If not now, when? If not us, then who?

ZealotX wrote: MadHatter,
Why the hell would you get off the bus if you already anticipated a problem? But no, what you're suggesting is that you become the threat that people join gangs to protect themselves from. You're the danger. Not because you have a gun. Not because you have a bigger "stick". But because you are filled with fear and have the willingness to end the LIFE of another human being to avoid being hurt when if it was truly a life or death situation you could have stayed on the damn bus.

This is how we contribute to violence. By being afraid of violence. By being afraid of it we add to it. And we stand on the sidelines, not doing anything because we don't want to be next. We don't want to be a target. And we want to have our own gangs and our own library of guns to give us security. I worked with a guy who had over 20 guns. Nice guy. Great personality. But again, too influenced by fear. Gangs are obviously a focal point of violence. But the things they do are done in an ironic effort to keep themselves safe. Why do they roll in groups? Safety in numbers; pack mentality.

You have no idea how rare the situation you're talking about is. You don't understand the streets so you assume that they are filled by a bunch of human predators who can't wait to kill you so they can go to jail for years, not have sex(with women) for years, and be a financial burden on their friends and families. No, they don't think about any of that. They are just out there salivating at the thought of beating you into a bloody pulp. Not even animals kill for no reason. If you're in their territory they may scare you so you LEAVE their territory. If you run they probably won't chase you. Instead they might laugh at how fast you ran because they'd rather laugh than risk getting in real trouble.

The best way to survive on the streets is a little technique called "mind your own damn business". The currency of the streets are money and respect. If a person has no beef with you and you're not a threat then you're not a target. This idea, especially that "black thugs" just beat up on poor defenseless white dudes is a fiction provoked by those who traffic in fear. And that fear spreads. And instead of saying "I'm racist and hate black people." they say insinuate that you should all be afraid of black people. And then, like Trayvon, YOU are the killer; not them. And THEN when they see you... now they DO have beef because, to them, YOU ARE THE THUG.

This is a lot of assumptions. Why did I get off the bus? Because it was the last bus and the last stop that they boot you off at was DEEPER in the area that would cause a problem So getting off as soon as I realized I had gone one stop too far was my best choice. Further, if they have no beef with me there is no issue? Huh funny I was pointed out as a victim just because someone wanted to make their bones in a gang. And this was not just a punch we are talking about. Its two people armed with pipes or a pipe and a stick ( Could not be sure on one of them) plus two others to aid in the attack, if you do not think this can kill you are very mistaken. I dont understand the streets? I grew up in the ghetto so please do not assume what I do or do not know. In short you accuse people of assuming the worst in others. You might wish to consider some self reflection in that area.

MadHatter wrote:

ZealotX wrote: MadHatter,
Why the hell would you get off the bus if you already anticipated a problem? But no, what you're suggesting is that you become the threat that people join gangs to protect themselves from. You're the danger. Not because you have a gun. Not because you have a bigger "stick". But because you are filled with fear and have the willingness to end the LIFE of another human being to avoid being hurt when if it was truly a life or death situation you could have stayed on the damn bus.

This is how we contribute to violence. By being afraid of violence. By being afraid of it we add to it. And we stand on the sidelines, not doing anything because we don't want to be next. We don't want to be a target. And we want to have our own gangs and our own library of guns to give us security. I worked with a guy who had over 20 guns. Nice guy. Great personality. But again, too influenced by fear. Gangs are obviously a focal point of violence. But the things they do are done in an ironic effort to keep themselves safe. Why do they roll in groups? Safety in numbers; pack mentality.

You have no idea how rare the situation you're talking about is. You don't understand the streets so you assume that they are filled by a bunch of human predators who can't wait to kill you so they can go to jail for years, not have sex(with women) for years, and be a financial burden on their friends and families. No, they don't think about any of that. They are just out there salivating at the thought of beating you into a bloody pulp. Not even animals kill for no reason. If you're in their territory they may scare you so you LEAVE their territory. If you run they probably won't chase you. Instead they might laugh at how fast you ran because they'd rather laugh than risk getting in real trouble.

The best way to survive on the streets is a little technique called "mind your own damn business". The currency of the streets are money and respect. If a person has no beef with you and you're not a threat then you're not a target. This idea, especially that "black thugs" just beat up on poor defenseless white dudes is a fiction provoked by those who traffic in fear. And that fear spreads. And instead of saying "I'm racist and hate black people." they say insinuate that you should all be afraid of black people. And then, like Trayvon, YOU are the killer; not them. And THEN when they see you... now they DO have beef because, to them, YOU ARE THE THUG.

This is a lot of assumptions. Why did I get off the bus? Because it was the last bus and the last stop that they boot you off at was DEEPER in the area that would cause a problem So getting off as soon as I realized I had gone one stop too far was my best choice. Further, if they have no beef with me there is no issue? Huh funny I was pointed out as a victim just because someone wanted to make their bones in a gang. And this was not just a punch we are talking about. Its two people armed with pipes or a pipe and a stick ( Could not be sure on one of them) plus two others to aid in the attack, if you do not think this can kill you are very mistaken. I dont understand the streets? I grew up in the ghetto so please do not assume what I do or do not know. In short you accuse people of assuming the worst in others. You might wish to consider some self reflection in that are.

I can speak honestly and say in that instance if it hadn't been You it a been some one else. I feel ya Hatter . I'm right there with you . To receive a diffrence in life often I had to be ... the difference that was needed. ... some won't understand and that's ok too! Be smart , Jedi are and vigilant . Keep seeking and you WILL find a way and or make a new way.

Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

Senan wrote: Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

That is called Texas.just a joke.
That day has come and gone friend. Sadly . Now ... what to do about today? That's the kicker! Maybe stop voting IN people who pass those and vote OUT. Easyer said than done , I just moved from Illinois to North Carolina due to the wonderful non ways of the elected officials. Can't do business there any more like that. Takes a lot to do as thou wilt and harm None some times ... took us moving cross state to a place that won't fine me for .. offgridding. Took seeking

Senan wrote: Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

the vast majority of firearms owned are semi-automatic, a massive number. We are not putting guns before the lives of children, many people choose those guns in order to protect those children and are labeled monsters for it. Claiming they do not care because the do not agree with you or care differently then you does not mean they do not care.

"Weapons designed for military" are designated under the FFA (Federal firearms act) as illegal and HIGHLY REGULATED since the 1930's.

Claiming the other side is naturally wrong and needs to change without hearing their arguments or seeing any legitimacy will not bring about beneficial change. There is a host of information attesting to the legitimacy of private gun ownership but whenever people call of discussion on "Common sense gun control" the people who criticize the legislation are mocked for holding up progress, stopping a good thing or simply not caring about people. None of that is true.

jag1993 wrote:

Senan wrote: Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

the vast majority of firearms owned are semi-automatic, a massive number. We are not putting guns before the lives of children, many people choose those guns in order to protect those children and are labeled monsters for it. Claiming they do not care because the do not agree with you or care differently then you does not mean they do not care.

"Weapons designed for military" are designated under the FFA (Federal firearms act) as illegal and HIGHLY REGULATED since the 1930's.

Claiming the other side is naturally wrong and needs to change without hearing their arguments or seeing any legitimacy will not bring about beneficial change. There is a host of information attesting to the legitimacy of private gun ownership but whenever people call of discussion on "Common sense gun control" the people who criticize the legislation are mocked for holding up progress, stopping a good thing or simply not caring about people. None of that is true.

I think the point Senan was making was that the fact that children have been the victim of bad men over and over again and yet still no changes have been made is the issue. The fact that lawmakers sit by and watch their future die because of archaic laws, the fact that gun owners sit by and mumble "government won't take MY guns" while watching yet another mass shooting take place is the issue.

Taking away guns will probably never happen... but perhaps not being able to go out to a Wal-Mart to pick up a M4 would be a start.

The land of the free, where one does not have to fear tyranny... save that for the tyranny of the deranged man behind the barrel.

Arisaig wrote:

jag1993 wrote:

Senan wrote: Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

the vast majority of firearms owned are semi-automatic, a massive number. We are not putting guns before the lives of children, many people choose those guns in order to protect those children and are labeled monsters for it. Claiming they do not care because the do not agree with you or care differently then you does not mean they do not care.

"Weapons designed for military" are designated under the FFA (Federal firearms act) as illegal and HIGHLY REGULATED since the 1930's.

Claiming the other side is naturally wrong and needs to change without hearing their arguments or seeing any legitimacy will not bring about beneficial change. There is a host of information attesting to the legitimacy of private gun ownership but whenever people call of discussion on "Common sense gun control" the people who criticize the legislation are mocked for holding up progress, stopping a good thing or simply not caring about people. None of that is true.

I think the point Senan was making was that the fact that children have been the victim of bad men over and over again and yet still no changes have been made is the issue. The fact that lawmakers sit by and watch their future die because of archaic laws, the fact that gun owners sit by and mumble "government won't take MY guns" while watching yet another mass shooting take place is the issue.

Taking away guns will probably never happen... but perhaps not being able to go out to a Wal-Mart to pick up a M4 would be a start.

The land of the free, where one does not have to fear tyranny... save that for the tyranny of the deranged man behind the barrel.

Valid point.

children are often victims of crime, other crimes. You cannot outlaw evil. Every protection cannot be guaranteed. Isn't it possible that the reason those politicians and other voters didn't support those bills were because they were not suitable for the situation?

You can't buy an M4 at walmart. Its already illegal to do so, so what is the point to pass another law that didn't work the first time. The deranged man, yes, should be the focus but it becomes exasperated when the finger turns to other innocents as what is occurring now. The gun owner community is just as grieving over this but they being accused of having blood on their hands because of their criticism of these laws.

jap1993 wrote: The deranged man, yes, should be the focus but it becomes exasperated when the finger turns to other innocents as what is occurring now. The gun owner community is just as grieving over this but they being accused of having blood on their hands because of their criticism of these laws.

Yes, it's important to focus on mental health. And guns are great for sport and hunting of course...

But if the gun community doesn't want to get to a point that their guns are taken away for their own safety, perhaps it's time to raise the quality of gun owners, not just the quantity? We have gun owners up here in Canada, and no shootings to that level. Difference? It can take years to get our license and gun. There are no open carry laws up here. We have mag capacity limiters up here to ensure no one has a full mag even when at the range (who needs ~30 rounds of ammo to protect themselves anyways? If you cant do it with 5 rounds, you're too clumsy to have a gun, and if anyone seriously needs a assault rifle for self defence, their only issue is their ego not criminals).

Arisaig wrote:

jap1993 wrote: The deranged man, yes, should be the focus but it becomes exasperated when the finger turns to other innocents as what is occurring now. The gun owner community is just as grieving over this but they being accused of having blood on their hands because of their criticism of these laws.

Yes, it's important to focus on mental health. And guns are great for sport and hunting of course...

But if the gun community doesn't want to get to a point that their guns are taken away for their own safety, perhaps it's time to raise the quality of gun owners, not just the quantity? We have gun owners up here in Canada, and no shootings to that level. Difference? It can take years to get our license and gun. There are no open carry laws up here. We have mag capacity limiters up here to ensure no one has a full mag even when at the range (who needs ~30 rounds of ammo to protect themselves anyways? If you cant do it with 5 rounds, you're too clumsy to have a gun, and if anyone seriously needs a assault rifle for self defence, their only issue is their ego not criminals).

But who is it to say what is best for another person? The gun community won't get its for 'their best interest' because not you or any one can discern what is or is not in their best interest other then them. In terms of quality, you cannot judge the entirety of the gun owning community based on these acts, they do not represent the gun owning community who follow the laws. We have a right to own guns and ammo, a waiting period is arguably against that right and in cases in America states have been sued for pushing the waiting period further and further back denying them their rights. Access to the right is just as protected as practicing the right itself. In America, magazine sizes and carry laws vary from state to state.

In a life or death situation who is adequate to say what is and what is not acceptable in defending a life.

"Assault" rifle was a politically engineered term after the attempted assassination of Ronald Regan, the ensuing assault rifle ban targeted cosmetics of the firearm (things like an adjustable stock, pistol grip and even some cases, an extended magazine) not the actual function or mechanism of the gun. The assault rifle ban only banned guns based on how they looked. "Assault rifles" also have adequate purposes at the gun range with aperture sighs, the adjustable stock allows for easier and cost efficient ways of allowing multiple users to use the same gun and come in a variety of calibers. It is not the gun, it is the person.

jag1993 wrote: But who is it to say what is best for another person? The gun community won't get its for 'their best interest' because not you or any one can discern what is or is not in their best interest other then them. In terms of quality, you cannot judge the entirety of the gun owning community based on these acts, they do not represent the gun owning community who follow the laws. We have a right to own guns and ammo, a waiting period is arguably against that right and in cases in America states have been sued for pushing the waiting period further and further back denying them their rights. Access to the right is just as protected as practicing the right itself. In America, magazine sizes and carry laws vary from state to state.

In a life or death situation who is adequate to say what is and what is not acceptable in defending a life.

"Assault" rifle was a politically engineered term after the attempted assassination of Ronald Regan, the ensuing assault rifle ban targeted cosmetics of the firearm (things like an adjustable stock, pistol grip and even some cases, an extended magazine) not the actual function or mechanism of the gun. The assault rifle ban only banned guns based on how they looked. "Assault rifles" also have adequate purposes at the gun range with aperture sighs, the adjustable stock allows for easier and cost efficient ways of allowing multiple users to use the same gun and come in a variety of calibers. It is not the gun, it is the person.

Yeah, I'm not going into the specifics and debating the use of the term Assault Rifle here. Machine Gun, Assault Rifle, hell, even Bang Bang Death Tube, it's all still the same thing. The word does not change it.

Obviously the gun community wouldn't disarm themselves. The government would do it. Around 20 years ago there was a mass shooting in Australia (not nearly as big as the one the USA had 2 days ago) and the government massively overhauled the private gun ownership system. If memory serves, the shooting that did this had ~30 people dead. 2 days ago a deranged man killed >50 people, injuring >500 people in the process. 500. 500! When will the number be big enough for change?

Yeah, it's part of American's rights... for archaic reasons. "Oh, it's to protect us in case the government decides to become a dictatorship." is the common argument in this case. And time and time again I fail to see how the average Billy Joe Bob with his shotgun is going to stand up against even your countries basic military, much less Special Forces like the Marines with their Drone and missiles and fighter jets. So that argument is moot.

Gun owners want guns because they like guns. And if they want to continue enjoying what they like, they should probably be calling for improved gun control, higher standards, longer wait times, ect to get their guns to ensure the deranged don't get their hands on them.