I just got a call from my Dad and he said all AR's have been pulled at the store here. Guy behind the counter said it came down from corporate.
Looks like the anti's are already winning.
Looks like the anti's are already winning.
****'s sporting goods pulls AR's
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
To be expected after something major like this, IMHO. It's a constant push and pull. Who knows if it will last more than, say, a year. I would guess not. A bunch of buying guides on ARs have vanished from the Internet over the last week. One wonders if it's because of public outcry or because everyone is searching for those terms and hitting their sites, driving up bandwidth cost/headaches.
Seems that way. Discovery channel also pulled two shows, American Guns, and Son's of Guns.
^+1. In the long run, it may be better to try and lower the amount of weapans available to the public (despite black market) and also make it harder to own guns. Will it stop these events? Who knows. Other cultures/countries seem to be ok not having handguns so readily available. People are blowing their chances, no pun intended. Maybe Americans need to be treated like little kids.
Better pull gasoline & cars off the road as those can do the same thing.
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his hands on the AR, it would have been something else.....
What if he grabbed a Shotgun, would those be banned?
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his hands on the AR, it would have been something else.....
What if he grabbed a Shotgun, would those be banned?
Last edited by a moderator:
A friend of mine that owns a gun store locally that caters to the more tactical gun owners said he has been cleaned out, best sales week ever. Really considering picking up a stripped lower just to have for the future.
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Better pull gasoline & cars off the road as those can do the same thing.
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his on the AR, it would have been something else.....
Maybe, maybe not. It's a shame his mother didn't have any guns or this could have been all prevented.
Better pull gasoline & cars off the road as those can do the same thing.
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his on the AR, it would have been something else.....
Maybe, maybe not. It's a shame his mother didn't have any guns or this could have been all prevented.
It would probably do more good to ban violent video games and TV shows then to ban guns. This kid in CT spent hours playing military shootem-up games in his windowless basement. You can bet it influenced his mental state of mind and subsequent behavior.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Better pull gasoline & cars off the road as those can do the same thing.
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his on the AR, it would have been something else.....
Maybe, maybe not. It's a shame his mother didn't have any guns or this could have been all prevented.
You don't think he would have used any other method? If the guns weren't there, he would have just calmed down and walked away?
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Better pull gasoline & cars off the road as those can do the same thing.
That was just "what he chose". If he could not get his on the AR, it would have been something else.....
Maybe, maybe not. It's a shame his mother didn't have any guns or this could have been all prevented.
You don't think he would have used any other method? If the guns weren't there, he would have just calmed down and walked away?
Thoughts on this?
Quote:
The weapons that are desired to be out of the hands of civilians will already be in their hands by the time the ban is passed and signed into law. The only way to accomplish the goal is to make it so that if one owns a banned weapon, the federal government owes the owner the book value for the weapon and then must confiscate it. Otherwise the law will have no teeth and really no impact. Additionally, mental health records must be digitized, nationalized in a databank, then matched against any attempt to purchase a gun as well as current gun ownerships (i.e. if someone living in your home has a documented history with mental illness or personality disorder, you may own nothing more than a handgun). Finally, it should resemble aspects of the original crime bill where resources must be poured into local, state, and federal law enforcement to track down and cut off the source and flow of illegal weapons - except for real this time, not the half-assed attempts made in the past. I would also involve the CIA in this endeavor.
For those who say that the law won't work because 1. the guns are already out there, 2. it's about mental health, not guns, 3. guns don't kill people, people kill people, 4. it's a violation of American freedom, or 5. all of this is pie in the sky and too difficult to pull off, I would say this: If you feel it is better to stand with folded arms on this issue, you must also be willing to say (out loud) that you are okay with these shootings happening occasionally, including the one in Newton.
I am very sorry, but I have thought about this issue for years. I have considered many different angles to the story and kept considering them after Columbine, VA Tech, Arizona, Aurora, CO, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, and the mall in Oregon. Now, I no longer feel torn or conflicted in any way, shape, or form. I am now completely convinced that we, as Americans, are a wicked and violent people and can no longer be trusted with high-powered and deadly weapons, nor do we have any ground to stand on in order to call this a "right." The news of twenty dead children, none of which was older than seven, has completely sealed this for me. The American people must now be treated like you would treat a child that is near a stove with a kettle of boiling water bubbling away.
It is regrettable that Americans cannot be trusted with these weapons any longer. It is regrettable for many Americans that take gun safety very seriously, are careful with their weapons, and follow the rules. But, I honestly don't care. No one's weapon collection is worth one of those kid's lives in Newton and constitutionally, no one person's right can infringe upon another person's. If people want to argue the Constitution, then the shooter's mother's "2nd Amendment right" to bear those weapons infringed upon the 5th Amendment rights of all 26 individuals killed by her son. To me however, that argument is meaningless. The fact is that Americans can no longer be trusted and if there is another assault weapons ban it needs to be retroactive - you may keep a handgun or a weapon that is designed for hunting and nothing else (i.e. a weapon that must be reloaded after one or two rounds are fired). I would accept nothing less if I was in a position of political power in Washington. If people want to hold a more powerful firearm with multiple rounds in a magazine, then join the [censored] Marine Corps. Otherwise, you don't need it and cannot be trusted with it.
Quote:
The weapons that are desired to be out of the hands of civilians will already be in their hands by the time the ban is passed and signed into law. The only way to accomplish the goal is to make it so that if one owns a banned weapon, the federal government owes the owner the book value for the weapon and then must confiscate it. Otherwise the law will have no teeth and really no impact. Additionally, mental health records must be digitized, nationalized in a databank, then matched against any attempt to purchase a gun as well as current gun ownerships (i.e. if someone living in your home has a documented history with mental illness or personality disorder, you may own nothing more than a handgun). Finally, it should resemble aspects of the original crime bill where resources must be poured into local, state, and federal law enforcement to track down and cut off the source and flow of illegal weapons - except for real this time, not the half-assed attempts made in the past. I would also involve the CIA in this endeavor.
For those who say that the law won't work because 1. the guns are already out there, 2. it's about mental health, not guns, 3. guns don't kill people, people kill people, 4. it's a violation of American freedom, or 5. all of this is pie in the sky and too difficult to pull off, I would say this: If you feel it is better to stand with folded arms on this issue, you must also be willing to say (out loud) that you are okay with these shootings happening occasionally, including the one in Newton.
I am very sorry, but I have thought about this issue for years. I have considered many different angles to the story and kept considering them after Columbine, VA Tech, Arizona, Aurora, CO, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, and the mall in Oregon. Now, I no longer feel torn or conflicted in any way, shape, or form. I am now completely convinced that we, as Americans, are a wicked and violent people and can no longer be trusted with high-powered and deadly weapons, nor do we have any ground to stand on in order to call this a "right." The news of twenty dead children, none of which was older than seven, has completely sealed this for me. The American people must now be treated like you would treat a child that is near a stove with a kettle of boiling water bubbling away.
It is regrettable that Americans cannot be trusted with these weapons any longer. It is regrettable for many Americans that take gun safety very seriously, are careful with their weapons, and follow the rules. But, I honestly don't care. No one's weapon collection is worth one of those kid's lives in Newton and constitutionally, no one person's right can infringe upon another person's. If people want to argue the Constitution, then the shooter's mother's "2nd Amendment right" to bear those weapons infringed upon the 5th Amendment rights of all 26 individuals killed by her son. To me however, that argument is meaningless. The fact is that Americans can no longer be trusted and if there is another assault weapons ban it needs to be retroactive - you may keep a handgun or a weapon that is designed for hunting and nothing else (i.e. a weapon that must be reloaded after one or two rounds are fired). I would accept nothing less if I was in a position of political power in Washington. If people want to hold a more powerful firearm with multiple rounds in a magazine, then join the [censored] Marine Corps. Otherwise, you don't need it and cannot be trusted with it.
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm not anti gun. I like guns. Just saying, our society MAY be better off with less access to guns. That's all. I don't know if that is true or not.
But massacres occurred before guns were invented.
With an evil intention, they will find a way, any way.
I'm not anti gun. I like guns. Just saying, our society MAY be better off with less access to guns. That's all. I don't know if that is true or not.
But massacres occurred before guns were invented.
With an evil intention, they will find a way, any way.
I agree. Where I went to highschool some 20 years ago we had gun detectors and before school was only one entrance in. Everyone including staff had to walk through that entrance. I lived in a bad neighborhood. There werent nearly as many weapons that got into the school as say some of the nicer neighborhoods that didnt have the detectors. One entrance at every school in America with gun detectors would not be very exspensive at all.
It's tempting to believe that, if we got rid of evil semi-auto's and high capacity magazines, that stuff like this wouldn't happen. Problem is, massacres occurred prior to then. When one flips their lid, they will find a way.
Look up Jerry Mic(?), there is a video of him shooting 12 rounds in 2.99 seconds. Using a double action revolver. That only holds 6 rounds. Yes, that 3 seconds includes a reload. Not a New York reload, granted it was using moon clips. Or who was the nutjob that did in JFK? How fast did he cycle that bolt action again?
Society has changed, and people may or may not have changed for the better. I'm pretty sure there were deranged people 200 years ago. Today though we have better reporting, and more people, therefore more incidents.
What is interesting is just how biased reporting is.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html
Here, it talks about the sharp rise in deaths--but it has to include suicides in order to do so.
One good thing that could come out of any large scale change would be homogenous laws regarding guns. Wouldn't be nice if, pretending that it became that you had to pass a test/get a license/whatever in order to own guns, that you could now buy handguns *not* in your state of residence? I mean, if you passed the federal test that proved your sanity--why should state of residence matter? Heck, I'm not even sure why it matters today, since background checks are pretty easy to do. Furthermore, if you're been cleared to carry concealed in one state, why not all of them? And, where you're allowed to carry, might as well make those the same, state to state.
I do wonder how much I'd be willing to let my freedoms be altered by this. Vast majority of Americans either don't care about guns or can be trusted with guns. It's the few crazies that ruin it for the rest of us. Would I be willing to have to pass a test of some sort to be allowed to own? Or be willing to give up my semi-auto's? Not so sure about these things. OTOH, times have changed; back in the day I'm pretty sure one did not need a license to drive ones horse down the road. Today, not so much.
Final thought: if the politicians really want to change things, then I wish they'd do it right and alter the 2nd Admendment. Repeal it, or redefine it, whatever. No sense in have laws that other laws abuse--if we're not going to use it, then remove it.
Look up Jerry Mic(?), there is a video of him shooting 12 rounds in 2.99 seconds. Using a double action revolver. That only holds 6 rounds. Yes, that 3 seconds includes a reload. Not a New York reload, granted it was using moon clips. Or who was the nutjob that did in JFK? How fast did he cycle that bolt action again?
Society has changed, and people may or may not have changed for the better. I'm pretty sure there were deranged people 200 years ago. Today though we have better reporting, and more people, therefore more incidents.
What is interesting is just how biased reporting is.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html
Here, it talks about the sharp rise in deaths--but it has to include suicides in order to do so.
One good thing that could come out of any large scale change would be homogenous laws regarding guns. Wouldn't be nice if, pretending that it became that you had to pass a test/get a license/whatever in order to own guns, that you could now buy handguns *not* in your state of residence? I mean, if you passed the federal test that proved your sanity--why should state of residence matter? Heck, I'm not even sure why it matters today, since background checks are pretty easy to do. Furthermore, if you're been cleared to carry concealed in one state, why not all of them? And, where you're allowed to carry, might as well make those the same, state to state.
I do wonder how much I'd be willing to let my freedoms be altered by this. Vast majority of Americans either don't care about guns or can be trusted with guns. It's the few crazies that ruin it for the rest of us. Would I be willing to have to pass a test of some sort to be allowed to own? Or be willing to give up my semi-auto's? Not so sure about these things. OTOH, times have changed; back in the day I'm pretty sure one did not need a license to drive ones horse down the road. Today, not so much.
Final thought: if the politicians really want to change things, then I wish they'd do it right and alter the 2nd Admendment. Repeal it, or redefine it, whatever. No sense in have laws that other laws abuse--if we're not going to use it, then remove it.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/17/1345041/us-guns-international/?mobile=nc
Seems to me America is a violent country. There are countries, like Japan, that elminated guns and therefore have a low gun death rate. It can be done.
Seems to me America is a violent country. There are countries, like Japan, that elminated guns and therefore have a low gun death rate. It can be done.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I just got a call from my Dad and he said all AR's have been pulled at the store here. Guy behind the counter said it came down from corporate.
Looks like the anti's are already winning.
Normal people are letting sense prevail.
I just got a call from my Dad and he said all AR's have been pulled at the store here. Guy behind the counter said it came down from corporate.
Looks like the anti's are already winning.
Normal people are letting sense prevail.
- Status
