Anti-Gun Protest at GLOCK

[BarryLee]

A group of protestor marched to the Smyrna, GA headquarters of GLOCK demanding to see an “executive” of the company. They were led by serial protestors Rev. Markel Hutchins and Rev. Timothy McDonald two individuals that never miss an opportunity to promote themselves. Company security turned them away stating, “They don’t’ want to talk to you right now” speaking of company executives.

The entire thing would have been comical if it were not for some of their outrageous statements. Again these guys are major opportunist and self promoters, but still this kind of language does influence some folks.

Their statements included:

“Glock and this industry makes millions and millions of dollars because they intentionally flood communities with these handguns and we are saying enough is enough,” activist Rev. Markel Hutchins said.

“The blood of our children is running in our streets,” activist Rev. Timothy McDonald said.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...lock-hq/nWJ2G/

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I think these "Reverends" would be better teaching from the Bible (Luke 22:36 "... and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.") and praying for their flocks ... instead of bothering decent folks.

[Scorch]

“Glock and this industry makes millions and millions of dollars because they intentionally flood communities with these handguns and we are saying enough is enough,” activist Rev. Markel Hutchins said

No. It is a very simple case of supply and demand. If there were no demand, there would be no supply. If they want the supply to disappear, they should work with their neighbors to reduce the need for self-protection and thereby slow the demand, then the supply would disappear. If people did not feel a need to use violence to accomplish their goals, there would be no need for firearms for self-defense. If people did not feel the pressing need to defend themselves, they would not buy guns, they would buy cars and groceries and other stuff instead.

“The blood of our children is running in our streets,” activist Rev. Timothy McDonald said.

I do not want to sound callous or cynical, but the blood of their children is being spilled by their children. Teach people (including the adults) to follow the law, and the blood would cease to flow in the streets. Pointing fingers at people who provide a tool for people to defend themselves from violence is not the answer. If not guns, people would use knives, baseball bats, truncheons, fists, and so on. What the anti-gunners try to cover up is that violence begets violence, and that only safe and peaceful people will beat their swords into plowshares.

[Que]

If not guns, people would use knives, baseball bats, truncheons, fists, and so on.

Precisely. About twenty miles northeast of Glock in Smyrna, GA is John's Creek, GA where there was recently a murder/suicide that took four lives. The weapon? A knife.

[Brian Pfleuger]

While I have no respect for some of these particular participants, I am glad that they have the freedom to protest the very thing that allows our fine soldiers to keep them free.

[Dwight55]

Who are these two toads, . . . Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson protege's?

I had to shut down my browser, . . . don't even want any one seeing those two popped up on my computer.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Tickling]

If not guns, people would use knives, baseball bats, truncheons, fists, and so on.

That's true for most of your run of the mill crimes of passion, etc.. But just to play devil's advocate here; without guns most of these mass murders wouldn't have occurred. How far do you think the Aurora shooter would have gotten with a knife?

Don't get me wrong I fully believe in our right to own weapons, and I don't think that laws should punish the many for the sins of a few. We just need to make sure that our arguments are based on facts and reality. After all, we often claim that that is what separates us from the other side.

[scrubcedar]

Tickling, the Aurora shooter had his apartment booby trapped with explosives. Very few in the media reported on it at all. If he had blocked the exits and firebombed the place, with the materials we know he had, the death toll would have been much, much higher. Anyone with access to the internet has access to weapons much more deadly than guns.

[Tickling]

The Aurora shooter was just one example, how about Sandy Hook? Or any of the others?

It's true that anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry and an anarchist cookbook can bake up some terrible results. Trust me, I probably know it better than most people here. As I got arrested when I was in the ninth grade for fooling around with that kind of stuff (although exploding a tree was the extent of my adventures).

All I'm trying to say is that for the average person a gun is the most destructive thing available. A person who is emotionally unbalanced can reach for a gun and do the deed. Whereas if they have to manufacture an explosive you're looking at some time, time to stop and think. Plus pulling it off is tricky too, you have to manufacture or obtain a detonator, you need a timer, etc.

The clinically insane are another matter, but again, manufacturing an explosive takes time and materials, that means more chances to get caught. Plus it takes a lot of concentration and methodical procedure, or else you'll only kill yourself.

I know I'm sounding like an anti here, but I assure you I'm not. A gun is much more readily available than any explosive, despite what anyone says. We need to be able to recognize the weaknesses in our position, (and if you think we don't have any, you're dreaming), so that we can argue rationally.

That's all I'm trying to say.

[scrubcedar]

Tickling, I think you and I are going to see this two different ways no matter what. I've been advocating that guns are not the easiest way to cause large numbers of casualties for years. IEDS take less time in planning and implementing than the aurora shooter used. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...screening?lite
I couldn't dig up the references on the sandy hook shooting that I remember, the conspiracy theory guys have put up too much static. Trust me, he planned.
Columbine proves my point as well, very carefully planned.
All of that is almost irrelevant though. In much less time, and with much less money, than buying even one gun, I could produce a hundred molotov cocktails. Well maybe it would take as much money with today's gas prices
These are bright, twisted, people with too much time on their hands and singleness of purpose that's almost inhuman. Until you've dealt with Psych patients it's tough to envision the sheer power that is inherent in this.
My personal opinion? They've all played waaay too many hours worth of video games and to them this is the "coolest" way to kill people.

[locnload]

Tickling, Of course crazy, evil people can easily do damage with a gun, they are a dangerous thing. That is also why millions of people save lives by using them against crazy and evil people every year. The argument should never be about if they can cause harm or not.

As the Russian Spetznat officer said,(Rusian accent) "of course its dangerous, its gun!"

We can not allow them to make the argument about how dangerous this gun or that high capacity magazine is. All these self appointed Reverends make their living preaching the virtues of poverty and dependency. If they couldn't blames guns they would have to deal with things like cultural rot, men that father and abandon kids, and the hero worship of thugs. No fun in that.

We need to quit being politicaly correct and exspose them for the charlotans they are and let them take their rightful place in history along with the snake oil salesmen of the old days.

[Tom Servo]

I'm counting, what, 14 people in that video? I can't say I'm too worried about their little protest.

[Tickling]

That's what I love about debate, different opinions. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm truly honored that you would share your opinions with me. It gives me a chance to examine whether what I believe can pass muster.

I guess I hadn't researched the Sandy Hook shooting enough besides the odd news article. But I'd wager that many of the less lethal but far more common "mass shootings" that occur are spur of the moment or at least with minimal planning. In fact I just looked it up, there's been 62 mass shootings since 1982 (mass murder is defined as four homicides in a single incident). I only had time to look up a handful of the less famous ones but so far no more planning went into them than a day or two. I guess a better example than the ones I gave would be the "Virginia Tech shooting."

You could make 100 Molotov cocktails, but good luck carrying them. Whereas I can literally carry thousands of rounds of ammo and as many guns as I wanted within reason. I really don't think Aurora could have happened if the guy used Molotov cocktails.. And convenience, not money I think is the driving factor, guns are not that expensive.

And making IEDs is fine to speculate about, but even with plans available online it's no easy matter. Again, you'd be surprised what everyday materials will explode if you have the proper initiator (detonator). Even most explosives, like dynamite, can be safely burned. But crimp on a detonator and you've suddenly got a high explosive on your hands. And making a detonator is tricky, then there's the fuse and timer to worry about. It's really not as easy as you think, and you stand a very good chance of blowing yourself up at each stage of the process. It can be done, but you've got to really want to.

I'm sure I in no way have the experience that you have (I'm a nurse as well, though still wet behind the ears), as my experience comes wholly from my shift of two quarters in the psych ward while in college. But from what I've seen I believe you.

Even accounting for the insane, and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, from the limited research I've done it appears that many of these mass shooters where more or less normal before whatever happened to set them off. So the fact appears to remain that guns are convenient for the emotionally unbalanced.

But I don't have the monopoly on being right. So show me my error.

[Tickling]

Locnload,

I agree with you. And I think it's disgusting and sad that people blame the "object" instead of the person behind the object.

However, we don't have the monopoly on being right, our side doesn't float in a cloud of its own righteousness and perfect facts. Both sides are right on some points (I know, I know, blasphemy!). I'm pro- gun because to me this side makes the most sense, it's the most rational and is supported by the most facts.

BUT, make no mistake, guns ARE part of the problem. They're just not cause of the problem.

[scrubcedar]

We're starting to wander a little here, but let's see if I can tie it back in.

Tickling, it sure looked to me like there were warning signs on all the mass shooting suspects, mental health wise, before they committed their crimes.
It absolutely breaks my heart that these things could have been prevented if our mental health system functioned like it was designed to.

All the things we are talking about bring up one point that is very much topical to this thread,only idiots like these attention hounds think that this is a simple or one sided problem.
Stopping the legal flow of Glocks into the city would solve absolutely nothing and all of us ,including these clowns, know it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tickling

...All I'm trying to say is that for the average person a gun is the most destructive thing available. A person who is emotionally unbalanced can reach for a gun and do the deed. Whereas if they have to manufacture an explosive you're looking at some time, time to stop and think....

First, in general rampage murders are planned and organized. It's not just a matter of grabbing a gun.

Rampage murders have certainly been committed without a gun:

• The worst school mass murder in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The The Bath School disaster -- 1927, 45 people killed (including 38 children) with dynamite, firebombs, pyrotol, a club and Winchester rifle (the rifle was used only in the killer's suicide).
  
  
• In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 with a home made bomb in a truck
  
  
• One of the worst mass murders in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The Happy Land fire -- 1990, arson killing 87 people (and don't forget 9/11).
  
  
• And there was Priscilla Ford who in 1980 intentionally drove her car onto a crowded Reno, NV sidewalk killing 7.
  
  
• If you have a look at the listing of rampage killings on Wikipedia, you'll see that a great deal of damage has been done world wide without firearms.

[jason_iowa]

I would happily let them take every glock off the street if they promised no more gun laws for 1000 years. Whos with me.

[horatioo]

All I'm trying to say is that for the average person a gun is the most destructive thing available.

A big car, like a surburban, in a crowded place, say a parade or festival could kill dozens. If someone wanted to attack a school just ram the fence at recess.

A super soaker filled with gasoline and a match. A ten year old could buy the stuff for that.

[scrubcedar]

I'm with Jason

[horatioo]

I would happily let them take every glock off the street if they promised no more gun laws for 1000 years. Whos with me.

I imagine you could easily get some anti gun guy to make that promise, not to sure about expecting him to keep it though.

[jason_iowa]

Very true. I just like to jab my glock loving friends.

[Tickling]

The wandering was my bad. My apologies to the OP.

OFF TOPIC
One last word if I may, and if you think it's unmannerly to reply here feel free to PM me, as I would truly appreciate your opinion on this: As far as the shooters in the majority of cases, I don't see how are mental health care institution could have prevented them. There would be too many false-positives. Emotionally distraught people all act in fairly predictable ways, but the don't all go out and murder people.


BACK ON TOPIC

My point, was that the anti- gun crowd has a point. And we should recognize it. What I'm about to say is crazy, but hear me out. I think that they are right in that there would be less instances of "mass murder" if there were no guns. Sure, some would find means to carry out their nefarious schemes but the vast majority would be either unable of much damage or have time for reflection. If you could magically get rid of all the guns then I truly believe that we would have less mass murder, which brings me my real point if I ever had one..

That's why the tired argument; "they'd just use a knife, club, etc., doesn't really work when applied to typical mass murder. It's weak and I hate for my side to have weak arguments. Our strong position is that of reality, guns are here to stay, you can't get rid of them. Just like the Catholic Church's attempt at banning crossbows 900 years ago, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Now regulating guns, that's another story.

[BarryLee]

I sort if understand what you are saying, but the reality is that with 300,000,000+ guns already in circulation and more being sold every day the “no guns” ship has kind of already sailed.

Also, realize that most gun violence in this country is not of the type which occurred in some of these high profile shootings, but is most often one on one old school criminal activity. Regardless of what impact reducing guns may have on these very limited mass shootings I feel pretty confident that the average criminal will find a “tool” to get the job done.

[Tickling]

With all due respect Mr. Ettin, In 1927 it was far from hard to obtain dynamite and other high explosives.

And I never argued that mass murder could not be committed without a gun, but I think we can all agree that nearly all of them are. It's just more convenient.

Do you have any research backing your claim that most rampage killings are organized and planned? Certainly the worst and high profile ones were, but remember there's been 62 mass murders involving guns since 1982 and so far the handful I've researched did not seem planned.

A big car, like a surburban, in a crowded place, say a parade or festival could kill dozens. If someone wanted to attack a school just ram the fence at recess.

A super soaker filled with gasoline and a match. A ten year old could buy the stuff for that.

Actually the suburban idea is something I thought of after reading thishttp://www.damninteresting.com/the-w...the-killdozer/.

Anyways, using the car analogy is a good way to argue against "preventative" gun laws. As for the super-soaker/gasoline/match thing... good luck with that.

[Tickling]

Barrylee you said exactly what I was trying to say in my last paragraph.

I really feel like I'm muddling what I'm trying to say here, and it doesn't help that I'm tired and it's the middle of the day here.. still on Oregon time I guess.