Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
More gun laws ? ? ? ?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Dec 23, 2012 16:58:59   #
wingincamera Loc: Spanaway, Washington
 
Remember Oklahoma and Timothy Mcveigh? No guns were used there. I guess we will have to ban fertilizer and u haul trucks.

Reply
Dec 23, 2012 17:30:07   #
Roninskullcrusher Loc: Newcastle, England
 
Ban all weapons - go one step up, nuclear weapons are one of the most powerful for mass destruction, how about the government banning their nuclear weapons, then how safe would we feel if other countries still had theirs' or ignored the ban

Reply
Dec 23, 2012 19:29:40   #
dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.
 
Huey Driver wrote:
In 2010 there were 32,885 US fatalities in automobiles. 10,228 were alcohol related. Guess we need to ban booze and automobiles? Oh I forgot we already have laws in place about DUI's. Pretty plain to me that the laws against drinking and driving are not working. We need to have more laws.


Huey Driver in our society today it is almost impossible to get along without an automobile unless you live where other means of transport are available, i.e. subways, a bus system, or inner city rail. While not acceptable the death rate from auto accidents has been somewhat alleviated by laws mandating seat belt use, air bags and other types of safety devices. When those laws were enacted did you fight vociferously against them? You need a license to prove you are proficient enough to drive a car. In most places in the U.S. anyone can buy a gun legally if he can fill out the forms, has no criminal record and can come up with the cash. We have restrictions in place on the use of autos and yet even the mildest of restrictions on gun ownership raise the hackles of some folks beyond belief. I will admit guns were necessary when our forefathers were living in an unsettled wilderness. I agree the guy that wants to hunt or target shoot should be allowed his sport, but you don't need weapons with high capacity magazines to do either. As for protection a gun isn't much good if you can't get at it, but if you can get at it so can others. If you owned a weapon that was used in a mass killing because it was stolen from you because you left it where you could get at it quickly how would you feel? I would imagine quite sick as most of us would.

Reply
 
 
Dec 23, 2012 22:52:42   #
Underwaterant
 
Also, I believe the media is partly to blame. They keep going over and over and over the same stories which may help fuel the fire in some sick individuals into thinking I can do that and I'll get my moment of fame. The media is sensationalizing violence: stop![/quote]

Well, really, like as here in Aus., they will keep making one excuse after another until no-one has a gun. even police..
Today it is no semi autos. Then mag. cap. of 5 shots. Then single shot only.
Then argue that really we don't need any because we have genetically modified feral animals so they cannot breed so much..
True....
It is happening..
They then will say we need better anti smuggling from other countries who will keep making weapons of all sorts, because they always have..
The same extreme anti gunners have a hidden agenda of taking guns away from the American police and Defence forces.
If you go to their meetings and read their membership letters, you will see this..

Reply
Dec 23, 2012 23:08:35   #
alocarlos Loc: NY
 
You are correct that is why when we see a bad guy with a gun we are urged to call 911 and not the sanitation department..

only a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with gun..

Reply
Dec 23, 2012 23:47:08   #
cameranut Loc: North Carolina
 
Huey Driver wrote:
I don't understand why anti-gunners are clamoring for additional gun laws. The shooters in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook all were mentally deranged individuals. They didn't give a damn about gun laws we now have. Do anti-gunners really believe more laws are going to change a psychopaths intent? If we have 10,000 gun laws some of them WILL still inflict their heinous crime on others. A simple fact is gun laws will not stop this individual. All additional gun laws will do is restrict even more the law abiding citizen from protecting their family, themselves and their property. What is needed is a system to identify and get mental help for these individuals before they go off the deep end.

Also, I believe the media is partly to blame. They keep going over and over and over the same stories which may help fuel the fire in some sick individuals into thinking I can do that and I'll get my moment of fame. The media is sensationalizing violence: stop!
I don't understand why anti-gunners are clamoring ... (show quote)


I think the media wants less protection for the average person/ person's child than that given to Obama's daughters. His daughters are surrounded by "armed guards" any time they go anywhere including their private school. He may want more "gun laws " passed but not when it applies to him & his. When it comes down to it he wants his guards armed & ready to kill if needed. And they are not armed with squirt guns. I guess it all comes down to who you are.

Reply
Dec 23, 2012 23:50:12   #
cameranut Loc: North Carolina
 
wingincamera wrote:
Remember Oklahoma and Timothy Mcveigh? No guns were used there. I guess we will have to ban fertilizer and u haul trucks.


Yep. And lets not forget, cars, trucks, chainsaws, poison mushrooms,..................

Reply
 
 
Dec 24, 2012 01:54:37   #
Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now
 
Huey Driver wrote:
I don't understand why anti-gunners are clamoring for additional gun laws. The shooters in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook all were mentally deranged individuals. They didn't give a damn about gun laws we now have. Do anti-gunners really believe more laws are going to change a psychopaths intent? If we have 10,000 gun laws some of them WILL still inflict their heinous crime on others. A simple fact is gun laws will not stop this individual. All additional gun laws will do is restrict even more the law abiding citizen from protecting their family, themselves and their property. What is needed is a system to identify and get mental help for these individuals before they go off the deep end.

Also, I believe the media is partly to blame. They keep going over and over and over the same stories which may help fuel the fire in some sick individuals into thinking I can do that and I'll get my moment of fame. The media is sensationalizing violence: stop!
I don't understand why anti-gunners are clamoring ... (show quote)


As partial support for your statements, there are approximately 20,000 gun laws on the books in the United States right now.

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 02:19:47   #
Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now
 
dragonfist wrote:
Huey Driver wrote:
In 2010 there were 32,885 US fatalities in automobiles. 10,228 were alcohol related. Guess we need to ban booze and automobiles? Oh I forgot we already have laws in place about DUI's. Pretty plain to me that the laws against drinking and driving are not working. We need to have more laws.


Huey Driver in our society today it is almost impossible to get along without an automobile unless you live where other means of transport are available, i.e. subways, a bus system, or inner city rail. While not acceptable the death rate from auto accidents has been somewhat alleviated by laws mandating seat belt use, air bags and other types of safety devices. When those laws were enacted did you fight vociferously against them? You need a license to prove you are proficient enough to drive a car. In most places in the U.S. anyone can buy a gun legally if he can fill out the forms, has no criminal record and can come up with the cash. We have restrictions in place on the use of autos and yet even the mildest of restrictions on gun ownership raise the hackles of some folks beyond belief. I will admit guns were necessary when our forefathers were living in an unsettled wilderness. I agree the guy that wants to hunt or target shoot should be allowed his sport, but you don't need weapons with high capacity magazines to do either. As for protection a gun isn't much good if you can't get at it, but if you can get at it so can others. If you owned a weapon that was used in a mass killing because it was stolen from you because you left it where you could get at it quickly how would you feel? I would imagine quite sick as most of us would.
quote=Huey Driver In 2010 there were 32,885 US fa... (show quote)


You would do well to ask yourself MORE questions -- as to why our totally protected (by armed guards and military forces) Federal government "leaders" are so desirous of seeing entire civilian populous totally and helplessly disarmed.

Cars we need to be able to maintain our current economic system. Guns were authorized by the Founding Fathers to ensure the other Amendments, the Constitution, and our fought-for Freedoms. They recognized that the guns of citizens would be the ultimate deterrent to
the securing of our representative democracy by one or a group of individuals creating a totalitarian government. Guns with which the citizens could protect themselves and their government. The first step toward securing a dictatorship is to outlaw and then take all guns from everyone except the elites, the national police force, and the military. Once that is done, the "innocents" can be expunges or enslaved in whatever manner the dictator desires.

In the 20th century, this has led to mega-millions of citizens murdered by Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin (about 20 million by him and his regimes alone), Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Kim Jung II, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, and Emperor Hirohito. Why do our "leaders" drive (force) us to this same defenseless destination ?

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 02:35:23   #
Martys Loc: Lubec, Maine
 
There are now individuals who want to publish photographs of the carnage to fuel their agenda.

Another thing I see,....
Read some of the statements by readers across the country that are always listed underneath all the news stories these days,....
Doesn't matter what the article subject is about,... Look at the public image across the board,...just from the standpoint of how off the wall such a large majority of readers are.

That alone,...I find very troubling.

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 02:48:10   #
Underwaterant
 
Martys wrote:
There are now individuals who want to publish photographs of the carnage to fuel their agenda.

Another thing I see,....
Read some of the statements by readers across the country that are always are listed underneath all the news stories these days,....
Doesn't matter what the article subject is about,... Look at the public image across the board,...just from the standpoint of how off the wall such a large majority of readers are.

That alone,...I find very troubling.



Yes !!!!
This fuels them.
When this happens they end up saying
it's a tragedy.

But the first thing they say is
"WHAT A STORY !!"

Reply
 
 
Dec 24, 2012 04:12:36   #
coldavo
 
Huey can't see why America needs laws on gun control - possibly to protect innocents like the children from Newtown. Reddog points out the stupid response from the NRA. Huey please explain to me who in the NRA or ANYWHERE (apart from Law Enforcement or Military)actually NEEDS an assault rifle capable of 6 shots per second with a 100 round magazine or a 50 calibre sniper rifle of a type that has killed an Afghani at 1.7 miles distance. Check your facts - these can be obtained easily in many States. A Federal law which restricts the hunter and range shooter to bolt action 3 shot rifles and revolvers or pistols that can hold no more than 6 shots would be a good start. Of course this would not keep the more dangerous weapons away from criminals so increase the penalty on these to, say, 10 years minimum for possession. At least it would be a start and keep these man-killers (for that is all they are) from kids, the mentally deranged and similar.(I HAVE BEEN A HUNTER AND MEMBER OF A PISTOL CLUB AND LOVED MY RIFLE AND PISTOLS AT THE TIME).

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 18:24:50   #
Reddog Loc: Southern Calif
 
Ron K. wrote:
I'll repeat the question I asked earlier. Will someone please define what an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon "is? If it's a weapon that continues to fire as long as the trigger is depressed, then it's commonly called a "machine gun" and they've been illegal for most citizens for a very, very long time.
My definition is easy, a weapon that can kill dozens of people in minutes without reloading! I don't care about folding stocks etc. I also don't think this will solve all killings,suicide bombers,stabbings or spousal abuse but its a start. We have 5% of the worlds population and 50% of the guns. We don't need more weapons!

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 18:45:06   #
Yoos2 Loc: BC Canada
 
artistwally wrote:
"In the United States, we had 9,000 people killed with guns last year” is the only figure I could find on Google; were they all killed by mentally deranged people Huey?


If they were killed deliberately, other than self defense, then yes, the shooters were deranged.
John

Reply
Dec 24, 2012 19:03:44   #
Yoos2 Loc: BC Canada
 
[quote=Ka2azman]
Huey Driver wrote:
Something else that boggles my mind. Considering the news media and the anti-gun folks continued attack on assault rifles shows they don't know much about guns. They perceive this weapon to be the ultimate killing machine and should be banned. A Glock pistol (other pistols and guns as well) with high capacity clips and in close proximity to your target like the kids at Newtown were are just as deadly as any assault rifle. Actually it probably can be re-clipped with more ammunition faster than an AK or AR. When is the last time you heard the news media write or say, "Hey, we need to ban Glocks"?




Sorry to say Huey, with no disrespect, you have forgotten history. Back when Glock's first came out anti-gunners had a big campaign and pushed for them to be banned. After all they could easily gotten be through metal detectors being made of plastic instead of metal. Which has been totally proved wrong. Their world didn't come to an end with them in circulation as they stated it would.

Another point to be made is that guns have been totally banned off airplanes. How safe is it on an airplane ride today because of the total ban. I feel so safe after the intrusive search, to find and eliminate any gun on a plane, just to get on a plane as it flies through the air at 550 mph heading straight for a tall building because of razor blades.

Today we have undercover armed (guns) guards on some of the planes as well as some of the pilots are armed because the total ban has been proven a dismal failure. The loonies have found ways around the security of a lack of guns.

A good anology of anti-gunners is a bull fight. There in the middle of the ring is a man with a red cape and a sword, these anti-gunners are the bull. Even though the man is controling the cape (the criminal), the bull totally ignores the root cause of the cape moving, chases the thing he is having waving in front of its eyes, and completely unaware of the sword. The bull thinks he is totally right, totally dedicated and is totally content to chase the effect and not the cause. Once the matador tires of the game, he drops the cape and it's time to plunge the sword into the heart of the bull. Poor bull didn't know the rules of the game of survival. For him it was a just a feel good game, which according to his convictions was the right thing to do in the ring becasue that was what he was bread to do.

Anti-gunners want to be in the ring of life without weapons, and chase the empty cape and believe that others should be like them. They only find out when the cape is dropped, that having only police, and military having weapons winds up not being a good choice for survival. But the situation is not totally what it looks like, for not only will the police and military have weapons but others like dignitaries, celeberties, the rich and famous, those living in gated communities will all be protedted by guns. Its only the general populous that will be unarmed and left for the sword of the matador.
Something else that boggles my mind. Considering ... (show quote)


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.