I respectfully request

[MercedesBerater]

Doubt any will watch the whole thing..... Like he says. 50% agree, 20% aren't paying attention, 20% know it's comedy - but they're valid points,

10% of you are furious.

Edited October 5, 2015 by MercedesBerater

[Superdave]

I will agree if no one had guns it would be a wonderful country with less murders

Many of you reading this can attest. Many years ago, in high school, no one brought a gun to a fight, it was a fist fight, I lost many but won a few, but in the end no matter the outcome, I still was here and so was my opponent. WTF is happening today???

[fuzzydog]

All the mass shootings I can recall happened in gun free zones; Columbine, Virginia tech, Charleston AME, Sandy Hook, etc.

If you're going to strip someone's ability to defend themselves in a gun-free zone, then I think they should be otherwise protected by police presence.

[Superdave]

If you're going to strip someone's ability to defend themselves in a gun-free zone, then I think they should be otherwise protected by police presence.

Agreed. But the masses will not want their kids having to go through metal detectors in school and such. Even though many inner-city schools already have this protocol. 

[joessportster]

"The handguns used in crimes are mostly smuggled into the country from the US, since they're hard to buy legally"

 

So Criminals get guns even when they are banned, Imagine that, Kind of blows the theory that making guns illegal will stop gun violence does it not ??

 

 

 

 

"Most shootings take place within rough areas in some of the largest cities, and generally involve drug gang members shooting each other in turf wars.  In most other areas, shootings are rare, and attract a lot of attention."

 

Shootings are OK as long as they are in rough areas and dont affect the masses  ??

 

 

 

"Anyone seen with a gun is suspected of being about to commit a crime"

 

An odd version of freedom, Stereotyping is A OK

 

 

 

 

"In some other cases, guns are stolen from collectors by burglars, which means a gun collection can attract criminals, rather than 

keeping them away from your home.  It's always important to look at the big picture"

 

The Big Picture, I would lay dollars to donuts most collectors dont broadcast there collections and that a burglar is an opportunist, stealing whatever he may find in the residence he assesses value to, Jewelry, cash, gold, silver, art..................Do you have a link to a burglary that was targeted solely because the burglar knew there was a gun collection.

 

 

 

"The whole country of Canada is in certain ways a gun-free zone"

 

Except for the criminals you mention

 

 

 

 

Big Picture Fact is that with gun ownership soaring gun violence has dropped  dirty little secret they dont want us to hear

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/200671-fbi-now-know-record-numbers-gun-sales-means-gun-crimes-america/

 

 

 

I will refrain from further comments as this is already headed down a road that will lead to lock, and this is in stark contrast to Johns initial requests

Edited October 5, 2015 by joessportster

[Islander]

All the mass shootings I can recall happened in gun free zones; Columbine, Virginia tech, Charleston AME, Sandy Hook, etc.

If you're going to strip someone's ability to defend themselves in a gun-free zone, then I think they should be otherwise protected by police presence.

 

America is not a war zone, the last time I looked.  "Gun-free" should be, and used to be, the normal state of affairs.  Areas with lots of people carrying firearms to protect themselves from other people carrying firearms is not the normal state of affairs.

[oldtimer]

I made my point earlier.  No one could or would answer.  In before the lock.

[T2K]

What was your point... or aim?

 

Keith

[oldtimer]

See post 15 in this thread.

[Islander]

 

"The handguns used in crimes are mostly smuggled into the country from the US, since they're hard to buy legally"

 

So Criminals get guns even when they are banned, Imagine that, Kind of blows the theory that making guns illegal will stop gun violence does it not ??

 

 

 

 

"Most shootings take place within rough areas in some of the largest cities, and generally involve drug gang members shooting each other in turf wars.  In most other areas, shootings are rare, and attract a lot of attention."

 

Shootings are OK as long as they are in rough areas and dont affect the masses  ??

 

 

 

"Anyone seen with a gun is suspected of being about to commit a crime"

 

An odd version of freedom, Stereotyping is A OK

 

 

 

 

"In some other cases, guns are stolen from collectors by burglars, which means a gun collection can attract criminals, rather than 

keeping them away from your home.  It's always important to look at the big picture"

 

The Big Picture, I would lay dollars to donuts most collectors dont broadcast there collections and that a burglar is an opportunist, stealing whatever he may find in the residence he assesses value to, Jewelry, cash, gold, silver, art..................Do you have a link to a burglary that was targeted solely because the burglar knew there was a gun collection.

 

 

 

"The whole country of Canada is in certain ways a gun-free zone"

 

Except for the criminals you mention

 

 

 

 

Big Picture Fact is that with gun ownership soaring gun violence has dropped  dirty little secret they dont want us to hear

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/200671-fbi-now-know-record-numbers-gun-sales-means-gun-crimes-america/

 

 

 

I will refrain from further comments as this is already headed down a road that will lead to lock, and this is in stark contrast to Johns initial requests

 

 

I appreciate your cool head that can see where the discussion might go, but I think with mutual respect we can have a possibly meaningful session.

 

To address your first comment, that criminals can get guns, even when they're banned:  That's true, but it's not as simple as walking into your corner gun shop and buying an arsenal on credit.  It's probably impossible to totally eliminate gun violence, but the fewer guns there are, the fewer shootings will occur.  It's a big step in the right direction.

 

Second, no, shootings are never OK, no matter where they occur.  I may have phrased my post in a way that was a bit ambiguous.  This year, the city of Surrey, south of Vancouver, has had a record number of shootings.  The shooters and victims nearly all know each other, and the victims won't cooperate with the police.  They probably think they'll just get a gun and administer some street justice to the guy or guys who shot them.

 

All lives should be seen as equally valuable, but when you have situations where the gun violence seems limited to a certain group or groups, people do tend to think it's not so crucial, figuring the bad guys will all shoot each other, and the "happy ending" is that when the shooting eventually stops, all the gang members are in jail, in hospital, or in the ground.

 

This is not just a Canadian thing.  This kind of outlook on gang violence is seen in every country where it happens.  In Japan, someone might say, "Keep your head down until we get through here.  The yaks (yakuza) have been shooting each other for a few weeks."  In Montreal about 20 years ago, there was a war between the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine.  The news media covered it like a sports tournament, including interviews with leading gang members.

 

When the general public does not feel threatened ("Hey, they're not shooting at me, so it's no big deal."), the levels of grief and horror are relatively low.  One newspaper even posted a cartoon of someone fishing in the Saint Lawrence River.  He was looking at a sign that said, "Your limit is 3 Hells Angels", since many of them were "sleeping with the fishes".  However, when a car bomb killed a little boy who was just walking past, the party was over.  Hundreds of police made dozens of arrests, and both gangs were shut down for quite a while.

 

This may not make society look as noble as they think they are, but it tends to be how it goes.

 

Third:  stereotyping?  Usually, stereotyping refers to a person's age, ethnic group, or other characteristic.  However, if it's illegal to walk around with a gun, the person who is doing that will attract attention from the public and the police.  If the person has a legal reason to have the weapon (typically a long gun, because handguns are almost banned) they can go on their way, but since there are hardly any legal reasons, it usually indicates that the person is up to no good.

 

Fourth:  criminals target gun collectors.  I didn't see any links when I searched, so it may be more rare than the excitable reporters would have us believe.  It's definitely true that some burglary victims are targeted, but since I couldn't find one targeting a gun collector, I'll concede that having a collection is not the lure to criminals that I thought it was.

 

Fifth:  Canada is a gun-free zone?  Okay, that was a bit of an exaggeration.  Law officers carry weapons, hunters can travel with their weapons in their vehicles, but that's about it.  Firearms are much less visible here.  Canada does not have a tradition of people owning guns for self-defence.  There are some target shooters, but they're pretty rare.  I haven't even seen a firearm in a store for years.

 

It is true that there can be guns in a gun-free zone, just as on the highway there will be speeders in a no-speeding zone.  The point is that if there's a certain amount of difficulty in obtaining handguns, and possessing them is usually illegal, there will be less gun crime.  For instance, muggings at gunpoint are almost unheard of in Canada, although knives are sometimes used to threaten victims.

 

Here in Victoria, petty crime really is petty:  theft from parked cars, crackhead robs a bank, gets a few hundred dollars, and is arrested the next day, that type of thing.  We average about 2-3 murders a year, in a city where about 300,000 live in the city and surrounding suburbs.  The big crimes are white-collar, with crooked financial advisers ripping off their clients and sometimes their own families, for example.  Senior citizens are targeted by phone scammers, businesses scam their customers, and some municipal politicians seem to live beyond what their salary should provide.

 

The bottom line is that we don't live in fear of being shot.  Shootings are big news, because they happen so rarely.  In the country town of Mayerthorpe, Alberta, one dangerous guy who had intimidated his neighbours for years ambushed some RCMP officers and killed four of them.  Ten years later, it's still in the news.

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/1859863/fallen-four-10-years-since-the-mayerthorpe-rcmp-shooting/

 

 

If you like to look at lists of guns that are restricted, this may be of interest to you.  I have not read the whole article, but it definitely seems to be in support of gun ownership.

 

http://www.gunownersresource.com/faq/what-guns-are-banned-in-canada/

[Taz]

You might want to change your gun Avatar for awhile..

No offense meant to anyone.  But the Avatar stays

 

 

It is already out there, and his photo, and an interview with his father.

Is that why he did it? For 15 minutes of posthumous notoriety?

Why is that sheriff giving any interviews and press conferences at all?

 

Someone has to give an interview.  But less personal info might make a difference.  Maybe prevent one death or injury.  Then I am all for voluntarily with holding a P.O.S's name.

 

I made a Respectful request of forum members.

"I can request that we not add to the 15 minutes of fame that these shooters expect to get. I do fully support our County Sheriff's choice to not to add to the shooter's fame by not releasing this A Holes name. Please don't identify anyone by name that does anything like this"

 

I was driving on the freeway on ramp in Roseburg that morning, when a sheriffs car sped up behind me lights and siren on. I thought he was pulling me over, I put my turn signal on and started to pull over. He flew past me, heading north. I arrived at my destination fifteen minutes later and was told about the shooting. An hour later I drove back by the College and seen all the emergency vehicles and a helicopter, then it really hit home. So sad...( and senseless )

There are lots of forum's out there, to discuss every issue. This is a Klipsch forum, about speakers, music, and audio equipment. I hope it stays that way. 

This is a Klipsch Forum.  This was posted in the Lounge which is the appropriate place for it in this forum.  Don't worry, We're not going to quit discussing speakers, music and audio equipment.  That's the Glue that holds this forum together.  I feel as though many members are friends.  So I made a request of Friends.  Nothing I haven't done face to face.

 

Some pick and choose what they want to read.  If I don't care for something I move on to something I do care for

As Joe says below.

 

Oldtimer

But what does your post have to do with naming the perp?

I get Johns point and the Sheriffs, it seems they both feel like publicly stating the perps name is in a way giving the perp exactly what he wanted ( or seemed to want)

 

Thats his 15 minutes, Granted the name and all the info is already out there and the 15 minutes is already at hand. But I feel no need to perpetuate that 15 minutes any further than the press already has / will and I feel like thats Johns position as well

 

I have also contacted news organizations.  Probably won't do much good.  But I did ask that they do not add to the infamy, by voluntarily withholding names in such situations in future.  I just think it's the right thing to do.

 

 

All the mass shootings I can recall happened in gun free zones; Columbine, Virginia tech, Charleston AME, Sandy Hook, etc.

If you're going to strip someone's ability to defend themselves in a gun-free zone, then I think they should be otherwise protected by police presence.

Agreed.

 

 

All the mass shootings I can recall happened in gun free zones; Columbine, Virginia tech, Charleston AME, Sandy Hook, etc.

If you're going to strip someone's ability to defend themselves in a gun-free zone, then I think they should be otherwise protected by police presence.

 

America is not a war zone, the last time I looked.  "Gun-free" should be, and used to be, the normal state of affairs.  Areas with lots of people carrying firearms to protect themselves from other people carrying firearms is not the normal state of affairs.

 

Have legally taken a gun to school legally in my youth.  Didn't cause any difficulty for anyone.

 

 

these atrocities happen in a free society. don't think they can be stopped. maybe shortened by armed guards?

a free society with armed guards. sounds a lot like Cuba, or Russia, or etc.  As for naming the perp, who here off the top of their heads can name the perp of Shady Hook?  Of Va Tech?  of Ft. Hood?  How about even the Columbine guys, or after that the Aurora theater shooter?  Who can name all or even more than two or three of these guys?  off the top of your heads without a search engine?  What difference does it make?

 

I would bet that some of these P.O.S. research and Idolize previous P.O.S.

Might not make any difference.  But then again it might.  No way to PROVE if it will or not.

If perchance respecting my request helps to keep one person from injury it was worth making the request.

 

Again I ask that we think before we post.  Not interested in offending anyone on this forum.  This could easily get locked.  I'd not like to see that.

 

john

[Islander]

Part of the problem is that many people are fascinated by guns.  I sometimes post on a big photography forum, which has a large Off-Topic section.  One of the sections was eventually removed, because of all the friction and abuse that was happening.

 

Someone posted a picture of a man in a Swiss grocery store with his service rifle over his shoulder.  The first comment was that the Swiss get guns we can only dream of.  The logical reply that soon popped up was "There's your problem.  You're dreaming of guns."

 

After the Aurora cinema shooting, a big discussion started, all about the shooter's choice of weapons, and how he could have done a "better" job.  These guys were playing Monday morning quarterback about a mass murder!  When someone posted that he believed the shooter was "right to use the model xxx rifle", I'd had enough and responded that "No, he was not right to use the particular rifle he used.  There was nothing 'right' about shooting up a movie theatre."

[MercedesBerater]

The columbine high school DID have an armed guard on staff. I believe less guns is the solution.

Still no responses to the points made in this skit?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoeumJDT4Q&feature=youtu.be

[joessportster]

The columbine high school DID have an armed guard on staff. I believe less guns is the solution.

Still no responses to the points made in this skit?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoeumJDT4Q&feature=youtu.be

I feel no reason / need  to take any actor, comedians, nor any other person in the lime light taking an issue and spinning it to fit there agendas advice on anything,  I wont vote for Hillary, or Biden because they feel like it is the thing to do. and I wont accept there OPINION on Guns or control there of,  the fact that they are famous does not make them an Authority 

 

They are entitled to there OPINIONs as the rest of us are Entitled to ours, He came off funny at times

 

My fears have nothing to do with crime, they reside with a corrupt system that I can easily imagine going the extra step to tyranny Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.  (it happens all over the world, no logical reason to believe it can not happen here if there were no guns held by citizens)  

Edited October 5, 2015 by joessportster

[MercedesBerater]

I'm not afraid of our government, it's made up of citizens, not some super being that controls us like puppets. And our military, it's Us. Do you think it's absurd that a Marine or army soldier is going to kick down your door?

I think the video makes the gun-control sides points- which always get stifled in the media.

In the comedy skit he equates gun owners saying f*** you don't take my guns when we ask for very basic protections to slave owners who said f*** you don't take my slaves. I'm a responsible slave owner, I don't mistreat my slaves, I keep my slaves locked in a safe.

We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns?

Or- what if you had to have liability insurance for your guns? Guarantee if a gun owner was responsible for leaving a weapon unlocked and a child gets his hands on it - guarantee you'd see less crime. People would be responsible... And things would change.

[joessportster]

I'm not afraid of our government, it's made up of citizens, not some super being that controls us like puppets. And our military, it's Us. Do you think it's absurd that a Marine or army soldier is going to kick down your door?

I think the video makes the gun-control sides points- which always get stifled in the media.

In the comedy skit he equates gun owners saying f*** you don't take my guns when we ask for very basic protections to slave owners who said f*** you don't take my slaves. I'm a responsible slave owner, I don't mistreat my slaves, I keep my slaves locked in a safe.

We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns?

Or- what if you had to have liability insurance for your guns? Guarantee if a gun owner was responsible for leaving a weapon unlocked and a child gets his hands on it - guarantee you'd see less crime. People would be responsible... And things would change.

I watched the whole skit and that is exactly what I see it as,  a skit by someone who is paid to take a subject and spin it to fit his or her agenda. In this case making it funny

 

as far as our Govt goes I have no issue seeing someone trying to take absolute control, there could be an argument made that the current head of government in the USA has already WAY overstepped his AUTHORITY and if there were no armed citizens there would be no deterrent to stop going the next steps

 

If you are under the delusion that the government is made up of the citizens then I am not sure there is a point to discussing further, Those people are so far out of touch with real working people its pathetic, They are all professional politicians and liars that have no clue whats happening in the real world,  If they are for us tell me why the laws they pass have exemptions written so they dont apply to them ?

 

I have no problem with common sense laws regarding guns but they wont stop at common sense, The very day this tragedy happened rater than show remorse for the incident they all came out and started on the same old road GUN CONTROL, and the big boy stated we needed to follow the UK and Australia GUN BAN / Confiscation................Give them 1 inch and they will not stop, History proves that

[MercedesBerater]

The President has only expanded gun laws,the opposite of what he campaigned on:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/whats-obamas-record-on-gun-control/

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Gun-Control/a/Gun-Laws-Signed-By-Obama.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

[CECAA850]

We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns?

 

Take a look at some of the US cities with the strictest gun control laws.  They have the highest occurance of gun related crimes.  As Derrick (I believe) pointed out, it's a societal problem first and foremost.  You have the break down of the family unit, glamorization of violence in video games and movies and instant gratification and notoriety on social media.  There's a lot of contributors as to what's happening.   

[Ceptorman]

 

We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns?

 

Take a look at some of the US cities with the strictest gun control laws.  They have the highest occurance of gun related crimes.  As Derrick (I believe) pointed out, it's a societal problem first and foremost.  You have the break down of the family unit, glamorization of violence in video games and movies and instant gratification and notoriety on social media.  There's a lot of contributors as to what's happening.   

 

I agree. Why do young people aspire to be thugs and gangsters? I believe you hit the nail on the head with the breakdown of the family unit.

[swapface]

Our founding fathers created the 2nd amendment for a very good reason and it says that the right for citizens to bear arms will not be infringed yet every time we turn around that right is infringed upon in some way by people that do not want quick justice and punishment of some criminal that quote has been mistreated and misunderstood and needs counseling and released back into society. It is a lot easier to blame a gun instead of the individual responsible.  If some adult student like the military guy, had a gun in the no gun zone less murders would have been commented. Outlaws are called outlaws because they live outside the law and will get their guns off the street that are probably stolen. Guns laws affect law abiding citizens that purchase a legal gun and go through all the red tape it involves. A criminal or so called crazy person is less likely to commit a crime when he knows there are other guns there. I know better than to talk politics and religion in a public forum but our founding fathers had a very good reason for such an amendment. The first thing a dictator does is get guns out of the citizens hands. They are a lot easier to control if they do not have weapons. This is the reason for the 2nd amendment and I have no doubt that citizens in the future will loose this right for the worse. Crime is worse now than ever in America not because of guns but the lowering of morals and people that want to be a gangster instead of a law abiding citizen with a steady honest job. I will agree if no one had guns it would be a wonderful country with less murders and gun crimes but unfortunately  that will never be the case. Outlaws will still have guns and law abiding citizens will not. Take a stand for the Constitution of the United States of America as wrote by people that once had to live under repressions and dictators. They were not ignorant when they wrote the 2nd amendment, the knew exactly what they were doing. Politicians try to please the masses whether right or wrong to get votes not what is a constitutional right. If they take this right away what will be next?

 

Well said!