posted by iclfan2I think that's a bit much. How would the director know anything going on at a field office? Fire the people actually responsible.
I've always thought you should fire those responsible, and those at the next level above them*.
* - unless that was me, of course.
Not to mention that banned guns end up in criminal hands anyhow.
posted by iclfan2I think that's a bit much. How would the director know anything going on at a field office? Fire the people actually responsible.
Agree. Although how do you detain someone who has not committed a crime; I believe you cannot. And how could we afford 24 hour surveillance for every single nut job that law enforcement gets a tip on .........impossible. Everyone wants the quick and easy answer, but there isn't one. I posted above where the problem emanates from; there is no way to reverse that quickly, and I doubt if ever, given the track this country is on.
posted by iclfan2
As for pistol vs. AR, other than Vegas, a pistol could do the same damage. Take Florida, if you have 2 Glocks holding 16 rounds each, plus a few extra magazines (or loaded guns), you would do the same amount of damage.
I hope you meant could. The effective kill range of a glock (depending on model ) is much. smaller than an AR style rifle. Handguns are most effective at the range for which they were designed: close, defensive combat, as a backup to a primary weapons system. “Defensive” is the key word. Should a soldier deplete all ammunition for his rifle, he would then have his sidearm, a pistol, for defense.
I have an AR10 and an AR15 both Ruger. I also have a Glock 19 and 26. If I am in a situation that I am instigating, a Glock would not even be a consideration. The recoil alone would cause many wasted shots not in body mass or headshots in quick fire situations,
posted by QuakerOatsNot to mention that banned guns end up in criminal hands anyhow.
I don’t like this argument. Yes, initially there will be too many banned firearms still on the streets and in the hands of bad people. But, overtime that would dwindle and dwindle.
posted by Laley23Again, I admit I may be wrong and am definitely ignorant on gun ownership, but what place in society goes an automatic weapon have? Like, if AR-15 were not legal for anyone, who does that hurt?
I could be wrong, but I believe the AR-15 was banned from 1994 to 2004 during the rec firearms protection act There was more gun crime during this period vs post ban. The AR-15 is not the issue.
Gun crime as a whole has drastically dropped since the 90s. I say this in every gun thread, but if we truly want decrease gun crimes and deaths instead of cherry pick low statistical events to make emotional arguments, then we need to look at where the majority of the crime comes from. If you don't know the majority of people dying from guns come from either a. gang related activity and/or b. suicides.
I am not sure if it would work, but my proposed solution would be to legalize drugs and I think it would have an affect on both causes of gun deaths. Gang activity would decrease, because there wouldn't be any illegal substances to kill each other for and suicicides would decrease, because these people would access to marijuana instead of depending on SSRIs. I feel like this would be a much better approach than proposing more "common sense" (whatever the fuck that means) gun laws on, that will not work and would not have prevented this school shooting.
Also I hate to throw a wrench in the entire gun control advocacy group, but nobody wants to bring up 3D printers. They are getting better, cheaper, and already printing functioning firearms. Good luck banning any guns in the future.
Like Lalely, I'm also ignorant on guns and know as much about them as I do walking on the moon. But it'd be nice if every time this happened, we couldn't look back on the shooter and list a half-dozen red flags why he shouldn't own/be able to purchase a gun in the first place. I know the common defense to more gun laws is we'd be fine if we enforced the ones we already have. Okay, fine, let's fucking do it already then.
It's just mindblowing. Kids shouldn't be shot up anywhere, let alone at school FFS. What a world we live in.
posted by like_thatI could be wrong, but I believe the AR-15 was banned from 1994 to 2004 during the rec firearms protection act There was more gun crime during this period vs post ban. The AR-15 is not the issue.
I don’t mean to come off as disagreeing with you here, but I don’t particularly care about gun crime as a whole. I care about mass shooting/domestic terrorist acts.
posted by Laley23I don’t mean to come off as disagreeing with you here, but I don’t particularly care about gun crime as a whole. I care about mass shooting/domestic terrorist acts.
Ok well there have been guns forever, why is it happening now? People are clearly more fucked up these days. Blaming the gun is the simplest argument. The .223 isn’t even a powerful round and besides looking scary isn’t any different than other hunting rifles.
And why don’t you care about the majority of gun crimes, which are committed with pistols?
posted by friendfromlowryLike Lalely, I'm also ignorant on guns and know as much about them as I do walking on the moon. But it'd be nice if every time this happened, we couldn't look back on the shooter and list a half-dozen red flags why he shouldn't own/be able to purchase a gun in the first place. I know the common defense to more gun laws is we'd be fine if we enforced the ones we already have. Okay, fine, let's fucking do it already then.
It's just mindblowing. Kids shouldn't be shot up anywhere, let alone at school FFS. What a world we live in.
I agree. Enforcing the current laws is much better than proposing new laws that will not be enforced properly.
posted by Laley23I don’t mean to come off as disagreeing with you here, but I don’t particularly care about gun crime as a whole. I care about mass shooting/domestic terrorist acts.
lol, i don't care if you disagree with me. Anyway, that's why I call it cherry picking. Somehow many more people dying via guns is not as important as a mass shootings, which doesn't nearly happen as much comparatively to all gun deaths? Both instances people are dying, except overall more people die from the former. When people do this, it tells me they truly don't care about decreasing gun crime, which you admitted. Having a hierarchy for types of murders seems ridiculous to me. But even caring only about mass shooting and domestic terroirst acts, the shooter could have had a pistol and done just as much damage. So again, the AR15 is not the issue. I stand by my proposed solution. I think it would also go a long way with decreasing mass shootings as well.
posted by Laley23I don’t like this argument. Yes, initially there will be too many banned firearms still on the streets and in the hands of bad people. But, overtime that would dwindle and dwindle.
But it wouldn't. If it were that easy to get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of shitty people, they would have done it by now. Banning it from law abiding citizens isn't going to make it easier. This is why you shouldn't cherry pick the mass shootings and actually care about all gun crime.
posted by friendfromlowryI know the common defense to more gun laws is we'd be fine if we enforced the ones we already have. Okay, fine, let's fucking do it already then.
Then please, let's enforce them already. (This is not directed at you) It drives me crazy when immediately after a shooting people start calling for new laws that would not have stopped the shooter.
posted by Belly35Kids don't die... get a grip Collateral Damage happens ... is there a war on terrorist/school shooting or is there not
You cant have it both ways ..
Will your life insurance pay out if you're killed being a TRVPS? How much more will your monthly payments be, being a TRVPS?
posted by like_thatGood luck banning any guns in the future.
They'll ban the ammo....and control and regulate gun powder to prevent people from making their own. And it's all a joke - black markets and gangs prove there will always be illegal means to obtain just about anything. It's cliche, but the only people who follow gun laws are law-abiding citizens, who aren't the ones doing this crap.
I honestly think if you take away guns, these people will use other methods - look at all the terrorist attacks over in Europe that involve driving a vehicle into crowds of people.
posted by saltoWill your life insurance pay out if you're killed being a TRVPS? How much more will your monthly payments be, being a TRVPS?
So far you been worried about the legal aspect and what it's going to have on you , then you worried about the insurance expect and what it means to you, then you are about the financial aspect and what it means to you at what point is your self-centeredness going to be gone and what's right going to be the priority..... kids,,,,,....Not you
This is why military personnel put themselves above all others only to protect what's right only what to protect what is weak and only to protect what can't be protected for themselves you will never understand that.
posted by gutThey'll ban the ammo....
Been tried. Court ruled that ammo constitutes "arms".
posted by Belly35So far you been worried about the legal aspect and what it's going to have on you , then you worried about the insurance expect and what it means to you, then you are about the financial aspect and what it means to you at what point is your self-centeredness going to be gone and what's right going to be the priority..... kids,,,,,....Not you
This is why military personnel put themselves above all others only to protect what's right only what to protect what is weak and only to protect what can't be protected for themselves you will never understand that.
We are not talking about war and the military, ya goofy one-eyed bastard. I am worried about protecting the kids, especially from gun fanatic wackos, like you.
Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting children eat Vicks Vaporub.
posted by saltoWe are not talking about war and the military, ya goofy one-eyed bastard. I am worried about protecting the kids, especially from gun fanatic wackos, like you.
Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting children eat Vicks Vaporub.
I never called you names and as a DAV with honors you could only imagine. As a successful retired business owner, chuch leader and community activist that enjoys my rights and earned privilege to be a gun owner is not the qualities of a wacko. How ever your name calling and out burst of derogatory comments is a example of your mental stablity.
Yeah, I'm not worried about Belly and his arsenal.
Salto should edit his post and take out the name calling.
