Another Ft. Hood shooting
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: JayhawkRoy
-- The suspected shooter "had behavioral health and mental health" issues, according to Milley.
There's the problem right there. The instant ANYONE is deemed to have mental health issues, or is even suspected as being mentally unstable, there must be some type of security measure in place to make sure this individual does not have access to any weapons...this is the failure point in our security system...
-- The suspected shooter "had behavioral health and mental health" issues, according to Milley.
There's the problem right there. The instant ANYONE is deemed to have mental health issues, or is even suspected as being mentally unstable, there must be some type of security measure in place to make sure this individual does not have access to any weapons...this is the failure point in our security system...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Donald
When will people realize our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun. I have two Mastiffs, more fun than a gun anyway.
Based on theater shootings, school shootings , military base shootings, I think the average person definitely needs a firearm.
I prefer to have the option to protect my gift of life rather than leave that decision to some nut bent on destruction.
Who should tell me i have to just give up my gift of life rather than fight for the right to breathe.
I like dogs, Mastiffs, I have a German Shepard. He just does not fit in my pocket!
A Mastiff (or any dog for that matter) would be no match for a person with a gun anyway...
Bingo. I have a Newfoundland, and he's a wonderful and protective dog. But he sure isn't buckshot proof.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Donald
When will people realize our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun. I have two Mastiffs, more fun than a gun anyway.
Based on theater shootings, school shootings , military base shootings, I think the average person definitely needs a firearm.
I prefer to have the option to protect my gift of life rather than leave that decision to some nut bent on destruction.
Who should tell me i have to just give up my gift of life rather than fight for the right to breathe.
I like dogs, Mastiffs, I have a German Shepard. He just does not fit in my pocket!
A Mastiff (or any dog for that matter) would be no match for a person with a gun anyway...
Bingo. I have a Newfoundland, and he's a wonderful and protective dog. But he sure isn't buckshot proof.
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
So that explains why police officers never get shot. Oh, wait, they do....
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
So that explains why police officers never get shot. Oh, wait, they do....
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
+1. Even though a good dog is nice, it can't attack at 1200 fps.
Says who?!
+1. Even though a good dog is nice, it can't attack at 1200 fps.
Says who?!
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Donald
When will people realize our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun. I have two Mastiffs, more fun than a gun anyway.
Based on theater shootings, school shootings , military base shootings, I think the average person definitely needs a firearm.
I prefer to have the option to protect my gift of life rather than leave that decision to some nut bent on destruction.
Who should tell me i have to just give up my gift of life rather than fight for the right to breathe.
I like dogs, Mastiffs, I have a German Shepard. He just does not fit in my pocket!
A Mastiff (or any dog for that matter) would be no match for a person with a gun anyway...
Bingo. I have a Newfoundland, and he's a wonderful and protective dog. But he sure isn't buckshot proof.
Used to have 2 Newfoundlands. The male passed away last June at 9 years, but the female is still kicking. The parents got her for me when I was in 4th grade the weekend right before 9-11-01.
The male was very intimidating to most, but he was just a huge teddy bear.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Donald
When will people realize our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun. I have two Mastiffs, more fun than a gun anyway.
Based on theater shootings, school shootings , military base shootings, I think the average person definitely needs a firearm.
I prefer to have the option to protect my gift of life rather than leave that decision to some nut bent on destruction.
Who should tell me i have to just give up my gift of life rather than fight for the right to breathe.
I like dogs, Mastiffs, I have a German Shepard. He just does not fit in my pocket!
A Mastiff (or any dog for that matter) would be no match for a person with a gun anyway...
Bingo. I have a Newfoundland, and he's a wonderful and protective dog. But he sure isn't buckshot proof.
Used to have 2 Newfoundlands. The male passed away last June at 9 years, but the female is still kicking. The parents got her for me when I was in 4th grade the weekend right before 9-11-01.
The male was very intimidating to most, but he was just a huge teddy bear.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
So that explains why police officers never get shot. Oh, wait, they do....
If you were a nutty person who wanted shoot a bunch of people, would you rather do it among people you know won't be armed, or would you rather go up against a bunch of people who are armed? Also, why is it you never hear of these nut jobs going into a police station to shoot a bunch of people?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
As was said earlier, as long as there are places for shooters to wreak their havoc where they know no one else will be armed to retaliate against them, they will continue to wreak their havoc...no thanks...we the citizens need to arm ourselves and only then will this sort of thing stop...
So that explains why police officers never get shot. Oh, wait, they do....
If you were a nutty person who wanted shoot a bunch of people, would you rather do it among people you know won't be armed, or would you rather go up against a bunch of people who are armed? Also, why is it you never hear of these nut jobs going into a police station to shoot a bunch of people?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
So you are saying you would rather him be able to kill everyone at will with impunity and with out challenge?
In most of these situations, the shooter turned the gun on himself as soon as he was faced with an armed threat. The sooner he faces an armed threat and turns the gun on himself the better.
I know a few leo's some of them don't use anywhere near the range time practicing as many ccw holders practice. There are some ccw holders that don't practice enough, but many do on a regular basis.
Were I at a mall when a shooter appeared and started shooting people I would rather not have several untrained people pull out their pistols and have a shootout. When I say untrained I mean untrained in how to use a weapon in a crowd situation, not how to fire the weapon.
Police officers have told me that even they cannot be well trained to be calm when a gunman starts shooting and the officer's adrenaline starts pumping.
So you are saying you would rather him be able to kill everyone at will with impunity and with out challenge?
In most of these situations, the shooter turned the gun on himself as soon as he was faced with an armed threat. The sooner he faces an armed threat and turns the gun on himself the better.
I know a few leo's some of them don't use anywhere near the range time practicing as many ccw holders practice. There are some ccw holders that don't practice enough, but many do on a regular basis.
Last edited:
In addition, most CCW holders have a heightened respect for firearms and what they can and cannot do, a respect and understanding that is beyond what most citizens have. Guns are intimidating to people who aren't familiar with them, and that intimidation, or at least ignorance, leads people to believe things like, "aw, you guys don't need those."
I am guilty of that myself . I was never against people owning guns, but I had little interest in it myself. But I inherited a Winchester 1894 rifle and a Mossberg 500 shotgun. I started shooting the shotgun and enjoying it. I then bought a .22LR pistol (a Ruger 22/45 Lite). I started shooting it and talking with people. My brother and dad also got into shooting. More recently, I bought a full-size 9mm pistol (CZ P-09) and then just recently, I bought a very compact pocket carry gun (Kel-tec P32).
Each of these purchases was made after having a greater and a deeper understanding of firearms and how they work. Along with that deeper understanding (and training, like range time and classroom hours) comes a respect for the weapons and a profound desire to protect life if the situation arose.
So with my exposure to firearms over the past few years, I've experience a nearly 180 degree change in perspective; from a "eh, doesn't interest me" to a "I will take all measures to protect the safety of myself and my family". I've also come to experience something totally unexpected: gun owners, as a group, are a seriously well-mannered bunch. I went to my first gun show a few years ago (where I bought my Ruger). The line was out the door. If this was a concert or other public event, people would be cutting in line, crowding the counter, etc. I was astounded to see that everyone was completely respectful of each other, nobody was shouting across the room, nobody was pushing or shoving. It was a very early indication of how positive gun ownership can be.
I am guilty of that myself . I was never against people owning guns, but I had little interest in it myself. But I inherited a Winchester 1894 rifle and a Mossberg 500 shotgun. I started shooting the shotgun and enjoying it. I then bought a .22LR pistol (a Ruger 22/45 Lite). I started shooting it and talking with people. My brother and dad also got into shooting. More recently, I bought a full-size 9mm pistol (CZ P-09) and then just recently, I bought a very compact pocket carry gun (Kel-tec P32).
Each of these purchases was made after having a greater and a deeper understanding of firearms and how they work. Along with that deeper understanding (and training, like range time and classroom hours) comes a respect for the weapons and a profound desire to protect life if the situation arose.
So with my exposure to firearms over the past few years, I've experience a nearly 180 degree change in perspective; from a "eh, doesn't interest me" to a "I will take all measures to protect the safety of myself and my family". I've also come to experience something totally unexpected: gun owners, as a group, are a seriously well-mannered bunch. I went to my first gun show a few years ago (where I bought my Ruger). The line was out the door. If this was a concert or other public event, people would be cutting in line, crowding the counter, etc. I was astounded to see that everyone was completely respectful of each other, nobody was shouting across the room, nobody was pushing or shoving. It was a very early indication of how positive gun ownership can be.
Profile:
Nutjob goes in where he/she knows people are defenseless, shoots some, kills self when he/she feels they can't shoot anymore unopposed. Nutjobs need no ethnic profiling, they exist in all societies.
These nutjobs are cowards firstly, sick secondly. They are fully aware of what they are doing.
Question remains... How do these nutjobs keep get on base with a gun? Did they not learn something from the last time this occurred at this same base....duh.
Nutjob goes in where he/she knows people are defenseless, shoots some, kills self when he/she feels they can't shoot anymore unopposed. Nutjobs need no ethnic profiling, they exist in all societies.
These nutjobs are cowards firstly, sick secondly. They are fully aware of what they are doing.
Question remains... How do these nutjobs keep get on base with a gun? Did they not learn something from the last time this occurred at this same base....duh.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
The current plan (Gun Free Zones) does not, & will not, work.
Gun Free Zones are a free ticket for a mentally ill (you HAVE to be mentally ill to do this...) to go shoot 'em up as much as he can get away with it.
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
The current plan (Gun Free Zones) does not, & will not, work.
Gun Free Zones are a free ticket for a mentally ill (you HAVE to be mentally ill to do this...) to go shoot 'em up as much as he can get away with it.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
This is a great post.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Exactly, Astro14.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Exactly, Astro14.
+1
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Fantastic post
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Fantastic post
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Fantastic post
Fantastic post!!!!!!!!! +1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Donald
Say what you want about mental illness, people going postal, and the second amendment but at the end of the day our current plan for gun control is not working. Your average person does not need a gun.
I have two Mastiffs, they more fun than a gun anyway.
Some elements of the current plan for gun control that was in effect for Fort Hood:
- Personal weapons are prohibited on base.
- Access to the base includes verification of ID as well as random searches.
- Felons are prohibited from buying or owning weapons.
- Misdemeanor or greater domestic violence offenders prohibited from gun ownership.*
- Mandatory federal background check at the gun store at which he bought the weapon used in this crime.
You're right, Donald, banning guns on base, and keeping them from being sold to criminals didn't work in this case. So, what part of the above plan would you modify?
Is it time to pass more laws that the criminals and the deranged can ignore? (I can just picture the two kids at Columbine discussing this: "Hey Dylan, you know, in killing everybody at school, we were going to be guilty of 17 felonies under both state and federal law, but with this new Colorado gun bill, it's going to be 18 felonies...what do you think? Is it time to call this plan off? 'Cuz 18...that's my limit on felonies before I kill myself and everyone else...").
Or is it time to recognize that the criminal, or the insane, simply ignore laws?
I think we should ban large dogs, though, since you can't control them. No one "needs" a big dog, which as an animate being, is capable of killing of its own volition. Clearly, they're a menace to society.
Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. Half of those are children! Think of the children, millions of children attacked by dogs like yours every year! The dangers that you present to society are simply no longer supportable. You don't "need" a dog, especially a large dangerous police-style dog. You imply that yours are lethal...they're for your personal protection, but you don't need them for that, do you? The police can protect you.
Anyone with me for more dog control? Dog bans? At least for reasonable dog control for the dogs that are more capable of biting? No one needs an "assault" dog...I can see a few cuddly little dogs under 12 pounds, and a few dogs just for sporting purposes, but big dogs? Dogs that were bred just for killing and biting? There's no legitimate sporting purpose for those big dogs, they're just killing machines.**
Think of the children!
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/index.html
* The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent those with even a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence from owning weapons. This bit of legislation includes soldiers and police by the way, who can not carry a pistol in combat, or have a hunting rifle at home, but are still allowed to man and shoot machine guns or howitzers on the job.
** I grew up in a family that bred dogs. My favorite dogs include our beloved family pet, an Irish Wolfhound. She was perhaps, the kindest, most gentle member of the pack to ever walk the earth. My use of dogs in this post was for satire...I hope that all the dogs that I've known and loved will forgive my use of their species for that purpose.
Fantastic post
Fantastic post!!!!!!!!! +1
When will the people in legislative positions learn, that gun free zones just don't work?
It is well past time to point the finger of blame squarely where it belongs - not just at the criminal, but at the people that refuse to change these laws that give the criminals a free fire zone on helpless law abiding victims.
It is well past time to point the finger of blame squarely where it belongs - not just at the criminal, but at the people that refuse to change these laws that give the criminals a free fire zone on helpless law abiding victims.
- Status
