Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

And none of that would negatively impact law-abiding gun owners.

Bullshit. Background checks negatively impact law-abiding gun owners. If not because it's a huge hassle, because the door is open for the Government (against who the People protect themselves from by Keeping and Bearing Arms) to implement impossible restrictions on who can pass a background check.

Mark my words, that's the next anti- crusade. If UBC are compromised, antis will be asking for questions on the form about who a potential gun buyer wants protection from, and now you have Massachusetts "suitability" judgement in the decision of who passes the background check.

That's why there can be no compromise.

BTW, the antis will call this position "extreme", that .gov will never do such a thing, or most likely that "if you think that way you probably shouldn't have a gun anyway because you are a psycho nut-case".

This is how Tyrants come to power, by marginalizing and demonizing their enemies.
 
Last edited:
If the supply of guns to the South Side of Chicago dried up considerably, criminals would still criminal. They'd still shoot each other. But on an aggregate level, they'd have fewer guns to do it with and murders would go down. Would they look for guns elsewhere? Yup. And if law enforcement would systematically shut down those flows, they'd still get some in. But not as many. I don't buy the notion that criminals (and potential criminals) can get all the guns they want and there's nothing we can do about it. We can cut off the illegal supply by making it harder to supply guns illegally and by punishing the crap out of those that do. And none of that would negatively impact law-abiding gun owners.

Before becoming all jeers, I'm all ears.
How, I prithee, do we go about doing this sans infringing on rights of the common good?

Supply will find its way, and if supply dries up then there are other killing methods. Enforcing laws is out of our hands. It's in the hands of our dear leaders. Hell, even Kim Jong Un enforces laws. [laughs]
 
It is only a compromise if they give something in return. I have never heard an anti propose to give something in return for UBC's.
 
If the supply of guns to the South Side of Chicago dried up considerably, criminals would still criminal. They'd still shoot each other. But on an aggregate level, they'd have fewer guns to do it with and murders would go down. Would they look for guns elsewhere? Yup. And if law enforcement would systematically shut down those flows, they'd still get some in. But not as many. I don't buy the notion that criminals (and potential criminals) can get all the guns they want and there's nothing we can do about it. We can cut off the illegal supply by making it harder to supply guns illegally and by punishing the crap out of those that do. And none of that would negatively impact law-abiding gun owners.

I think the war on guns would be as successful as the war on drugs. It's not like the supply reduction would drive up the price of illegal guns, spurring new entrants into the black market, right? In economics you have to think a couple steps ahead.
 
Why do we have so many illegal immigrants?
Because America is ****ing awesome and poor people desperately want to come here to seek a better life. Just the same as when your immigrant forebears arrived, whenever that was. (Assuming you aren't full-blooded Native American.)

Why is it that the gov can't nail these people and send them away.
Because it's a huge country and we don't have the resources to keep everyone out. And there are moneyed interests that need those illegal immigrants around to pick much of the food you buy at the grocery store.

Aside: For as much as you guys hate Obama, the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border.
 
Because America is ****ing awesome and poor people desperately want to come here to seek a better life. Just the same as when your immigrant forebears arrived, whenever that was. (Assuming you aren't full-blooded Native American.)


Because it's a huge country and we don't have the resources to keep everyone out. And there are moneyed interests that need those illegal immigrants around to pick much of the food you buy at the grocery store.

Aside: For as much as you guys hate Obama, the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border.

paranoidparrot_105440_1325138405.jpg
 
I think the war on guns would be as successful as the war on drugs. It's not like the supply reduction would drive up the price of illegal guns, spurring new entrants into the black market, right? In economics you have to think a couple steps ahead.
What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away. (much more effectively than we've managed to take away drugs too)

- - - Updated - - -

Completely serious. You've been following my posts. Do I look like I'm not earnest here?

Which part don't you believe/understand?
 
What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away.

45577d1352536360t-i-hope-jellybean-does-not-come-s3-24005427.jpg
 
Why do we have so many illegal immigrants? Why is it that the gov can't nail these people and send them away.
Because America is ****ing awesome and poor people desperately want to come here to seek a better life. Just the same as when your immigrant forebears arrived, whenever that was. (Assuming you aren't full-blooded Native American.)


Because it's a huge country and we don't have the resources to keep everyone out. And there are moneyed interests that need those illegal immigrants around to pick much of the food you buy at the grocery store.

Aside: For as much as you guys hate Obama, the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border.
<sigh>Just when there seemed to be hope. OT we go.
799a59fbdbea6c6896719274a5416fcd.jpg
 
Last edited:
1. "the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...bama-administration-documents-show-1.10927857
"The figures also show that deportations of criminal immigrants have dropped to the lowest numbers since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, despite his pledge to focus on finding and deporting criminals living in the country illegally."


2. " They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away."
http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

"We count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. "
 
Last edited:
1. "the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...bama-administration-documents-show-1.10927857
"The figures also show that deportations of criminal immigrants have dropped to the lowest numbers since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, despite his pledge to focus on finding and deporting criminals living in the country illegally."


2. " They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away."
http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

"We count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. "
And the US data is highly skewed by the top few (4?) cities with high murder rates and strict gun control (ex. D.C., Chicago).
Hey, don't blame me. He's the one that brought up illegal immigration! [thinking]
There's baiting the trap, and then there's stepping into the trap. 30 lashes for you both.
 
Last edited:
UK Murder Rate:

"The Coroners only called 229 of the cases they determined a cause of death on a homicide, and in 4400 cases they filed a "narrative verdict" describing the cause of death in a narrative manner without putting it in a category. If those 4400 cases are what we would normally call murders Big Edit starts here that would suggest that the correct number of "violent deaths of interest to the police" is on the order of 4700 for 2011, then the UK murder rate is 8.5 per 100,000 or about 177% of the US murder rate. Now, honestly, we don't know what conclusion as to cause the coroner would have reached if they weren't using It's entirely possible that very few of them would have been classed as homicides. We don't know. My point here isn't that the English death rates should be quoted from the highest available but rather, no matter which source I attempt to use, I can't actually get an apples to apples comparison. The data simply isn't available. "
 
Some people no matter what amount of training they have will still be dangerous. Vermont consistently ranks as one of the safest states in the US yet has basically the least amount of regulations and restrictions on firearms ownership.
Also who gets to decide what the requirements will be, how much it will cost, where and when it has to take place etc.
It's insanity to let govt. or someone else decide your life.


Well the main solution is ending the war on drugs, but American society is diseased and screwed and that is what causes these shootings at their heart, not guns. But to claim everyone is capable of owning guns safely because you or I are I is insanity.



There are no such things as alpha and beta males, and furthermore those are thoughts espoused by many that commit school shootings.
 
you came here to troll, didn't you?

Yes, he did, and he'll never get a permission slip to own a gun, let alone ever buy one. Because they're killy and he can't be sure of himself, he may suddenly get bloodthirsty. It has become quite apparent. Scratch my last thread, evil vs ignorant. No more cutting any slack.
 
Because America is ****ing awesome and poor people desperately want to come here to seek a better life. Just the same as when your immigrant forebears arrived, whenever that was. (Assuming you aren't full-blooded Native American.)


Because it's a huge country and we don't have the resources to keep everyone out. And there are moneyed interests that need those illegal immigrants around to pick much of the food you buy at the grocery store.

Aside: For as much as you guys hate Obama, the guy has deported one hell of a lot of illegal immigrants, including an increasing percentage caught immediately after crossing the border.

never mind BigBlue already posted the links



 
What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away. (much more effectively than we've managed to take away drugs too)

The criminals have plenty of guns in the UK, thank you, and use them regularly.

The handgun ban of 1997 didn't magically cut handgun homicides. UK Home Office statistics show that they increased after everyone was supposed to hand in their nasty killy things.

Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png
 
Their homicide rate has always been lower. Check what the homicide rate was before the ban.
I don't think you watched Bill Whittles video # 1 with a bullet ,nor did you look over www.gunfacts.info
Also I don't have the link but I believe it's been posted in this thread with the cake called Illustrated guide to gun control.
We've surrendered too much in the name of safety. Gun control decreases public safety.
Also I believe you were asked why is it only deaths by people with guns that only seem to matter to you?

What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away. (much more effectively than we've managed to take away drugs too)

- - - Updated - - -


Completely serious. You've been following my posts. Do I look like I'm not earnest here?

Which part don't you believe/understand?
 
Last edited:
What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away. (much more effectively than we've managed to take away drugs too)

- - - Updated - - -


Completely serious. You've been following my posts. Do I look like I'm not earnest here?

Which part don't you believe/understand?

You know that comparing stats in the UK and US is apples and oranges, right? In the UK a "crime" is recorded only when a conviction is achieved. No conviction, no crime. US is obviously different.

Also, you are only looking at gun crime. This is either short-sided (by mistake) or propaganda (by design) as more people die from hammers and hands and feet each year in the US. Violent crime rates are the real measure of safe or unsafe.

If we banned Subcompact cars, there would be less accidents involving subcompact cars. That ban may or may not have an effect on total car accidents. But to ignore total car accidents and only focus on subcompact car accidents is short-sided. Unless, of course, you have an agenda to ban subcompact cars and only want to discuss accidents involving them.
 
Last edited:
When you have to register...or fill out a form...or jump through any hoops it is an infringement. You shouldn't need to do any of that for a RIGHT...when you have to ask it becomes a granted (or denied) PERMISSION. What if you could practice whatever religion you wanted but had to register your Bible, Koran, etc with the state? Most people would find that ridiculous but you can't do it to some rights and not others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What worries me is that the anti's ARE thinking ahead. They're thinking about the UK, where the gun murder rate is multiple orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Because the criminals don't have guns. Because there aren't very many guns. Because they took them all away. (much more effectively than we've managed to take away drugs too)

Even before the UK completely banned guns, they had a lower murder rate than the U.S., including murders where the murder weapon was a gun. Banning private gun ownership did nothing to reduce their murder rate. In fact, the overall murder rate increased after their gun ban, as did their violent crime rate. These same people love to point out that there haven't been any mass shootings in Australia since Port Arthur. Not only is that a lie (there have been at least two since) but there have still been plenty of mass-murders there, be it stabbings, blunt attacks, and what appears to be Australia's favorite...fire. There have been 9 mass-murders since Port Arthur, compared to 13 in the 20 years before it. Four of the attacks since Port Arthur had more victims than any of the ones prior to it.
 
Even before the UK completely banned guns, they had a lower murder rate than the U.S., including murders where the murder weapon was a gun. Banning private gun ownership did nothing to reduce their murder rate. In fact, the overall murder rate increased after their gun ban, as did their violent crime rate. These same people love to point out that there haven't been any mass shootings in Australia since Port Arthur. Not only is that a lie (there have been at least two since) but there have still been plenty of mass-murders there, be it stabbings, blunt attacks, and what appears to be Australia's favorite...fire. There have been 9 mass-murders since Port Arthur, compared to 13 in the 20 years before it. Four of the attacks since Port Arthur had more victims than any of the ones prior to it.

and if we add the fatalities caused by auto accidents and cigarettes, we have a number approximately 4 orders of magnitude higher than anything related to firearm......and yet we are so focused on legislation for "gun crimes". no matter how the cake is sliced, it's all bullshit inside.
 
If the supply of guns to the South Side of Chicago dried up considerably, criminals would still criminal. They'd still shoot each other. But on an aggregate level, they'd have fewer guns to do it with and murders would go down. Would they look for guns elsewhere? Yup. And if law enforcement would systematically shut down those flows, they'd still get some in. But not as many. I don't buy the notion that criminals (and potential criminals) can get all the guns they want and there's nothing we can do about it. We can cut off the illegal supply by making it harder to supply guns illegally and by punishing the crap out of those that do. And none of that would negatively impact law-abiding gun owners.

You are right criminals would still criminal. You cannot stop criminals from getting guns. In Europe they made it hard to get guns by making ownership so difficult hardly anyone owns them (thus hardly anyone sells them).

So what do criminals do? They make their own.

Whatever one thinks of the proliferation of firearms, it’s a fact that the technology needed to make reliable, effective weapons is well in hand. Even at the lowest levels of industrial capability firearms are practical, manufacturable items, and even fully automatic ones. Weapons with a great deal of firepower can be made from simple, off-the-shelf items at home. Proof of this can be seen in the numerous improvised firearms that continually turn up all over the world.

ImproGuns, who contributes to this site, recently published an article on a weapon made to an extremely high standard; an illicit machine gun that turned up in large numbers in Croatia, as well as in Holland and the UK. Following that, he also wrote about a different firearm made to nearly as high a standard as the first. Either weapon is small, concealable, and capable of unleashing fully automatic firepower. How can you keep such weapons out of the hands of criminals? simply, there is no way, besides locking up the criminals themselves.

smgseizeduk-660x379.jpg


Weapons like the one above are no more than simple tubes with a minor amount of welded sub-assemblies, and trigger mechanisms that amount to nothing more than a bar blocking the bolt from going forward. The heart of their mechanism is a mass on a spring, no more complex than the simplified oscillation diagrams in a high school physics textbook, with a protruding, fixed pin at the front to detonate the primers of cartridges. There are no complex internal sub-assemblies, nothing requiring precision machining, and every single component can be made in a garage by unskilled labor. These kinds of weapons were perfected in WWII, but people have been “rolling their own” well before that, and many, many of the most famous gun designers (one of whom was, himself, a cop-killer and an outlaw, Williams was for the record a distinct outlier among gun designers) got their start making improvised weapons at home, before turning their talents towards the pursuit of designing and making factory firearms.

In that second of the World Wars, a weapon was devised that was so simple, scuttlebutt has it that it took longer for a shooter to load one than it did for the factory to make it. The cost per unit of that FP-45 Liberator was, at the time, only $2.40 a unit, or a little over $30 in today’s money. The single-shot Liberator was designed as a weapon to be dropped in large quantities all over Europe for partisans to use against the occupying German forces, but even it was not so much cheaper than the existing fully automatic 9mm Sten submachine gun, that the latter eventually was chosen instead as the weapon that would arm Europe for its liberation. Either weapon is a model for the home-builder, and those few with the legal sanction to do so have often chosen the Sten, or something equally simple, as their first fully automatic weapon to manufacture legally.

When the conversation turns to guns, my father is fond of saying “the genie is out of the bottle”. No matter what laws or regulations are in place, the technology to make firearms from readily available materials and simple processes is in-hand, and nothing short of total de-industrialization can turn that clock back. Examples of the unleashed genie abound; a recent trip to the National Firearms Museum had me beholding weapons made by Vietnamese Communists out of tubes and boards, with dubious firing mechanisms. Beyond this crude level of work, [Advisement: The following links will take you to Amazon pages for volumes on how to make your own fully automatic firearms; these are illegal in many countries, and in the United States if you do not possess a Type 2 SOT, and there is a chance that law enforcement may perceive the purchase of these volumes as a precursor to criminal activity – having said that, they are all on my Amazon wish list] many volumes have been written detailing the construction of simple, pistol-caliber blowback submachine guns. As long as suitable ammunition is available, it is very difficult to prevent the manufacture of relatively modern, effective fully automatic weapons, as they can be produced in almost any shop or garage capable of even basic fabrication.

Even without ready sources of quality ammunition, propellants, primers, and cartridge casings can be produced from scratch given even modest industriousness, let alone industrial facilities. Earlier, we ran an article on YouTuber Cody’s successful effort to make homemade blackpowder – and even selfloading weapons can be made to function with ammunition loaded with blackpowder

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/04/the-genie-is-out-of-the-bottle/


While these guns look crude and not well made a criminal doesn't care about looks, he cares if the job will get done. Function over form.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom