OT: Shooting in Oregon Mall

[fordman84]

no, I did miss it, and for that I apologize.
there were a lot of pages in a very short amount of time.

I'll go back and find it.

no problem. Basically there was an incident like this that happened in Pearl River, MS. Difference is that an asst principal had a gun in his car and met the guy with the gun and ended it.

 

[whyoh]

just curious what's uncomfortable about the shows?

i just don't like the atmosphere....same reason i'm not comfortable shopping at walmart (especially this time of year)

 

[jstewismybastardson]

You're right jstew. I did read where guns sales have gone up again because of this like they do every time something like this happens.

Sad.

if Ive got the timeline straight it goes like so:

there is an initial sales spike because people fear what happened could happen to them

the buying trend returns to the norm ... the public outcry simmers

and THEN the NRA jumps in to the public debate to warn the government that any type of gun ban would be contrary to the second amendment ...

thus prompting people who fear a future ban on gun sales to BUY BUY BUY




/NRA: lobbyists or salesmen? both!

 

[puckhead]

I wouldn't want teachers armed, but I would like to see budgets redone to allow for more school police officers. Yes, we all hated them, but knowing that there is at least one person in the school that could shoot back might be a deterrent.

is this the one? then yes, that's not a bad idea.
tough to do when many states are already having trouble paying their teachers and keeping schools open, but worth looking at.


more important imho to reduce / regulate / control ownership of assault rifles.

 

[abaskin18]

So now you have stopped those under the table sales from happening at gun shows.

Instead they walk out to their cars and do the under-the-table deal. Outlawing something that is already against the law won't do much. I get what you are saying, but it is already illegal and being ignored so what is another law going to do?

Right. Because it only helps to fix one thing and not EVERYTHING it's not even worth discussing.

The less places people have to get unlicensed firearms the better, and people are not going to conduct as many under the table transactions for firearms in the parking lot or in a dark alley than they would in a safer place like a gun show surrounded by potential witnesses, especially if they are all fine, upstanding, law abiding, responsible gun owners like I keep hearing they are. If 1 out 100 people who buy guns under the table didn't want to go out to the parking lot for a shady gun deal where they could be more easily robbed and potentially harmed it would be worthwhile legislation, imo.

This is really the only thing I've heard from people who love their toys in the last few years. Can't stop it, so why bother. Just arm up and protect yourself.

 

[fordman84]

is this the one? then yes, that's not a bad idea.
tough to do when many states are already having trouble paying their teachers and keeping schools open, but worth looking at.


more important imho to reduce / regulate / control ownership of assault rifles.

That wasn't it, see a few posts above. For the record, I don't want teachers or faculty armed. I agree that funding teachers alone is difficult, but I'd hope that they districts could free up enough to pay a police officer $40k a year to police each school. We had them in HS, they would be a good idea in all schools. Would need some budget fixes, or most cities and towns would probably be ok with a tiny sales tax increase to fund it. Wouldn't take much I wouldn't think.

 

[fordman84]

Right. Because it only helps to fix one thing and not EVERYTHING it's not even worth discussing.

The less places people have to get unlicensed firearms the better, and people are not going to conduct as many under the table transactions for firearms in the parking lot or in a dark alley than they would in a safer place like a gun show surrounded by potential witnesses, especially if they are all fine, upstanding, law abiding, responsible gun owners like I keep hearing they are. If 1 out 100 people who buy guns under the table didn't want to go out to the parking lot for a shady gun deal where they could be more easily robbed and potentially harmed it would be worthwhile legislation, imo.

This is really the only thing I've heard from people who love their toys in the last few years. Can't stop it, so why bother. Just arm up and protect yourself.

What are you talking about? YOU are the one talking about one thing, the gun show loophole, and I pointed out that IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. I'm not talking about not doing anything, I'm talking about what is the point of making something that is illegal...illegaler?

 

[abaskin18]

What are you talking about? YOU are the one talking about one thing, the gun show loophole, and I pointed out that IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. I'm not talking about not doing anything, I'm talking about what is the point of making something that is illegal...illegaler?

You pointed out how closing it would only move illegal sales out to the parking lot but not limit them at all. I disagree.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

if Ive got the timeline straight it goes like so:

there is an initial sales spike because people fear what happened could happen to them

the buying trend returns to the norm ... the public outcry simmers

and THEN the NRA jumps in to the public debate to warn the government that any type of gun ban would be contrary to the second amendment ...

thus prompting people who fear a future ban on gun sales to BUY BUY BUY




/NRA: lobbyists or salesmen? both!

I hear you buddy, Didn't know if you saw my edit or not. Going back in the hospital for two procedure's again over the holidays and have not gotten much sleep lately. Sorry. I get to spend the holidays alone too. That always helps.

 

[fordman84]

You pointed out how closing it would only move illegal sales out to the parking lot but not limit them at all. I disagree.

No, what I said was that if it is already illegal and that isn't stopping them then what good is passing another law to make it more illegal? if they are going to skirt the laws on the books, another law isn't going to stop them.

 

[Comeds]

no problem. Basically there was an incident like this that happened in Pearl River, MS. Difference is that an asst principal had a gun in his car and met the guy with the gun and ended it.

After he killed 3 people and injured 7. It was 'ended' as he was leaving the school.

 

[abaskin18]

No, what I said was that if it is already illegal and that isn't stopping them then what good is passing another law to make it more illegal? if they are going to skirt the laws on the books, another law isn't going to stop them.

So you believe that under the table transactions at gun shows are patrolled for, policed and ultimately enforced?

If they skirt the laws on the books then tougher laws for under the table gun sellers and buyers are needed. Wouldn't hurt if the law abiding gun buyers took a stand and said they weren't going to stand for these transactions and would report them to a law enforcement agency that actually gave a shit, either.

EDIT: So, yes. Illegaler, as you put it.

 

[Comeds]

/NRA: lobbyists or salesmen? both!

Years ago Maryland had a gun control question on the ballot, honestly I do not remember what the law was so I cannot answer today whether it was a good law or not.

Later in the day I talked to numerous people who had decided to vote against the proposed new law and had their minds changed as they were walking to the polls by the way the NRA electioneers looked and acted.

 

[forty_three]

nope not yet boss ... theyre waiting for things to die down before making a public comment ... plus gun sales are up during this period of everyone calling for bans

One one hand, it's good that the NRA has learned that fucking that chicken so close to a tragedy is disgusting and not trotting out whatever idiot is Charlton Heston's replacement.

On the other hand, you just know there are people inside there and the gun companies who LOVE this kind of marketing opportunity. Money in the bank!

After he killed 3 people and injured 7. It was 'ended' as he was leaving the school.

Stop it with your god damned facts. There are straw men to be built!

 

[jstewismybastardson]

One one hand, it's good that the NRA has learned that fucking that chicken so close to a tragedy is disgusting and not trotting out whatever idiot is Charlton Heston's replacement.

On the other hand, you just know there are people inside there and the gun companies who LOVE this kind of marketing opportunity.

at first i thought Cerberus was acting on a policy of corporate social responsibility (laugh anytime you want) when it announced today that it was selling the company that manufactures the Bushmaster weapon

upon reflection and hearing that gun sales are spiking right now, theyre probably just selling high

 

[fordman84]

After he killed 3 people and injured 7. It was 'ended' as he was leaving the school.

to go where? We don't know. The point is that someone with a gun was able to stop this person and hold him until the cops arrived. Maybe the guy was going to go somewhere else and get revenge on others?

 

[fordman84]

So you believe that under the table transactions at gun shows are patrolled for, policed and ultimately enforced?

If they skirt the laws on the books then tougher laws for under the table gun sellers and buyers are needed. Wouldn't hurt if the law abiding gun buyers took a stand and said they weren't going to stand for these transactions and would report them to a law enforcement agency that actually gave a shit, either.

EDIT: So, yes. Illegaler, as you put it.

So you are equating a law with enforcement? As if passing yet another law will all of a sudden increase enforcement?

Do you think passing another law making murder illegal would do any good?

 

[robV703]

Hello hockey people. This applies to the title of this thread, didn't see it posted yet.

[YOUTUBE]58p1X-yOWy8[/YOUTUBE]

Nobody watched this or found it interesting?

 

[Comeds]

to go where? We don't know. The point is that someone with a gun was able to stop this person and hold him until the cops arrived. Maybe the guy was going to go somewhere else and get revenge on others?

Maybe he was, who knows. Either way you left those facts out of your post because you knew it sounded better for your point.

Or perhaps you didnt know the facts and just repeated a Facebook thing going around.

 

[fordman84]

Maybe he was, who knows. Either way you left those facts out of your post because you knew it sounded better for your point.

Or perhaps you didnt know the facts and just repeated a Facebook thing going around.

I did nothing of the sort. Someone dismissed the idea of arming teachers and I said they should read up about a specific incident.

I left nothing out since I suggested the person I was responding too should go read up and form their own opinion from their choice of outlets.

Did you even see my original post, or are you just interjecting and making accusations like "you left those facts out" without having the first clue what I actually said?