BigRedBuster Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I honestly really don't care if "military grade" guns are banned. I only use guns for sport and hunting. However, what "military grade" guns were used in this tragedy? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Many military snipers use .308s for their jobs. So, am I now not going to be able to use a .308 to deer hunt? Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 However, what "military grade" guns were used in this tragedy? Bushmaster AR-15 Link to comment
teachercd Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Many military snipers use .308s for their jobs. So, am I now not going to be able to use a .308 to deer hunt? Be like Rambo, he hunted with a knife! But seriously, its a deer, come on, just hit it with your car. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. Gun activists are responsible for gun violence? Huh? So McDonalds is responsible for obesity? Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 So McDonalds is responsible for obesity? I just downed a two cheeseburger meal. mmm Link to comment
beanman Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Anyone surprised that this discussion is taking place? http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-considers-training-arming-schoolteachers-protect-against-shootings-192556978--politics.html Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It's the person behind the gun. The gun is just as deadly no matter who it is aimed at. So the big thing for me is getting the right people behind the gun. Mentally stable. Annually checked. Concealed carry for those who can, because that'll deter or prevent such astronomical deaths from rampages like this. 4 Link to comment
walksalone Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It's the person behind the gun. The gun is just as deadly no matter who it is aimed at. So the big thing for me is getting the right people behind the gun. Mentally stable. Annually checked. Concealed carry for those who can, because that'll deter or prevent such astronomical deaths from rampages like this. Can't +1 that enough... Link to comment
navysker Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I would agree with this statement but the kid did kill the right person behind the gun(his mom). So then what? Do you ban people from getting guns with mental challenged children? Doesn't seem fair to me. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I would agree with this statement but the kid did kill the right person behind the gun(his mom). So then what? Do you ban people from getting guns with mental challenged children? Doesn't seem fair to me. What???? 2 Link to comment
rawhide Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm hoping navysker can elucidate on their statement. Link to comment
Conga3 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It's the person behind the gun. The gun is just as deadly no matter who it is aimed at. So the big thing for me is getting the right people behind the gun. Mentally stable. Annually checked. Concealed carry for those who can, because that'll deter or prevent such astronomical deaths from rampages like this. That krazy kiwi kid Foppa posted a status update about guns not being legal in New Zealand...which sounded really strange to me with what I know about New Zealand...so I consulted the almighty and all knowing Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_licence_(New_Zealand) Granting of licences Licences are issued at the discretion of the police. The possession of firearms is considered a privilege, rather than a right.[3][4] A privilege is a right, immunity or advantage protected by law. The Arms Act states that firearms licences shall be issued to fit and proper persons. This is directive not discretionary. The licences are issued - not granted. To be granted a licence, the applicant must: Be over 16; Be a "fit and proper person" to possess and use firearms; Attend a safety lecture given by a volunteer from the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council; Pass a written test based on the material in the Arms Code,[5] a booklet compiled jointly by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council and the Police; Have a police officer inspect the security at the applicant's home (a gun rack, safe, strongroom or "receptacle of stout construction" is required); Undergo an interview with a police officer; Provide two referees, one a relative and one not, to vouch for the applicant; Pay NZD$126.50.[6] Licences are issued for a period of 10 years. The "fit and proper person" test As part of the application for a licence, the police will assess whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to possess and use firearms. An applicant will not be considered fit and proper if he/she: has been subject to a protection order; has shown disregard for the Arms Act or Arms Regulations, e.g. through a series of minor infractions; has been involved in substance abuse; has committed a serious criminal offence or any crimes involving violence or drugs; is affiliated with a criminal gang; has perpetrated acts or threats of domestic violence; exhibits signs of mental ill health; has attempted to commit suicide or displayed other self injurious behavior. They take some interesting steps to ensure the gun owner isn't a wack job looking to hurt someone... ...and more relevant to recent events, I wonder if one of these requirements would have prevented that kid's mother from obtaining the guns used in the shooting... Link to comment
krill Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. Gun activists are responsible for gun violence? Huh? So McDonalds is responsible for obesity? No, but restaurants selling meals with 1,500 calories that are loaded up with saturated fat / sodium is not helping the obesity epidemic. McDonald's has, perhaps more than any other restaurant, changed the way Americans think about food. Link to comment
Recommended Posts