A Reporter Can't Seem to Buy a Gun

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, bytebear said:

“it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

 

Did the author deny the charges?  Based on the article, he seemed to dismiss them as if they were irrelevant to his story.  But does he actually have a history of alcohol abuse and was he charged (and/or convicted) or battery?

Yes, he has one.  As evidenced by his article that says, "If the same rule was applied to everybody else there would be a lot less guns in the country."  He believes that it is not his history that got him denied the purchase.  He believes - or wants us to believe - that it was because he is a reporter and Mason's hate reporters.  What an idiot.

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I hate the 5.56 x 45 round.  It is a less effective round because the round only uses a 55, 62 or 77 grain bullet.  I wish the military would go with the .300 Blackout or the 6.8 x 43 round.  The 5.56 round was designed to wound and that is not always optimal in all situations.

Not in all situations, fer shure. But for the military, it's optimal in nearly all situations, and certainly in those where an ordinary grunt (infantryman) is shooting at the enemy. It takes two or more others to care for an injured soldier, and this care goes on for a long, long time in most cases. But it takes just one man to "care" for a dead soldier, and that can be put off indefinitely. And that care is short term, at worst.

Wounding is a better strategy, although it's not always the better tactic.

Lehi

[David13]

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.

But it never does. 

In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.

There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.

If there were more guns there, someone could have.

In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.

So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them

dc

[David13]

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.

But it never does. 

In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.

There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.

If there were more guns there, someone could have.

In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.

So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, David13 said:

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.

But it never does. 

In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.

There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.

If there were more guns there, someone could have.

In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.

So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them

dc

True David, but in fairness not everyone should carry a gun and in a lot of situations not everyone has it in them to shoot someone. It's not something you can "just do" . They train solders to do it-the average person probably can't pull out a .45 and play Dirty Harry. Now, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of restricting gun rights, I'm just realistic.   

[David13]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

True David, but in fairness not everyone should carry a gun and in a lot of situations not everyone has it in them to shoot someone. It's not something you can "just do" . They train solders to do it-the average person probably can't pull out a .45 and play Dirty Harry. Now, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of restricting gun rights, I'm just realistic.   

I didn't say nor mean "everyone" there should have or could have or would have been carrying.  And it doesn't negate my point.  I'm just saying "someone" or two or 3.  How many out of more than 100 would it take?  Only one.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, David13 said:

I didn't say nor mean "everyone" there should have or could have or would have been carrying.  And it doesn't negate my point.  I'm just saying "someone" or two or 3.  How many out of more than 100 would it take?  Only one.

dc

I know David-like I said I was agreeing with you and saying what you said was true. And I even liked your post, so yeah-just saying. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

True David, but in fairness not everyone should carry a gun and in a lot of situations not everyone has it in them to shoot someone. It's not something you can "just do" . They train solders to do it-the average person probably can't pull out a .45 and play Dirty Harry. Now, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of restricting gun rights, I'm just realistic.   

I didn't say nor mean "everyone" there should have or could have or would have been carrying.  And it doesn't negate my point.  I'm just saying "someone" or two or 3.  How many out of more than 100 would it take?  Only one.

dc

And, we are spiritual beings, but also human.  And you might full well be surprised how many people, having lived a mild mannered life, can, and do fight like wild animals when they are faced with a mortal or fatal challenge to their existence.

dc

Edited June 22, 2016 by David13

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, David13 said:

 

And, we are spiritual beings, but also human.  And you might full well be surprised how many people, having lived a mild mannered life, can, and do fight like wild animals when they are faced with a mortal or fatal challenge to their existence.

No, I actually wouldn't be surprised.

Like I said, I generally agree with what you are saying. 

But I've seen soldiers/police officers and people trained for that situation tell me how difficult it is to be thinking rationally in that situation in the first place. Much less be able to draw a gun and shoot a bad guy and not an innocent person. In that club I imagine it would have been very hard to get a clean shot that didn't kill an innocent person. 

Again, that doesn't mean I'm for gun control .

Edited June 22, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

No, I actually wouldn't be surprised.

Like I said, I generally agree with what you are saying. 

But I've seen soldiers/police officers and people trained for that situation tell me how difficult it is to be thinking rationally in that situation in the first place. Much less be able to draw a gun and shoot a bad guy and not an innocent person. In that club I imagine it would have been very hard to get a clean shot that didn't kill an innocent person. 

Again, that doesn't mean I'm for gun control .

So then the conclusion is, less gun control not more, so that if anyone wants to try they can take that chance rather than like 49 did, die like lemmings. 

It's better to try and fail, rather than have no chance to try and die.

dc

[bytebear]

Gun control advocates assume the situation is like the wild West where everyone is carrying a gun in a holster around their belt, just itching to shoot it, but the truth is, those who do have guns, often will have them in the glove box, locked safely away, except that when a situation arises like in Florida, they can hopefully, get to their car and return, and with proper training, they can at least try to stop the situation. Now, if you have 5 or 10 people with this training, the mass shooter hasn't got a chance.  

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, David13 said:

[Gun control] means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.

There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.

If there were more guns there, someone could have.

"Yes," say the snowflakes, "but it would turn it into a bloodbath if there were a dozen people all shooting." As if it weren't already a bloodbath.

Idiots! Let's say that the armed bystanders did kill four or five, but that the total death count was 23, rather than 49, and it was 28 people wounded, not 50. How could that be a worse situation, just because it wasn't the violent, Muslim (perhaps homosexual) who killed them?

Further, it would be extraordinarily unlikely that the armed bystanders would have killed anyone but the violent, Muslim (perhaps homosexual) perpetrator because each of those civilians would know (and care) that he was responsible for each round launched from his weapon.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

13 hours ago, David13 said:

So then the conclusion is, less gun control not more, so that if anyone wants to try they can take that chance rather than like 49 did, die like lemmings. 

 

 Calling the people who died "lemmings" shows a chilling lack of empathy. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

11 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Calling the people who died "lemmings" shows a chilling lack of empathy. 

No, it's an entirely different thing.

dc

[Guest Godless]

On 6/22/2016 at 9:15 PM, David13 said:

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it.

But it never does. 

In fact it means more people will be killed.  An example is the Orlando situation.  The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him?  Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him.

There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it.

If there were more guns there, someone could have.

In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him.  A gun that the police had to bring hours later after  so many were killed.

So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them

dc

 

Even in the most gun-friendly states (like Florida), it is usually illegal to carry a firearm in an establishment (like a nightclub) that makes most of it's income from alcohol sales. I'm not against the idea of a good guy with a gun, but I don't want that good guy to have been drinking. I'm also a strong advocate of mandatory weapons training for gun owners. You have a right to own a gun, but you should know how to use it. Otherwise, a good guy with a gun is going to do more harm than good.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Godless

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I'm also a strong advocate of mandatory weapons training for gun owners.

As long as we have government-run, tax-funded welfare schools why not have firearms safety and marksmanship classes mandatory for all freshmen or sophomores?

In my sophomore year, Army Jr.ROTC was required. and one semester was dedicated to rifle marksmanhip. Tehre was a firing range in the basement.

At least that's one thing that they could do to justify their abominable costs.

Lehi

Edited June 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[David13]

21 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

Even in the most gun-friendly states (like Florida), it is usually illegal to carry a firearm in an establishment (like a nightclub) that makes most of it's income from alcohol sales. I'm not against the idea of a good guy with a gun, but I don't want that good guy to have been drinking. I'm also a strong advocate of mandatory weapons training for gun owners. You have a right to own a gun, but you should know how to use it. Otherwise, a good guy with a gun is going to do more harm than good.

Speculation connected to more regulation.

Do you have to have a license or training to have a child?  Yet you can do far more harm over generations if you don't do it right. 

dc

[David13]

21 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

Even in the most gun-friendly states (like Florida), it is usually illegal to carry a firearm in an establishment (like a nightclub) that makes most of it's income from alcohol sales. I'm not against the idea of a good guy with a gun, but I don't want that good guy to have been drinking. I'm also a strong advocate of mandatory weapons training for gun owners. You have a right to own a gun, but you should know how to use it. Otherwise, a good guy with a gun is going to do more harm than good.

Speculation connected to more regulation.

Do you have to have a license or training to have a child?  Yet you can do far more harm over generations if you don't do it right. 

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

As long as we have government-run, tax-funded welfare schools why not have firearms safety and marksmanship classes mandatory for all freshmen or sophomores?

At least that's one thing that they could do to justify their abominable costs.

Lehi

I'd be in favor of that.  Training for everyone.  Then I'm on board.

dc

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

As long as we have government-run, tax-funded welfare schools why not have firearms safety and marksmanship classes mandatory for all freshmen or sophomores?

At least that's one thing that they could do to justify their abominable costs.

Lehi

I wouldn't be opposed to that. 

[Guest]

On 6/23/2016 at 5:04 PM, Godless said:

I'm also a strong advocate of mandatory weapons training for gun owners. You have a right to own a gun, but you should know how to use it. Otherwise, a good guy with a gun is going to do more harm than good.

I'm about as pro-gun as you can get.  But I'd be willing to get on the band wagon with this suggestion.