Anti-Gun Protest at GLOCK

[SHE3PDOG]

The pure emotion statements of people like that really get under my skin. I can't understand why anyone would devoid themselves of logical thought. Worse yet, it seems as though a good portion of our country's populace is continually growing more willing to accept everything they hear without digging further into it. Self reliance is turning into a thing of the past. I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.

[okiewita40]

Tickling,

I used to work at a mental hospital. Trust me when I say that there is nothing predictable about how a mentally ill person reacts. I once got hit multiple times by a pt. Just for asking them to pick up a blanket.

People can and do find ways to commit mass murder. IED's, pipe bombs, ECT. Heck just throw some shrapnel in a pipe bomb and you can kill or maim a number of people.

Now I look at things through the eyes of an LEO. Guns are only the tools that these mentally ill types are currently using.

That coupled with the fact that a lot liberals just hate guns is the only reason that there is any talk at all about a gun ban of any kind. If the anti's would put as much focus towards solving the national debt, welfare or something else productive this would be a much better time than what we have now.

[Tickling]

okiewita40,

I agree with you. Notice I said, "emotionally distraught," not "mentally ill." And I was referring to unplanned rampage shootings such as "Virginia Tech."

Also, I'm well aware that people can build IEDs and pipe bombs, but as I went over in some of my earlier posts, it's not as easy as people think. In fact, it's pretty hard.

Guns are only the tools

That perfectly sums up my feelings as well.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Frank Ettin

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.

I would add to that list that the Columbine High School shooters only started shooting after their home-made propane bombs failed to explode. Had they been better bomb makers, the Columbine shooting would've likely been far worse than it was.

Originally posted by Tickling

Also, I'm well aware that people can build IEDs and pipe bombs, but as I went over in some of my earlier posts, it's not as easy as people think. In fact, it's pretty hard.

A few glass bottles, some old rags, gasoline, and a cigarette lighter is all that's required to very easily make a very nasty weapon that could wreak just as much, if not more havoc in a crowded place than a firearm. Likewise, a pound or two of black powder, a box of nails, and some cannon fuse make for another very destructive device that's ridiculously easy to make if one were so inclined.

The fact of the matter is that where there is a will, there is a way and that applies just as much to evil as it does to good. People were killing each other, often in large numbers, long before the first firearm ever appeared and they will continue to do so for the forseeable future regardless of the availability of firearms.

Mass murders simply use whatever tool is available to them. If you take away one tool, you'll only make them turn to another. A person so determined to carry out such a heinous act that they're willing to die in the process simply cannot be appealed to, bargained with, or intimidated and more laws certainly aren't going to disuade them. The only way to stop such people is to meet them with force equal to or greater than their own.

[scrubcedar]

"The only way to stop such people is to meet them with a force equal to or greater than their own." And we have reached the right answer.

[Tickling]

Contrary to popular belief, Molotov cocktails and their precursors where originally used to set fire to tanks or buildings (http://www.worldwar-two.net/weapons/molotov_cocktail/). They really don't work that well against people. Black powder makes a nice little explosion, but I'm afraid it won't send your shrapnel very far (unless you design it to, and that's tricky).

I'm glad you pointed out the failed bomb at Columbine as it appears to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to amateur bomb-makers, thank God. Even modern military bombs have a significant failure rate, as a quick Google search will show you.

And you're right. If people want to kill or harm others they will find a way. But you have to admit guns make it a great deal easier for the common crackpot. And that's all I'm trying to say.

The only way to stop such people is to meet them with force equal to or greater than their own.

You won't get an argument from me there. Some historians attribute (among other factors) the invention of the crossbow with the ending of feudalism. For the first time, perhaps in the history of the world, an untrained peasant could take on a knight who had spent a fortune on his armor and trained for combat his entire life.

Guns can surely be used for evil, as can my car or brain. But they also give freedom, freedom to the weak against the powerful.

[Webleymkv]

Contrary to popular belief, Molotov cocktails and their precursors where originally used to set fire to tanks or buildings (http://www.worldwar-two.net/weapons/molotov_cocktail/). They really don't work that well against people. Black powder makes a nice little explosion, but I'm afraid it won't send your shrapnel very far (unless you design it to, and that's tricky).

True that such devices are pretty crude and, as compared to more sophisticated explosives, not particularly effective. However, they are more than effective enough if used under the right (or perhaps wrong is the better word) circumstances. For example, lobbing Molotov cocktails at police in riot gear on an open street may not do all that much damage, but if you start throwing them inside a crowded movie theater or classroom it's likely to be another story entirely.

Also, you say that the average person wouldn't be able to make a more sophisticated explosive, but I'm not sure I really buy that. In the age of computers and the internet, the information needed to make all sorts of very nasty things including bombs is only a few keystrokes and clicks away. Heck, you can probably find instructions for making nuclear devices if you want to (though thankfully the necessary materials aren't readily available) so I don't think it would be all that hard to figure out how to make a comparatively simple fire or shrapnel bomb.

The point is that there are scores of ways to kill large numbers of people is someone is determined enough. Explosives, arson, or even noxious gases wouldn't be particularly hard things for a maniac to use if he were determined, clever, and creative enough (these three qualities seem to be common among mass murderers). While firearms may currently be such people's weapon of choice, they're certainly not the only choice and they're not necessarily the most effective.

[Tickling]

For example, lobbing Molotov cocktails at police in riot gear on an open street may not do all that much damage, but if you start throwing them inside a crowded movie theater or classroom it's likely to be another story entirely.

Actually I think you've got that backwards, Molotov cocktails are more effective against hard objects, such as riot gear, then soft ones like people. The reason is, bottles don't usually break when they hit a person when thrown, particularly when filled or partially filled with a liquid. Try throwing some at Styrofoam. Empty bottles are another story.

Also, you say that the average person wouldn't be able to make a more sophisticated explosive, but I'm not sure I really buy that. In the age of computers and the internet, the information needed to make all sorts of very nasty things including bombs is only a few keystrokes and clicks away.

I didn't say that. I said that the average person would have hard time doing it and that it would take some time. I'm an average person and I did it. When I was 15 I blew down a tree that was 6 ft around (and I got arrested). But it was hard, it took me months, and yes I got all my information from the internet. Plus I had ready access to materials since my father was a contractor, and I'd worked for an electrician, but even then the wiring was almost impossible and I ended up cheating. In all, I'm lucky to be alive. But you don't have to take my word for, look how little it happens or how often it fails.

Instructions, even the main (tertiary) explosives are easy to get. But it's really hard to set them off how and when you want to (just Google "failed bombing attempts"). Anything's possible, that's certainly true. About the nuclear device.. you've obviously never heard of David Hahn..

Again I'm not disagreeing with you. If someone really wants to do something they will find a way. Just look at David Hahn. But many of these rampage shooters aren't that clever or creative. If the Virginia Tech shooter hadn't had a gun I doubt we would have had a mass murder. Guns are just easy, that's all I'm saying. McDonald's is easy too (and more likely then a gun to kill you), but I'm not saying we should ban them. I was merely playing devil's advocate.

[Lucifyr_Sam]

"Actually I think you've got that backwards, Molotov cocktails are more effective against hard objects, such as riot gear, then soft ones like people. The reason is, bottles don't usually break when they hit a person when thrown, particularly when filled or partially filled with a liquid. Try throwing some at Styrofoam. Empty bottles are another story."

Yeah, but the people would be crowded around a door in a wall. They'd just throw them at the wall above them, floor behind them.

[Tickling]

Yeah, but the people would be crowded around a door in a wall.

Would they? That would be convenient if they did.. or would it? Try throwing a water balloon at a wall and see how much water gets on the floor.. throwing a Molotov cocktail on the ground will probably just ruin some shoes..

The thing is, improvised weapons/explosives rely on a lot of ifs, and special circumstances. And they're not as inherently easy to wield/use as a firearm.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Alright guys, Molotov's and such aren't the topic.

[Scorch]

Wow! Go away for a few days, and see what happens?

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?

Well, no one was speaking of mass killings until your post.

A gun is much more readily available than any explosive, despite what anyone says.

I would beg to differ. Having received some training in improvised munitions, I can tell you that almost anyone in this country has access to explosives.

[Tickling]

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.

Emphasis mine.

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. I'll admit the subject evolved in a different direction than I intended.

I won't get into the"access to explosives" debate again as I've already taken this thread off-topic enough and I already answered that question in an earlier posting. If you care to read it and still disagree, feel free to PM me.

[trg42wraglefragle]

If they ban "assault rifles" and high capacity mags to stop mass murders, then someone kills 8 people with a leaver action, are they then going to ban all guns?

Then when people use knifes are they going to ban them too?

Instead of banning everything, would it not make sense to try and stop people getting to such a mental state to do such things? Seems like a better way to look at it.

[adamc]

A) HOW about these so called Reverends Actually proove their "Reverendship".
What is their actual parish and why exactly are they "tax exempt" ?
I think this should be looked into... I doubt these tv hounds would pass muster...


B) IMO IF these tv hounds want to shovel their garbage...
please limit it to their pulpits ( if they actually have one)

Why is it a 1 st ammendment issue for the anti's only when the
Pro 2A SPEAKS ?

[44 AMP]

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.

I understand your point, and agree, in part. For the average person, guns are the most destructive thing easily available. Of course, gasoline and matches are pretty easily available too....

But it isn't the average person that is committing the mass killings.

Look at some news from Asia. Guns are not common, but knives, swords and machetes are. There are many, many reports over the years of mass murders (sometimes over two dozen) commited by sword or machete wielding berserkers. The killer of all those children at Sandy Hook could have done it with a machete. Do you think the end result would have been significantly different if the killer had to run a little bit to catch fleeing victims? I don't.

[Lucifyr_Sam]

Would they? That would be convenient if they did.. or would it? Try throwing a water balloon at a wall and see how much water gets on the floor.. throwing a...

Its well known that panicking people trying to exit a room crowd around doors. They don't get in a line or anything...

I used to occasionally splatter other kids by throwing water balloons and hitting the wall over their heads. You don't have to hit someone directly with a water balloon to get them wet.

I'll keep other observations to myself b/c the mod doesn't want them discussed.

Do you think the end result would have been significantly different if the killer had to run a little bit to catch fleeing victims?

Yeah, the idea that that Sandy Hook could only have been committed by a supposedly specialized weapon is absurd. Children are pretty much helpless, which is one of the things that makes Sandy hook so horrific. Yet it could only have been done with a "high power assault rifle"....

[JohnKSa]

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

You'd start off with no Glocks and a promise and end up with no Glocks and no promise...

It's always the same. You give a little and get nothing. It happens again, and again. Pretty soon you've given a LOT and still gotten nothing.

[Tickling]

I agree with you 44 AMP and you also Lucifyr_Sam, you don't need firearms to commit mass murder. But I do think they are the easiest way to maximize fatalities. We use the recent Chinese school attack where 23 children were stabbed a lot around here.. but we tend to forget that there were zero fatalities (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12...eing-in-panic/).

I guess it's true that we aren't dealing with average or "normal" people.. but then again some or even most of these people were normal enough until afterwards when people connected the dots. Plus history shows humanity to be fairly violent in general.. innocent life, compassion, mercy and fair play are fairly new ideals.. but now I'm getting into the whole nature/nurture debate..

I totally agree that these protesters are misplacing their anger and energies. You can't blame the tool for the sins of the person behind it. But, to argue that guns are not part of the problem is to argue from a position of weakness and is going to make us lose. Until they sell hand grenades and military-grade detonators alongside firearms, guns remain the surest and most convenient way to kill people. That's all I'm trying to say.

[scrubcedar]

Tickling let's just take your arguments for a second. Let's say the laws of physics have changed and there are no explosive powders of any kind that work.
Do you have any doubts that something just as dangerous would have been invented in it's place?
"Arms" is the word used in the Constitution. They did not use the word "firearms". They did not use the word "musket", nor did they use any specific of any kind.

Guns
are
not
the
Problem

Go watch the big battle scene in "The Patriot" notice how many people Mel Gibson and the bad guy use edged/hand weapons on. Understand that in the real world of the 1700's all of them that had much more than a scratch probably died from infection.
Guns are not the only, or even the best way to kill large numbers of humans. Even if they were suddenly to vanish, something else would be invented in their place, maybe something worse.

[flybuddy]

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.

They ought to blame themselves due to the Presidential election results. If THEY didn't elect Obama, there would be a lot less handguns "flooding communities"

[BIGR]

Those people are living in a fantasy world.

Speaking of Glock. I got my Model 31 on Thursday and I must say it is nice. Can't wait to get some range time with it.

[Texshooter]

After the cameras left, or were turned off, the Prez (I believe that was his title) of Glock did, indeed, come out and meet with the group.

"Be glad to discuss any issues you have, try to communicate, blah blah"

The protestors, I am quite sure, did not really want a Company rep to come out.

[Tickling]

Tickling let's just take your arguments for a second. Let's say the laws of physics have changed and there are no explosive powders of any kind that work.
Do you have any doubts that something just as dangerous would have been invented in it's place?

Do I misunderstand you, or is your argument that in an alternate universe there are no guns/bombs and therefore we invent the giant-gaping-holeminator? Ah, I see where you're going, tools change but the problems stay the same, right? That's good, you know what you wi- wait.. that's an ignoratio elenchi.

If in the alternate universe we invent the bunny-feather-tickle Deathray, and said BFT gun is the easiest way to destroy large numbers of people, then it's still the easiest way to destroy large numbers of people... that sounds like my argument.. guns are currently the easiest way to kill large numbers of people (for your average psycho).

I
Never
Said
Guns
Were
The
Problem.

I said they were part of the problem..

Go watch the big battle scene in "The Patriot" notice how many people Mel Gibson and the bad guy use edged/hand weapons on. Understand that in the real world of the 1700's all of them that had much more than a scratch probably died from infection.

Sharp pointy objects have undoubtedly killed more people than firearms ever will.. but that doesn't make them the ultimate mass-murder tool. I don't see how an actors portrayal of experts in colonial warfare, fighting people who were there to fight (instead of say, scattering in a thousand directions), and using weapons that take minutes to reload, has to do with mass murder today. Unless you're trying to make the subtle point that the tool of mass murder is always changing and thus can't be blamed for the result?

I agree. My argument has always been simply that firearms currently allow the easiest access to the greatest number of casualties. I'm not trying to assign blame to what amounts as an innocent bystander (firearms), any more than I'm blaming large table-knives for all those people Mel Gibson killed .

[scrubcedar]

"the tool of mass murder is always changing and thus can't be blamed for the result"
That's the point of the whole post Tickling.

The tool is irrelevant. explosive powders, flammable substances, poison gasses, these things do exist. They're not going away.

Frank Herbert wrote a book called "the white plague" it was about a scientist who worked with genes having his wife and daughter killed. He invented a virus to kill only females. It pretty much wiped out the human race. We are very close already to people being able to do exactly that. I'd rather those scientists use guns rather than their skills wouldn't you?

Take the guns away from them, force them to get better with explosive's, and they will. The death tolls will rise immediately afterwards.

This is very much on topic with this thread. Let's say these idiots shut down Glock. Does it solve the problem? Only a simpleton believes that.

Water flows. If you Dam a stream to stop the erosion from it, it works temporarily, then a waterfall comes over the top and causes more damage than the stream every could. The replacement could be much, much worse than what we have now.
You have to address the problems with the individuals who use the tools
I'm going to give you the opportunity to have the last word. I know I've spoken the truth, if it doesn't convince you, I can't help you.