to protect oneself from the feds is ludicrous. When they arrive at your front lawn with a weaponized drone you are SOL. We need responsible gun control that respects basic 2nd amendment rights but offers increased protection for all Americans and it starts with assault weapons. I do not want to live in a country who's citizens only feel safe if they're packin'.
Tell that to the people of Egypt. Tell that to the people of Lybia. Tell that to the people of Syria. This countries populations faced a government with military power. Only Syria survived due to Russia coming in with their military power to keep Assad from falling.
But don't be naive to the idea that the US government can someday become a government that isn't for the people anymore. Nazi Germany was less than 100 years ago and already apparently people are forgetting that history lesson.
But I do agree with the need some form of gun control that prevents lunatics from getting their hands on them, while also allowing law abiding citizens to enjoy their freedoms.
Well... you are already live in that country. But living on a 8000 acre ranch insulate your thoughts and therefore your actions.
Then you start by calling what it is... Lunatic Control.
LOL @ CNN polls... per CNN polls, Hillary was our Prez until about an hour before she couldn't come out to her party and concede.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Just like everyone knows the 1st Amendment was written with a pen and paper and a manual printing press in mind. The 1st Amendment should not apply to anything but pen and paper and the manual printing press.
Says who?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Naturally, because they're bad guys.
If that were the case, then the 2nd Amendment would state a specific type if firearm in the amendment. But it doesn't. So this idea that everyone knows it was written with muskets in mind are simply buying into an agenda driven talking point that is based on nothing.
So, the classic attempt to slot or classify someone based on their heritage. Just as people slot others beliefs based on religion or ethnicity. I did not live on an 8000 acre ranch. My parents were divorced and I lived in Tulsa. My point was that even though a conservative and someone who lived in an environment that one would think was favorable to gun ownership, my father saw the Winchester as a tool, not a weapon fr sport or defense. There are other national examples where gun ownership is restricted and there does not seem to be a fear of the government...Australia and G.B. Are prime examples. The idea that we simply accept these almost routine mass shootings as the American way of life is ludicrous.
People who want to give the same government who arms insurgents in other countries the ability to take away, or severely limit our ability to own firearms are, in my opinion, extremely shortsighted, or extremely misinformed, or extremely stupid... or some combination of all. It's also interesting to me, that many of the same people who accuse Trump (who I agree has many holes in his game) of being another Hitler, are in favor of the favorite play of a communist, or fascist regime... that being to disarm the populace.
Why is it that those who defend the right to bear arms seem to think it's an all or nothing issue? I do not want to take away the right to bear arms. I just want some common sense national laws that control the sale and availability of firearms. People use Chicago as an example. Chicago's strict gun laws don't work because the bordering state of Indiana has very loose gun restrictions. Kerr makes sense but whatever is legislated must be national in scope.
Well, technically the architects of the Constitution (and Amendments) knew that their policies were only valid for the immediate time and that they could not foresee the future. This is admitted and documented. That's why the Constitution was written as a "living document." It was literally made to be changed as the times change. That's why we allow Amendments.
We're approaching a future in which it won't be the guns that save us from the government. It will be the citizens having a "kill switch" for the militarized automation. That's the Amendment that we're going to need.
If that's the case, then what would eventually prevent the government from slowly eroding the entire constitution if it's a living document that can evolve over time? The problem with trying to overturn the 2nd Amendment then, is the general term "arms" that is used could essentially mean ALL gun rights. Especially if another assault weapons ban can be introduced, then these lunatics resort to using handguns like in VTech and Luby's. So that means the next step would be ban all handguns right? That's my issue with weapons bans. It opens the door for more and more bans as the government sees fit to the point where all gun rights will be gone.
I don't make this stuff up. Even skip to the end of the page where it discusses "arguments against" this idea, then carefully read the arguments. They simply say that arguers don't like the language of "living document," but still believe that it's a document for interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
And look no further than the 18th and 21st Amendments.
And as I said previously, this all my be a moot point in the near future. We're squealing our wheels about guns that are so primitive that they could very well be an afterthought soon.
Why? Because it is my constitutional right. This country doesn't have issues w/ guns, it has issues with mental health, legal drugs, and crazies running all over the place. You also offer more false narrative w/ Chicago's murder rate. Chicago's problem is not Indiana. New York doesn't have that issue and they have neighboring states. The difference is they STOP the in flow. Chicago doesn't. Ans stop the crap with Australia. They have roughly 10% of the United States and far, far, less crime.
So I guess we just put up with our monthly mass murder event? At a time in the not too distant past, the annual carnage on American highways was iincredible so what did we do...we instituted seat belt laws. We installed numerous safety systems in our cars and trucks. There are similar laws and firearm systems that if implemented, would save a lot of lives. Mandatory national laws t regarding licensing, background checks, safety mechanisms, training and certification are all needed, not a hodgepodge of state laws that simply leave too many loopholes.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Please explain how any of that will stop mass shootings.
Let me answer that for Chris... If there'd just been a law preventing a person who was dishonorably discharged for domestic abuse from acquiring a firearm...
... nevermind.
Medic007
Sooner starter
More people should carry firearms. Like all capable people should carry a firearm. We're a nation that takes our safety for granted. We've been led to believe our government will protect us from everything. Unless our government can find some solution to people with bad intentions, the risk will always be there. I carry a weapon at all times when not at work. When I'm on duty, I carry a knife. I've seen too many examples of people becoming the victims of other people who have bad intentions. I hope that I will never have to use a firearm in self defense, but if that unfortunate opportunity ever happens, I'm prepared. I may still end up a victim, but I won't be a willing victim.
We still do not have any answers from the Vegas event, probably because the hotel cartels and the FBI are covering each other's asses...
WNaS is in a unique position to know what he's talking about as he lives in the Houston metro but works approx 1/2 of the year in & around the Chi metro too...
WNaS is in a unique position to know what he's talking about as he lives in the Houston metro but works approx 1/2 of the year in & around the Chi metro too...
Nothing will completely stop these shootings any more than seat belts eliminate auto fatalities but a national effort would certainly minimize them. I just don't understand how you live with this and call it business as usual. If everyone in this country must be armed we have lost the greatest experiment in Democracy
Agree.
As I said earlier, I would rather be a combatant than a casualty.
The government has too much control on our lives and our money. It should be only to provide defense from foreign invasion and maintaining the nation's infrastructure. Everything else it does it screws up.
While I maintain my view of assault weapons, I feel better screening and more severe penalties should be in place....severe by life in solitary confinement (no contact, no television, no radio, no books or magazines)...essentially being buried alive, but with food and water. That would exceed the fear of a death penalty. Make prison a lifelong living hell. How's that for a deterrent ?
Medic007
Sooner starter
Based on demographics, it seems all WOMEN should carry firearms. It's men that are perpetrating the mass shootings.
OMG, what have I said? Talk about end of the human race.
The culture in America is such that some people think that killing for a gang cause is ok.America is a melting pot, with that comes circumstances that other countries don't deal with.You cannot always compare country to country because America is so different than most countries.We have elements in this country that for whatever reason are very violent.When you have people recording songs about cop killing and that segment thinks its ok you have problems.I have a gun sitting on my coffee table right now.I never used to do that but if you watch the news it will change your mind.
I always wondered about seat belt laws and how they were deemed Constitutional until I asked a lawmaker that was a guest speaker in one of my classes as a student. He had a good, succinct answer that I believe is probably the true reason which is not about saving your life.
It's about saving others lives. If you're in a vehicular emergency (skid, tire blow out, auto wreck, etc), the thought is that you will have a better chance at maintaining control if you're wearing a seatbelt rather than being immediately tossed into the passenger seat with a total loss of control.
Latest posts
-
-
Drake Stoops signs with the Los Angeles Rams as a UDFA
- Latest: CrimsonBookman
