steve863

I guess with Trump we have to wait until the next morning where he might tweet something completely opposite at 3:00 A.M., so the jury is still out on what he really thinks. For all we know he may tweet tomorrow morning that the legal age to purchase guns should be lowered to 12 years old. Maybe Doc can send him an email at 2:30 A.M. to set him straight? They both like to write stuff early in the morning it seems. LOL

I had predicted several times over the years on this forum (wish I had the time to find the posts), that the next significant federal gun legislation would happen with a republican president in office. So here we just might be getting some.

Looks like Trump agrees with increasing the age to 21 also, so maybe it will be pointless to boycott Dick's. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28/trump-to-announce-sweeping-gun-control-safe-schools-package.html

I hear what you are saying, but honestly good parenting shouldn't even need to get to the point where you need to beat the kid to make them understand. There are ways to get your point across without having to whip them. You have to start them off young and follow thru with what you promised them the punishment would be. I know it don't take much these days for the authorities to deem things "child abuse", but at the same time some parents punishments can go a bit overboard also. What some parent thinks is an acceptable punishment may in reality be a bit more than that. So there can be a fine line there sometimes. I surely don't have all the answers to this, but do know that one can discipline kids without ever needing to worry that it will be considered child abuse by anyone. If you start beating them, then you better have some self-control and know when to say when. Sometimes if one goes looking for trouble, they find it, so it's best to approach things with your head rather than act out in rage.

I've mentioned in an earlier post that if I look back at the MANY teachers I've had from kindergarten thru 4 years of college, for the life of me I couldn't think of one that I could see fighting off or shooting down a gunman. Most would have probably been the first ones to hide inside a school locker to avoid getting shot themselves. I just never seen one. Even my kids teachers. Absolutely none of them could I imagine dropping and armed perpetrator. Not to say that there may not be some teachers out there who'd be qualified, it's a big country after all, but I just think most teachers simply don't have this in them.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that, but whose fault is it that family values are going to hell?? Just because many families these days have poor values, and society puts little emphasis on good old fashioned values, doesn't mean your or my family has to go down the same route. To hell with what today's society wants or expects, it's time for everyone to get their OWN house in order. I can't stand people blaming society for this and that while their own lives are so F*&$ed up that it isn't even funny! Why would that be everyone else's fault??

Absolutely did not suggest that. I am only stating that if your "broad-brush" theory had any merit, we'd also have just as many mass shootings in Europe. You guys were the first to say that if people didn't have access to guns, which many don't have easy access to in Europe, they'd use other means like bombs, cars, trucks, knives, etc. So why aren't they using these other methods instead? And again, don't throw the jihadists in the mix here, because they are a whole different animal in this discussion of American style mass killings. I was only bringing up your theory here and will again say that it holds absolutely NO water on why some Americans are driven to such mass killings. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why these people commit such crimes, many which will probably never be figured out, but to say that it's "progressive socialism" that is causing it is pretty lame. So the "progressive socialists" are the ones brainwashing our kids in school that guns are bad and that people shouldn't have any guns, and then you think these same kids are going out to buy an AR15 to shoot the school up? Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense. The facts are that both the Sandy Hook killer and the Florida killer were living in homes WITH guns, so ANY brainwashing they might have gotten in school by the "progressive socialists" wasn't lived out in the home.

So, you are saying that the reason there are less mass killings in Europe is because they "haven't got the means to carry out mass killing"?? In other words fewer guns available would equal fewer mass shootings? You sure are making a good argument for what the anti-gun side has been trying to say all along, aren't you? LOL

Yeah, so why doesn't Europe have more of these type of mass killings since most countries in Europe are way more socialist than we are?? Other than some of the immigrant jihadists that may have wrecked some havoc in Europe over the last few years, it's not like mass killings happen there very often by native Europeans. There was one well publicized mass killing in Norway a few years ago by a native where he killed 77 and that guy was a neo-nazi, so he sure as hell wasn't indoctrinated by the type of socialists you are talking about. Your "broad-brush" answer really doesn't hold much water I'm afraid.

Please elaborate on who you are calling "pieces of shit" here??

My disdain for this a$$wipe Cuomo goes well beyond the gun control issue. How he got elected twice as easily as he has is beyond me. If you upstate folks don't get out to vote this year he will surely win again. I know that NYC gets blamed for him easily winning, but if you look at the last gubernatorial and mayoral election in NYC only about 1 million people of the 8.5 million living in the city voted so that isn't much. Surely could be surmounted if everyone upstate got out to vote. That is the only way you will get rid of this tyrant.

No, I couldn't agree with this. I could agree to doctors being able to enter names of people with histories of mental problems into the NICS system, but no way doctors should be able to make final decision on who should or shouldn't own a gun for everyone. Why would anyone think doctors are so infallible and know everything? Thank goodness I've been healthy my whole life and I myself try to avoid doctors as much as possible so why should he be the one making final decisions on whether or not I should own a gun?

I second what First-light said. If she doesn't like it she doesn't like it. We can't expect our kids to be clones of us and like everything we do.

Yeah right. You weren't implying that someone with his "leftist" talking points has little business posting on a hunting forum? It is pretty easy to see your displeasure with having someone with a different take on all this posting his views here. Tough noogans on you, though. Believe me, not all hunters/gun owners think the same, this I can assure you. Some of you may think they do, but you are seeing on this thread alone that many don't.

He doesn't walk lock step with your opinions so he is automatically labeled a pinko leftist communist?

Yeah they would. I hope no one has anything like that ever happen to their kid, but I guarantee they'd start seeing a few things a bit differently.

We honestly shouldn't go there because the murder rates in just about ANY civilized country is considerably lower than ours. Many have strict gun laws, too. So, for those who claim that there are still lots of murders in a city like Chicago even with it's strict gun laws, what would their correlation be for these other nations with low murder rates who also have probably even stricter gun laws? Do we simply have more crazies in this country compared to other countries? If we do, how does it help matters having very laxed gun laws in most parts of this nation where these crazies have an easy time getting their hands on them?

That is what we need. The pro-gun side putting things on the table that just might work and put the anti-gun side on the defensive for once. I am not seeing it, however. All the pro-gun side does is dig in their heels and doesn't want to do or propose anything. Everything is "one step before total confiscation" to them.

That unfortunately is the typical pro-gun response to everything. I get it to a point, but I feel that if the pro-gun side can't at least come up with or agree to some safeguards that might make it a bit harder for a lunatic or someone else who really shouldn't have a gun to get one, then we will DEFINITELY have everything taken from us. I would think as responsible gun owners we would want to think of ways this broken system could work better? All I hear from the pro-gun side is that agreeing to even the simplest safeguard is one step before total confiscation. I just don't buy that. Yeah, the anti-gun side has an agenda, but why can't gun owners for once show them that they might have some better ideas than they do?? Do we always get our way with our spouses, friends, employers??? Hell no, I sure as hell don't, so why would I as a gun owner think that it should be my way only without any compromises??

Yeah, but why is a gun typically the weapon of choice? To make a bomb takes a bit of ingenuity that everyone doesn't have. A car or truck you can't drive thru the halls or classrooms of a school. I myself will never be convinced that a gun isn't the EASIEST tool to use if you want to kill many people in a short period of time. Add to this the easy availability of them and it's a NO brainer why someone would choose a gun over anything else. Right now the AR rifles seems to be the weapon of choice for such slaughters so we can take that for whatever it's worth. I will not go as far as saying that they should be banned, but I will say that ever since these weapons have increased in popularity in this country, gun owners have more than ever been put on the defensive and portrayed in ever worsening way. In the long run I don't know how much good they have done us.

This should become an interesting discussion. Heck, the NRA had a hard time admitting that background checks are of ANY value at all. How would anyone know that someone is crazy without some sort of background check when purchasing a gun? Who would make the determination that someone is indeed "crazy"? How about private sales where background checks are not required in most states? Tough questions and I don't see anyone on the either side of the gun debate coming up with any real good answers.

I would not have a problem with an armed guard or two in every school depending on the size of the school. Schools systems waste enough money on nonsense. If they'd cut back on the nonsense expenditure, they'd have more than enough to pay for guards. However, what about small private schools that couldn't afford guards? I'm sure these killers would then target those schools if they couldn't carry out what they wanted to in schools with guards. I am totally against arming teachers. I would have to think LONG and HARD from my years going to kindergarten thru four years of college for a teacher who I thought would have been able to handle themselves in an armed conflict. Most teachers I remember would not have been able to shoot their way out of a paper bag if someone tied them into one. Maybe a couple of gym teachers along the way, but even most of them were legends in their own minds as far as how tough they were. Teachers as a whole simply don't have what it takes from my experience.

It's a messed up society, no question about that, and it probably won't get any better. I think there are MANY people out there who'd rather be shot to death than put down their stinking, bloody smartphones. Freaking unbelievable. I won't be excluding many hunters from this disease either. It's not enough to kill a deer anymore, they have to FILM themselves killing it. Boggles my mind, that's for damned sure!

That is exactly what was happening. All other theories are nothing more than baloney and paranoia.

NYC losers have no reason to move to Orange County. I'm sure most of these losers that you are seeing were born and bred in the Orange County area. Low life can be found anywhere. You can take NYC completely off the map and you'd still find plenty of low life. Like the guys who steal tree stands, game cams, trespass and break into rural homes and camps? I bet most of those thugs never stepped inside NYC.