Nashville School Shooting

[Pepe_Silvia]

Thank you! At last, an honest answer.

Surely we can accomplish those three tasks with least firepower. Over the years, I have target practiced with a .22 rifle. I've shot clay pigeons with shotguns. I defend my house with a shotgun. I've killed varmints with .22 and shotguns. In retirements, I would like to add a 9mm handgun for all those uses. I'm good with all the various deer rifles.

I'm certainly no expert, but thinking the founding fathers wanted us to have guns to defend against our own rouge armies. Like women's right to vote, slavery. extra tax on tea, times have changed.

So you do you.

But you have no right to tell other people what type of gun they should be allowed to own.

 

[Jax_Vol]

So you do you.

But you have no right to tell other people what type of gun they should be allowed to own.

I am already telling you that you can’t own a Javelin or Stinger missile. Just broadening the group.


Those three 9 year old children in Nashville deserve that right in my humble opinion.

 

[Jax_Vol]

And what is it about the ar that you find so unacceptable compared to other firearms carried by many?

Watch the Nashville body cam video. Listen to that gun being fired when the officers reach the end of hallway before turning right to walk right toward that thing. It is like a long range cannon being fired every second. Think how brave you have to be to walk into that without knowing what is around the corner.
The public has no use for that gun. The tasks mentioned here can be covered by other legal weapons.

 

[615vols]

Watch the Nashville body cam video. Listen to that gun being fired when the officers reach the end of hallway before turning right to walk right toward that thing. It is like a long range cannon being fired every second. Think how brave you have to be to walk into that without knowing what is around the corner.
The public has no use for that gun. The tasks mentioned here can be covered by other legal weapons.

So you think it should be banned based on its sound?

 

[GTBATV]

Watch the Nashville body cam video. Listen to that gun being fired when the officers reach the end of hallway before turning right to walk right toward that thing. It is like a long range cannon being fired every second. Think how brave you have to be to walk into that without knowing what is around the corner.
The public has no use for that gun. The tasks mentioned here can be covered by other legal weapons.

An AR is loud usually, at least from my experience. But the round is much smaller than most hunting rifles. And you can get ten round magazines for any semi auto rifle. I think the AR is just a talking point because it's so popular.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I am already telling you that you can’t own a Javelin or Stinger missile. Just broadening the group.


Those three 9 year old children in Nashville deserve that right in my humble opinion.

Missiles are not guns. And you're not telling me anything because you don't have the authority to tell me what I can and can't do.

 

[Jax_Vol]

Missiles are not guns. And you're not telling me anything because you don't have the authority to tell me what I can and can't do.

You can’t have a Sherman tank.

You can’t have pot.

You can’t operate a Sherman tank while burning your rope. Especially not you Pepe!

See how easy it works?

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

You can’t have a Sherman tank.

You can’t have pot.

You can’t operate a Sherman tank while burning your rope.

See how easy it works?

You're reading comprehension is on the level of a 9 year old child.

And btw, owning a tank is legal as is pot in a number of states now. So you're just wrong on all counts.

 

[615vols]

You can’t have a Sherman tank.

You can’t have pot.

You can’t operate a Sherman tank while burning your rope. Especially not you Pepe!

See how easy it works?

You didn’t answer the question. What is it about the ar that makes it unacceptable to you? You said because of how loud it was. So you want to ban it based on its sound?

 

[Jax_Vol]

You didn’t answer the question. What is it about the ar that makes it unacceptable to you? You said because of how loud it was. So you want to ban it based on its sound?

I don’t know that it is just the AR. I question why the general public needs any weapon that can fire large caliber, long distance, extremely fast rounds.

The AR stands out only because that seems to be the one all the mass shooters seem to select

 

[joevol33]

I don’t know that it is just the AR. I question why the general public needs any weapon that can fire large caliber, long distance, extremely fast rounds.

The AR stands out only because that seems to be the one all the mass shooters seem to select

Here's my issue with wanting to ban something, and I'm not being argumentative, I'm sincerely stating my feelings. Every time something like this happens, the talk is only about what to do that effects people who haven't ever committed a crime with their weapons. Never, not ou me single time during a shooting, has a single opponent of these types of weapons ever even made a suggestion as to disarming actual criminals. We have a president who has twice threatened to use the military (and I know he was just yapping) against another type of protest like at the Capitol. I get that doesn't mean anything to some people, especially if you vote his way, but to some of us, it makes me wonder. There's shootings every single day, multiple, in Atlanta and Chicago, and many qualify as mass shootings by definition. Why not threaten to use the military to go disarm the gangs running the streets, if gun violence is really that bad to them? They never even offer a suggestion to stop gun violence in those places. It's always, we need to ban, or we need to pass laws to prevent someone like me, who's never committed a crime, from legally owning a gun. I don't have an AR, probably never will, but it's hypocritical to me to want to restrict me, when they never even mention criminals. There are absolutely people out there who don't need guns, but millions of us who never hurt anyone. I know this is touchy, but I'm gonna say it, because it's how many people feel. This shooting in Nashville, committed by someone on medicine, who lived confused about what their identity was, that's literally who done it. I know it's not politically correct to say it, but that's who did it. What's the media, political, and some people's reaction? They blame trump, right wing extremist, rednecks, the usual. The current president after the shooting got on TV blaming anything and everything on the opposite side politically, went on a tirade about not blaming trans people, saying they were the "soul" of this nation. Not once, would he just say it was on the shooter. To me, someone who don't give a crap about either party, that's bull. I'm not against checking people before they buy a gun, I get checked now. The problem is, someone who doesn't know who they are, and on medication, should've been blocked. Certain politicians only want to block if you vote differently, they want whoever posts political stuff to be checked vigorously. Not criminals, not people confused, on medication, just those who don't line up with their politics. My argument for those weapons, I remember when the government went out west and tried to railroad a farmer and steal his land because a certain politicians son was trying to take it by imminent domain. That farmer, and his neighbors, had these types of weapons, and the government backed down. Good for them I say. My friend I'm all for doing whatever we need to protect our kids, I have one still in school. What I'm saying, let's be fair, don't target me, and never once even suggest to disarm the people killing every day, that's at the government not you personally. That's just thoughts I have, in no way am I meaning that smart, or to be ugly. I can't apologize for feeling that way, and I respect your opinion about the subject as well. I hope that didn't come off wrong, because you've been respectful in your posts. I'm just trying to express what some of us think when they get on TV and start making it political, and their only response is to restrict me, and not the actual criminals.

 

[Jax_Vol]

Here's my issue with wanting to ban something, and I'm not being argumentative, I'm sincerely stating my feelings. Every time something like this happens, the talk is only about what to do that effects people who haven't ever committed a crime with their weapons. Never, not ou me single time during a shooting, has a single opponent of these types of weapons ever even made a suggestion as to disarming actual criminals. We have a president who has twice threatened to use the military (and I know he was just yapping) against another type of protest like at the Capitol. I get that doesn't mean anything to some people, especially if you vote his way, but to some of us, it makes me wonder. There's shootings every single day, multiple, in Atlanta and Chicago, and many qualify as mass shootings by definition. Why not threaten to use the military to go disarm the gangs running the streets, if gun violence is really that bad to them? They never even offer a suggestion to stop gun violence in those places. It's always, we need to ban, or we need to pass laws to prevent someone like me, who's never committed a crime, from legally owning a gun. I don't have an AR, probably never will, but it's hypocritical to me to want to restrict me, when they never even mention criminals. There are absolutely people out there who don't need guns, but millions of us who never hurt anyone. I know this is touchy, but I'm gonna say it, because it's how many people feel. This shooting in Nashville, committed by someone on medicine, who lived confused about what their identity was, that's literally who done it. I know it's not politically correct to say it, but that's who did it. What's the media, political, and some people's reaction? They blame trump, right wing extremist, rednecks, the usual. The current president after the shooting got on TV blaming anything and everything on the opposite side politically, went on a tirade about not blaming trans people, saying they were the "soul" of this nation. Not once, would he just say it was on the shooter. To me, someone who don't give a crap about either party, that's bull. I'm not against checking people before they buy a gun, I get checked now. The problem is, someone who doesn't know who they are, and on medication, should've been blocked. Certain politicians only want to block if you vote differently, they want whoever posts political stuff to be checked vigorously. Not criminals, not people confused, on medication, just those who don't line up with their politics. My argument for those weapons, I remember when the government went out west and tried to railroad a farmer and steal his land because a certain politicians son was trying to take it by imminent domain. That farmer, and his neighbors, had these types of weapons, and the government backed down. Good for them I say. My friend I'm all for doing whatever we need to protect our kids, I have one still in school. What I'm saying, let's be fair, don't target me, and never once even suggest to disarm the people killing every day, that's at the government not you personally. That's just thoughts I have, in no way am I meaning that smart, or to be ugly. I can't apologize for feeling that way, and I respect your opinion about the subject as well. I hope that didn't come off wrong, because you've been respectful in your posts. I'm just trying to express what some of us think when they get on TV and start making it political, and their only response is to restrict me, and not the actual criminals.

I somewhat get the jest of what you are saying. And before I forget, you are a solid poster here on the VN.

Yes, if people weren't using this weapons to kill children in mass, I have no problem with them. However, looking at the Nashville case, I don't think she ends up with a weapon like that if they are illegal.

I am really strongly opposed to using active duty military against their own people. History shows that is a bad idea.

I'm intrigued by the story of the farmer who used weapon to change government's mind on imminent domain. Can you find a link please?

 

[joevol33]

I somewhat get the jest of what you are saying. And before I forget, you are a solid poster here on the VN.

Yes, if people weren't using this weapons to kill children in mass, I have no problem with them. However, looking at the Nashville case, I don't think she ends up with a weapon like that if they are illegal.

I am really strongly opposed to using active duty military against their own people. History shows that is a bad idea.

I'm intrigued by the story of the farmer who used weapon to change government's mind on imminent domain. Can you find a link please?

I had my story wrong . they held 9ff the government but he was on federal land. It was the Bundy's, but I apologize for the mix up, I just remember they had a big standoff. I think the problem is being able to communicate, listen to each sides feelings. Like I said, what I posted are legit thoughts I have. It's not that I don't want to do anything, or keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them. I just want the criminals punished, not law abiding citizens

 

[Jax_Vol]

I had my story wrong . they held 9ff the government but he was on federal land. It was the Bundy's, but I apologize for the mix up, I just remember they had a big standoff. I think the problem is being able to communicate, listen to each sides feelings. Like I said, what I posted are legit thoughts I have. It's not that I don't want to do anything, or keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them. I just want the criminals punished, not law abiding citizens

I don't think we are that different perhaps...? All I want is for people to stop killing the children in mass.

If 3,000 people want to kill their buddy with a knife, so be it.

 

[YankeeVol]

I somewhat get the jest of what you are saying. And before I forget, you are a solid poster here on the VN.

Yes, if people weren't using this weapons to kill children in mass, I have no problem with them. However, looking at the Nashville case, I don't think she ends up with a weapon like that if they are illegal.

I am really strongly opposed to using active duty military against their own people. History shows that is a bad idea.

I'm intrigued by the story of the farmer who used weapon to change government's mind on imminent domain. Can you find a link please?

Most wouldn't do it, well at least the ones I know.

 

[joevol33]

I don't think we are that different perhaps...? All I want is for people to stop killing the children in mass.

If 3,000 people want to kill their buddy with a knife, so be it.

Man, I wish people would stop killing in general, and just be good to others.

 

[jp1]

If you want to make the biggest impact, in my opinion, is pour more money into mental health services (instead of taking them away). Any other measure is like treating a symptom, rather than finding a cure.

 

[hog88]

Thank you! At last, an honest answer.

Surely we can accomplish those three tasks with least firepower. Over the years, I have target practiced with a .22 rifle. I've shot clay pigeons with shotguns. I defend my house with a shotgun. I've killed varmints with .22 and shotguns. In retirements, I would like to add a 9mm handgun for all those uses. I'm good with all the various deer rifles.

I'm certainly no expert, but thinking the founding fathers wanted us to have guns to defend against our own rouge armies. Like women's right to vote, slavery. extra tax on tea, times have changed.

Then change the constitution, they gave us ways to do it.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Here's my issue with wanting to ban something, and I'm not being argumentative, I'm sincerely stating my feelings. Every time something like this happens, the talk is only about what to do that effects people who haven't ever committed a crime with their weapons. Never, not ou me single time during a shooting, has a single opponent of these types of weapons ever even made a suggestion as to disarming actual criminals. We have a president who has twice threatened to use the military (and I know he was just yapping) against another type of protest like at the Capitol. I get that doesn't mean anything to some people, especially if you vote his way, but to some of us, it makes me wonder. There's shootings every single day, multiple, in Atlanta and Chicago, and many qualify as mass shootings by definition. Why not threaten to use the military to go disarm the gangs running the streets, if gun violence is really that bad to them? They never even offer a suggestion to stop gun violence in those places. It's always, we need to ban, or we need to pass laws to prevent someone like me, who's never committed a crime, from legally owning a gun. I don't have an AR, probably never will, but it's hypocritical to me to want to restrict me, when they never even mention criminals. There are absolutely people out there who don't need guns, but millions of us who never hurt anyone. I know this is touchy, but I'm gonna say it, because it's how many people feel. This shooting in Nashville, committed by someone on medicine, who lived confused about what their identity was, that's literally who done it. I know it's not politically correct to say it, but that's who did it. What's the media, political, and some people's reaction? They blame trump, right wing extremist, rednecks, the usual. The current president after the shooting got on TV blaming anything and everything on the opposite side politically, went on a tirade about not blaming trans people, saying they were the "soul" of this nation. Not once, would he just say it was on the shooter. To me, someone who don't give a crap about either party, that's bull. I'm not against checking people before they buy a gun, I get checked now. The problem is, someone who doesn't know who they are, and on medication, should've been blocked. Certain politicians only want to block if you vote differently, they want whoever posts political stuff to be checked vigorously. Not criminals, not people confused, on medication, just those who don't line up with their politics. My argument for those weapons, I remember when the government went out west and tried to railroad a farmer and steal his land because a certain politicians son was trying to take it by imminent domain. That farmer, and his neighbors, had these types of weapons, and the government backed down. Good for them I say. My friend I'm all for doing whatever we need to protect our kids, I have one still in school. What I'm saying, let's be fair, don't target me, and never once even suggest to disarm the people killing every day, that's at the government not you personally. That's just thoughts I have, in no way am I meaning that smart, or to be ugly. I can't apologize for feeling that way, and I respect your opinion about the subject as well. I hope that didn't come off wrong, because you've been respectful in your posts. I'm just trying to express what some of us think when they get on TV and start making it political, and their only response is to restrict me, and not the actual criminals.

 

[hog88]

Men who place a lot of importance on owning guns need to broaden their lives. It's the whole faux macho thing--like driving a big truck.
There are a ton of men who drive these ridiculously oversized trucks around--wasting gas, can barely fit in parking spaces--and they're
not hauling loads up a mountain. Trying to show the world how rugged they are....Education is a big part of all this--lack of it. And of course the car
makers has indulged their fantasies by making trucks bigger and bigger over the last 25 years. Many of them are cartoonish in size.

Assault weapons are a problem--a serious problem. Everybody knows it. They've been banned before and they should be banned again--permanently. We have a choice between making the public more safe or continuing to place more importance on indulging the childish sheriff/cowboy-wannabe fantasies of some men. It should be an easy practical decision--but conservatives and GOP politicians choose to be stupid and defiant and people die as a result.

Assault weapons have not been available to the general public since 1934. The cosmetics bad of 1994 did not ban 1 functional part of a semi-automatic magazine fed rifle.

You guys should really do some research.

 

[hog88]

I am already telling you that you can’t own a Javelin or Stinger missile. Just broadening the group.


Those three 9 year old children in Nashville deserve that right in my humble opinion.

No they don’t. Do the 10-15 kids that die per day as a result of drunk drivers have the right to make everyone have a breathalyzer in their cars?

 

[hog88]

You can’t have a Sherman tank.

You can’t have pot.

You can’t operate a Sherman tank while burning your rope. Especially not you Pepe!

See how easy it works?

You can own a Sherman tank.

Educate yourself.

 

[hog88]

I don’t know that it is just the AR. I question why the general public needs any weapon that can fire large caliber, long distance, extremely fast rounds.

The AR stands out only because that seems to be the one all the mass shooters seem to select

“ARs” are rarely used in mass shootings.

Do some research.

 

[615vols]

I don’t know that it is just the AR. I question why the general public needs any weapon that can fire large caliber, long distance, extremely fast rounds.

The AR stands out only because that seems to be the one all the mass shooters seem to select

This is just false. Where are you getting your information from?

 

[joevol33]

2 points for Ross and Joey