School Shooting In Great Mills Maryland

[Lancaster]

Guns has been around since the beginning.... and it's only seemingly recently that there has been shooting in schools or other mass shootings.  It's plainly obvious that guns isn't the issue, but something behind the scenes.  Society's moral decline, socio-economic disparities, the lack of family cohesion, the greater abuse of medicine and substances, the lack of access for those requiring mental assistance, etc.  

 

When people saying you don't "need" guns or whatever.... who are you to question the private transactions/decision of others.  Sure, it's a "want" for most people, but when do people living in a free society needs to defend what they want to buy?  Automobiles are usually brought up.... many anti-gunners just say, "Well... they're not designed to kill" but lets break down the argument.

People don't like guns because they can potentially cause mass damage and the purpose is to "kill".

Vehicles can cause massive damage, but aren't designed to "kill".

Swords can't cause massive damage, but are designed to "kill".

If you're worried about causing greater amount of damage, then the vehicle argument is valid.  If you're worried about the primary function of the item at hand, then the sword argument is valid.  The problem is that many anti-gunners use a rotating argument, where they switch from quantity to purpose whenever it suits them.  

 

 

As for those mentioning how the Founding Fathers never envisioned the AR-15.... they also never envisioned the radio, TV, the internet, social media, scanners, photocopiers, computers, etc.  So that means the 1st amendment only applies if you're talking to someone face to face, whatever that's written by hand, and documents coming out of a manual printing press.  

 

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

57 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Haha. You don’t get outside the city much do you.  Hunting isnt the only need for a gun. What happens for people who live on a ranch and need to protect their livestock from wolves and coyotes. Should they just yell really loud?

I get outside plenty and I don't agree with shooting wolves and coyotes.   I agree with proper fences and dogs to protect your farm.   That is why family out west in Alberta and Saskatchewan do.    More than 20,000 acres between all of them and not single gun to be found.   

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I get outside plenty and I don't agree with shooting wolves and coyotes.   I agree with proper fences and dogs to protect your farm. 

 

Sounds exactly what expected from someone who doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. 

 

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That is why family out west in Alberta and Saskatchewan do.    More than 20,000 acres between all of them and not single gun to be found.   

Yeah that’s a load of BS but you enjoy making up stories.  In fact How many head of cattle do they have,  I just so happen to know a large majority of the large farmers from Calgary to the border through my last job, I could likely talk to them myself. 

 

Please next time you are out there take a picture of the fence the use around those 20,000 acres. Haha. 

[Warhippy]

14 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Guns has been around since the beginning.... and it's only seemingly recently that there has been shooting in schools or other mass shootings.  It's plainly obvious that guns isn't the issue, but something behind the scenes.  Society's moral decline, socio-economic disparities, the lack of family cohesion, the greater abuse of medicine and substances, the lack of access for those requiring mental assistance, etc.  

 

When people saying you don't "need" guns or whatever.... who are you to question the private transactions/decision of others.  Sure, it's a "want" for most people, but when do people living in a free society needs to defend what they want to buy?  Automobiles are usually brought up.... many anti-gunners just say, "Well... they're not designed to kill" but lets break down the argument.

People don't like guns because they can potentially cause mass damage and the purpose is to "kill".

Vehicles can cause massive damage, but aren't designed to "kill".

Swords can't cause massive damage, but are designed to "kill".

If you're worried about causing greater amount of damage, then the vehicle argument is valid.  If you're worried about the primary function of the item at hand, then the sword argument is valid.  The problem is that many anti-gunners use a rotating argument, where they switch from quantity to purpose whenever it suits them.  

 

 

As for those mentioning how the Founding Fathers never envisioned the AR-15.... they also never envisioned the radio, TV, the internet, social media, scanners, photocopiers, computers, etc.  So that means the 1st amendment only applies if you're talking to someone face to face, whatever that's written by hand, and documents coming out of a manual printing press.  

 

 

 

No...see this is the argument always brought up.  "it's not the tool it's the hand weilding it"

 

Well. 

 

Cars are for driving

Swords are for killing

Knives are for cutting or dressing

Guns are for killing

 

There's a reason you can drive around with a knife on your person or in your car but not a sword.  There's a reason I can't wave a gun, knife or sword around.  While they are tools as you say only two of the aforementioned examples have uses or were created for anything outside of killing.

 

That sir is a simple fact

 

I would like less guns because I would like the bad guys to actually have to work harder.  easier to disarm a guy with a knife or sword before they kill 3-5-50 people.  easier to stop a car with obstructions as well.

 

Guns though...not so much.  

 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

The national news wouldn't report on the average Joe Schmoe from Buffalo who shot and killed an intruder in his home.  The things that you do hear about are the stories about how someone walks into a school and starts firing.

 

When it comes down to it, the USA isn't even close to the top when you break down the data by homicide by firearms per capita.  I already have proof queued up for the first person who goes hysterical in the thread.

That's about what I expected, but I also believe it just doesn't happen that often. I get it for those that just want peace of mind having it and maybe it would be a good deterrent to scare off intruders, but my assumption is that the majority don't even know how to use one properly, let alone using one in a nerve wracking situation. I find it interesting that the news would not report the average Joe defending themselves, but they will show someone pulling out a gun in a Walmart to get the last notebook on the shelf or something to that extent. You'd think that those for guns would want to show more instances of people actually utilizing the guns they have to defend themselves to further their point.

 

There was a story of a shooting in a theatre a while back and you'd think that some citizen there would have had a gun and would take down the shooter, but I think for most people, it just isn't in their blood to do such an act (shooting someone, not the act of trying to be a hero). I'm not here to say whether people should be allowed to have guns or not, but the self defense idea to me just doesn't really hold in my mind.

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Sounds exactly what expected from someone who doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. 

 

Yeah that’s a load of BS but you enjoy making up stories.  In fact How many head of cattle do they have,  I just so happen to know a large majority of the large farmers from Calgary to the border through my last job, I could likely talk to them myself. 

 

Please next time you are out there take a picture of the fence the use around those 20,000 acres. Haha. 

I have no idea how may "head of cattle" they have but I could ask I imagine - never really thought about it.   I know one of the farms, near Drumheller, and the one I have been too most does only crops (canola now for about 10 years) but they have chickens/sheep/goats nearer the house and dogs do just fine keeping any animals away.    Just fine.    They used to have some Timothy grass and let grazers on and didn't need guns then either.   

 

Just like with hockey discussion, someone doesn't agree with you and you automatically go into full Richard mode.   I could give a crap about what you believe or don't believe but just because anytime someone has information that doesn't fit your view of the world (in this case, farmers need guns), you go full Richard.   Speaks volumes about a few things - that's on you.   Second, my family is PROUD of the non-gun thing just for the reason of being able to talk to the likes of you that feel they speak for all of anything (hockey people, farmers, idiots who carry guns).   It is far from something to be impressed with...and I am not.

 

Oh, as far as I know, all of the farms have fences.   I have not driven the perimeter of all of them but can say, with confidence, they have fences.   You have farms without fences.   Cool story.   

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I have no idea how may "head of cattle" they have but I could ask I imagine - never really thought about it.   I know one of the farms, near Drumheller, and the one I have been too most does only crops (canola now for about 10 years) but they have chickens/sheep/goats nearer the house and dogs do just fine keeping any animals away.    Just fine.    They used to have some Timothy grass and let grazers on and didn't need guns then either.   

 

Just like with hockey discussion, someone doesn't agree with you and you automatically go into full Richard mode.   I could give a crap about what you believe or don't believe but just because anytime someone has information that doesn't fit your view of the world (in this case, farmers need guns), you go full Richard.   Speaks volumes about a few things - that's on you.   Second, my family is PROUD of the non-gun thing just for the reason of being able to talk to the likes of you that feel they speak for all of anything (hockey people, farmers, idiots who carry guns).   It is far from something to be impressed with...and I am not.

 

Oh, as far as I know, all of the farms have fences.   I have not driven the perimeter of all of them but can say, with confidence, they have fences.   You have farms without fences.   Cool story.   

careful Rob, he knows "large farmers" 

[SabreFan1]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Shootouts aren't really that common.  Those using the guns generally aren't fired back on/at from the stories I see.

 

It sounds easy to point and fire, but when you're gripped by fear and a gun is already upon you, you actually have to grab yours and aim.  Too late?

 

That's just my initial thinking.

 

The power is already there...these daily shootings are proof of that.  

I'm not thinking about shoot-outs.  The Old West ended a long time ago.  Those only happen with any frequency in places like South Chicago and Detroit.  As far as I'm concerned those kind of people can shoot at each other all day.

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

careful Rob, he knows "large farmers" 

I didn't know you had to be big to be a farmer...lol.

 

It REALLY pisses me off when someone cannot discuss a topic without assuming they know every possible aspect of your own life/family/information.   I also wonder if those "big" farmers are compensating and also drive BIG trucks to go with their BIG guns?   Some guys don't need to carry anything extra to be a man.

[Lancaster]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

No...see this is the argument always brought up.  "it's not the tool it's the hand weilding it"

 

Well. 

 

Cars are for driving

Swords are for killing

Knives are for cutting or dressing

Guns are for killing

 

There's a reason you can drive around with a knife on your person or in your car but not a sword.  There's a reason I can't wave a gun, knife or sword around.  While they are tools as you say only two of the aforementioned examples have uses or were created for anything outside of killing.

 

That sir is a simple fact

 

I would like less guns because I would like the bad guys to actually have to work harder.  easier to disarm a guy with a knife or sword before they kill 3-5-50 people.  easier to stop a car with obstructions as well.

 

Guns though...not so much.  

 

Sure it's easier to stop a car with obstructions.... like after it has already ran over a pack of people.  It's relatively easier to stop someone with a melee weapon... but that's only after the fact when a few people have already been stabbed or attacked.   A firearm is easy to stop too, once the person is reloading or out of bullets.  Attacks are effective when there's the element of surprise involved..... everything can be stopped after the fact.  One can potentially argue that firearms are limited by the amount of bullets, whereas a car can keep going as long as the vehicle is still operation..... a melee weapon by the skill and stamina of the attacker.  

 

It's a simple fact that the majority of firearms owners and their guns are being use in a non-illegal manner.  So targeting them in an attempt to stop crimes with guns or people with hostile intention is pointless.  Firearms owners are supporters regarding initiatives targeting guns that has been acquired illegally.... and that should always remain the focus.  

 

People are trying to ban guns to save lives, yet automobiles kills more.  Yet because a vehicle is used for transport, suddenly it's acceptable that it's used as weapon?  Sword are all right because they're more manageable.... so does it mean someone shouldn't be able to learn to master a sword since the possibility to inflict damage is multiplied?  The majority of anti-gunners says they're reasoning is to save lives... but lets not lie to yourself and others.... your primary motivation is fear.  To combat fear you need to either understand it or to control it..... the majority doesn't wish to educate themselves, so they would rather wish to control it.  Making decisions purely based on emotions..... somehow this is an acceptable thing to do?

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I didn't know you had to be big to be a farmer...lol.

 

It REALLY pisses me off when someone cannot discuss a topic without assuming they know every possible aspect of your own life/family/information.   I also wonder if those "big" farmers are compensating and also drive BIG trucks to go with their BIG guns?   Some guys don't need to carry anything extra to be a man.

At the very least I would think your farming family would have guns to stop gophers.

[SabreFan1]

15 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

That's about what I expected, but I also believe it just doesn't happen that often. I get it for those that just want peace of mind having it and maybe it would be a good deterrent to scare off intruders, but my assumption is that the majority don't even know how to use one properly, let alone using one in a nerve wracking situation. I find it interesting that the news would not report the average Joe defending themselves, but they will show someone pulling out a gun in a Walmart to get the last notebook on the shelf or something to that extent. You'd think that those for guns would want to show more instances of people actually utilizing the guns they have to defend themselves to further their point.

 

There was a story of a shooting in a theatre a while back and you'd think that some citizen there would have had a gun and would take down the shooter, but I think for most people, it just isn't in their blood to do such an act (shooting someone, not the act of trying to be a hero). I'm not here to say whether people should be allowed to have guns or not, but the self defense idea to me just doesn't really hold in my mind.

No matter what Donald Trump and the NRA want you to believe, most people don't walk around packing a gun, even in states where it's perfectly legal to open carry without a license.  These stories in the news are from people taking their home weapons, that are supposed to stay at home, and bringing them to schools, work, churches, etc. 

[Rob_Zepp]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

At the very least I would think your farming family would have guns to stop gophers.

Cheap aeration for the crops.   

 

 

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I didn't know you had to be big to be a farmer...lol.

 

It REALLY pisses me off when someone cannot discuss a topic without assuming they know every possible aspect of your own life/family/information.   I also wonder if those "big" farmers are compensating and also drive BIG trucks to go with their BIG guns?   Some guys don't need to carry anything extra to be a man.

I hear ya. I do enjoy debating/arguing with people who have strong opinions (like you and I over Trudeau ) because I usually learn something, but it's annoying when the big assumptions and/or insults come into play.

[Warhippy]

19 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Sure it's easier to stop a car with obstructions.... like after it has already ran over a pack of people.  It's relatively easier to stop someone with a melee weapon... but that's only after the fact when a few people have already been stabbed or attacked.   A firearm is easy to stop too, once the person is reloading or out of bullets.  Attacks are effective when there's the element of surprise involved..... everything can be stopped after the fact.  One can potentially argue that firearms are limited by the amount of bullets, whereas a car can keep going as long as the vehicle is still operation..... a melee weapon by the skill and stamina of the attacker.  

 

It's a simple fact that the majority of firearms owners and their guns are being use in a non-illegal manner.  So targeting them in an attempt to stop crimes with guns or people with hostile intention is pointless.  Firearms owners are supporters regarding initiatives targeting guns that has been acquired illegally.... and that should always remain the focus.  

 

People are trying to ban guns to save lives, yet automobiles kills more.  Yet because a vehicle is used for transport, suddenly it's acceptable that it's used as weapon?  Sword are all right because they're more manageable.... so does it mean someone shouldn't be able to learn to master a sword since the possibility to inflict damage is multiplied?  The majority of anti-gunners says they're reasoning is to save lives... but lets not lie to yourself and others.... your primary motivation is fear.  To combat fear you need to either understand it or to control it..... the majority doesn't wish to educate themselves, so they would rather wish to control it.  Making decisions purely based on emotions..... somehow this is an acceptable thing to do?

 

[Ryan Strome]

40 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I didn't know you had to be big to be a farmer...lol.

 

It REALLY pisses me off when someone cannot discuss a topic without assuming they know every possible aspect of your own life/family/information.   I also wonder if those "big" farmers are compensating and also drive BIG trucks to go with their BIG guns?   Some guys don't need to carry anything extra to be a man.

If I'm not a farmer and drive a lifted truck am I still a man?

[Hypocritical Cranium]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I get outside plenty and I don't agree with shooting wolves and coyotes.   I agree with proper fences and dogs to protect your farm.   That is why family out west in Alberta and Saskatchewan do.    More than 20,000 acres between all of them and not single gun to be found.   

Wolves, cougars, bears, coyotes etc don't run from dogs or or fences. I call BS on any family who owns a farm and doesn't own a gun. I have never met a farmer without a gun and I deal directly with them almost daily. 

[Hypocritical Cranium]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

If I'm not a farmer and drive a lifted truck am I still a man?

I am a man. 

[Hypocritical Cranium]

38 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hear ya. I do enjoy debating/arguing with people who have strong opinions (like you and I over Trudeau ) because I usually learn something, but it's annoying when the big assumptions and/or insults come into play.

You mean like big trucks and big Guns?

[Hypocritical Cranium]

6 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

Because we have a real life caricature as our president in the US and a bunch of self serving greedy monkeys in Congress.

Both parties right?