"Whose Side Are You On?" Columbine Survivor Blasts Obama

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/whose-side-are-you-on-columbine-survivor-blasts-obama/#ixzz2LZD37XJy

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that a Columbine survivor is speaking out against the gun regulations Obama wants. :D

This may come off as insensitive, but I don't think surviving a tradgedy gives anyone a better perspective on this issue.  Even though I kinda agree with the sentiment.

If I was a gun rights activist I wouldn't be worried. The Dems are not offering anything substantial in gun regulation. Its just a political move so they can say they did something to fool their base into thinking they got something done.DaBrainz

Both sides using survivors as emotional pawns in the game. How delightful. It just prevents lawmakers from making common sense laws that don't restrict freedoms, but do provide some control and prevention of those who shouldn't get guns to get guns.

Both sides using survivors as emotional pawns in the game. How delightful. It just prevents lawmakers from making common sense laws that don't restrict freedoms, but do provide some control and prevention of those who shouldn't get guns to get guns.

jimkabrhel

OP probably doesn't even know what those regulations are.

Yeah, if those kids at Columbine had guns, less people would have got hurt, they're teens they can handle bringing guns to school.

Yeah, if those kids at Columbine had guns, less people would have got hurt, they're teens they can handle bringing guns to school.

DaJuicyMan

Well thats gonna hurt.

Perhaps if politicians actually put forth meaningful legislation with regards to gun control we could all prevent the demonization of legal, responsible gun owners.

Instead of this "herp derp, looks like an M-4 must be an M-4" non-sense that liberals are pushing with every fiber of their being.

Perhaps if politicians actually put forth meaningful legislation with regards to gun control we could all prevent the demonization of legal, responsible gun owners.

Instead of this "herp derp, looks like an M-4 must be an M-4" non-sense that liberals are pushing with every fiber of their being.

airshocker

educating oneself on issues is asking too much

I'm surprised that Kingkong didn't make this thread. 

educating oneself on issues is asking too much

wis3boi

Apparently.

Both sides using survivors as emotional pawns in the game. How delightful. It just prevents lawmakers from making common sense laws that don't restrict freedoms, but do provide some control and prevention of those who shouldn't get guns to get guns.

jimkabrhel

Perhaps if politicians actually put forth meaningful legislation with regards to gun control we could all prevent the demonization of legal, responsible gun owners.

Instead of this "herp derp, looks like an M-4 must be an M-4" non-sense that liberals are pushing with every fiber of their being.

airshocker

And on the other side you have people seriously suggesting the best way to prevent school shootings is to have armed civilian posses -- "trained" by honest-to-god Steven Segal, no less -- just kinda wandering around town looking for trouble.

So much as I usually hate the "both sides are just as bad" cop-out, both sides are definitely just as bad here.

This may come off as insensitive, but I don't think surviving a tradgedy gives anyone a better perspective on this issue.  Even though I kinda agree with the sentiment.

jim_shorts

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]

This may come off as insensitive, but I don't think surviving a tradgedy gives anyone a better perspective on this issue.  Even though I kinda agree with the sentiment.

Laihendi

And on the other side you have people seriously suggesting the best way to prevent school shootings is to have armed civilian posses -- "trained" by honest-to-god Steven Segal, no less -- just kinda wandering around town looking for trouble.

So much as I usually hate the "both sides are just as bad" cop-out, both sides are definitely just as bad here.

Slow_Show

Actually, one side is more in the wrong here. Governor Cuomo pushed through draconian gun regulations in the state of New York.

Where's the legislation from Steven Segal?

I am on neither side.. Special interests especially from the gun companies, have turned this into a wedge issue in which you must choose two polarizing sides.. When in fact the majority of people are in the center that see some restrictions and regulations while others not so much.. The most infuriating part of all of this is using school shootings as the number one reason to push regulation.. To this day some 300 people have been killed in the past 3 decades in a school by a shooting.. Currently there is some 75 million+ students that attend school of some kind from k through university level education.. Your chances of getting shot in a school borders on similar chances of you winning a significant large amount of money in lottery.. Now this isn't suggesting that those deaths are meaningless, they are tragic, but if people haven't noticed there are far greater death tolls each year that happen within the United States then this.. It's actually pretty hilarious we are talking about how children are endanger and something must be done with guns when we currently have a flu outbreak sweeping the country dwarfing the death toll of three decades combined of school shootings.. This is all while we have seen a historic low in violence in some odd 40 years.. sSubZerOo

Apathy is just as dangerous. You don't have to support putting guards in every school, or loosening conceal to carry restrictions. But if you don't denounce arbitrary laws(like the AWB, and NY SAFE Act) you pretty much have chosen a side, right?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I am on neither side.. Special interests especially from the gun companies, have turned this into a wedge issue in which you must choose two polarizing sides.. When in fact the majority of people are in the center that see some restrictions and regulations while others not so much.. The most infuriating part of all of this is using school shootings as the number one reason to push regulation.. To this day some 300 people have been killed in the past 3 decades in a school by a shooting.. Currently there is some 75 million+ students that attend school of some kind from k through university level education.. Your chances of getting shot in a school borders on similar chances of you winning a significant large amount of money in lottery.. Now this isn't suggesting that those deaths are meaningless, they are tragic, but if people haven't noticed there are far greater death tolls each year that happen within the United States then this.. It's actually pretty hilarious we are talking about how children are endanger and something must be done with guns when we currently have a flu outbreak sweeping the country dwarfing the death toll of three decades combined of school shootings.. This is all while we have seen a historic low in violence in some odd 40 years.. airshocker

Apathy is just as dangerous. You don't have to support putting guards in every school, or loosening conceal to carry restrictions. But if you don't denounce arbitrary laws(like the AWB, and NY SAFE Act) you pretty much have chosen a side, right?

  :|  No because NY safe Act doesn't involve me, it is a not a federal mandate.. It is based upon a state I don't live in, by a state government that doesn't represent me..  I don't support nor oppose said law..   When it comes to federal level stuff, I don't see a AR 15 ban being very important nor make much difference in some how stopping gun violence.. But I do see something like a gun show loop hole being closed simply to ensure a greater chance that firearms are not being sold to the wrong people with out record out in the open.  Please tell me what side I am on when I am in fact supporting two different talking points from both sides.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"]

This may come off as insensitive, but I don't think surviving a tradgedy gives anyone a better perspective on this issue.  Even though I kinda agree with the sentiment.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Since he has survived such a tragedy he knows from first-hand experience that a citizen must be allowed to be well armed. Laihendi

  Yep because arming students who are minors sounds like such a great idea.. 

  :|  No because NY safe Act doesn't involve me, it is a not a federal mandate.. It is based upon a state I don't live in, by a state government that doesn't represent me..  I don't support nor oppose said law..   When it comes to federal level stuff, I don't see a AR 15 ban being very important nor make much difference in some how stopping gun violence.. But I do see something like a gun show loop hole being closed simply to ensure a greater chance that firearms are not being sold to the wrong people with out record out in the open.  Please tell me what side I am on when I am in fact supporting two different talking points from both sides.

sSubZerOo

But it affects those who haven't done anything wrong. Where's your bleeding heart for them? Again, apathy is just as dangerous as taking a side. I wouldn't support a law such as the NY SAFE act even if it was called the CA SAFE act, or the IL SAFE act.

Those people are already going to die anyways if there is a gunman nearby trying to shoot them. If the victims are armed they have a much better chance of surviving. If you were in a classroom at school and some guy walked in with a gun and started shooting people, would you rather you and your classmates be armed or unarmed? The answer should be obvious.Laihendi

No f*cking way.
I knew you were stupid, I didn't know you were "students should be armed" stupid.

"Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?" he demanded. "Whose side are you on?"

This flimsy argument again.  As if the supply of illegally-held guns has nothing whatsover to do with the legal gun industry. The whole point of gun regulation is to make it harder for guns to end up in the wrong hands. The guy goes on to say that 90s assault weapons ban failed to stop the Columbine massacre.  No sh*t They were able to get hold of their guns because of the gun show loophole.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

  :|  No because NY safe Act doesn't involve me, it is a not a federal mandate.. It is based upon a state I don't live in, by a state government that doesn't represent me..  I don't support nor oppose said law..   When it comes to federal level stuff, I don't see a AR 15 ban being very important nor make much difference in some how stopping gun violence.. But I do see something like a gun show loop hole being closed simply to ensure a greater chance that firearms are not being sold to the wrong people with out record out in the open.  Please tell me what side I am on when I am in fact supporting two different talking points from both sides.

airshocker

But it affects those who haven't done anything wrong. Where's your bleeding heart for them? Again, apathy is just as dangerous as taking a side. I wouldn't support a law such as the NY SAFE act even if it was called the CA SAFE act, or the IL SAFE act.

.............Bleeding heart? I just denounced and villianized the use of school shootings as the primary source to why gun regulation should happen..  And furthermore your doing it again.. No where did I say I opposed or supported the SAFE act... 

Both sides using survivors as emotional pawns in the game. How delightful. It just prevents lawmakers from making common sense laws that don't restrict freedoms, but do provide some control and prevention of those who shouldn't get guns to get guns.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

  :|  No because NY safe Act doesn't involve me, it is a not a federal mandate.. It is based upon a state I don't live in, by a state government that doesn't represent me..  I don't support nor oppose said law..   When it comes to federal level stuff, I don't see a AR 15 ban being very important nor make much difference in some how stopping gun violence.. But I do see something like a gun show loop hole being closed simply to ensure a greater chance that firearms are not being sold to the wrong people with out record out in the open.  Please tell me what side I am on when I am in fact supporting two different talking points from both sides.

airshocker

But it affects those who haven't done anything wrong. Where's your bleeding heart for them? Again, apathy is just as dangerous as taking a side. I wouldn't support a law such as the NY SAFE act even if it was called the CA SAFE act, or the IL SAFE act.

.............Bleeding heart? I just denounced and villianized the use of school shootings as the primary source to why gun regulation should happen..  And furthermore your doing it again.. No where did I say I opposed or supported the SAFE act... 

sSubZerOo

You are a liberal who purports to care about other people, are you not?

The very first word of the last post I quoted was "No". You're either against arbitrary legislation like the SAFE act, or you support it. Apathy, for the third time, is just as dangerous as support.

We've been over this bro, no one is gonna sympathize with you having to load 7 rounds into your gun as opposed to 8.

Aljosa23

If that was the only measure of the SAFE act, maybe you'd have a point. I don't really care what you sympathize with or not, you've already been a douchebag on the matter, so I value your opinion in this regard very little.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

We've been over this bro, no one is gonna sympathize with you having to load 7 rounds into your gun as opposed to 8.

airshocker

If that was the only measure of the SAFE act, maybe you'd have a point. I don't really care what you sympathize with or not, you've already been a douchebag on the matter, so I value your opinion in this regard very little.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

We've been over this bro, no one is gonna sympathize with you having to load 7 rounds into your gun as opposed to 8.

airshocker

If that was the only measure of the SAFE act, maybe you'd have a point. I don't really care what you sympathize with or not, you've already been a douchebag on the matter, so I value your opinion in this regard very little.

As long as citizens are still able to buy small hand-arms and rounds I hardly see the issue.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Those people are already going to die anyways if there is a gunman nearby trying to shoot them. If the victims are armed they have a much better chance of surviving. If you were in a classroom at school and some guy walked in with a gun and started shooting people, would you rather you and your classmates be armed or unarmed? The answer should be obvious.JML897

No f*cking way.
I knew you were stupid, I didn't know you were "students should be armed" stupid.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.............Bleeding heart? I just denounced and villianized the use of school shootings as the primary source to why gun regulation should happen..  And furthermore your doing it again.. No where did I say I opposed or supported the SAFE act... 

airshocker

You are a liberal who purports to care about other people, are you not?

The very first word of the last post I quoted was "No". You're either against arbitrary legislation like the SAFE act, or you support it. Apathy, for the third time, is just as dangerous as support.

.........................   :|  Oh boy.. The ole fascist stand of either being with you or against you.. I am sorry but there is more to the argument then that.. I have no opinion on the said law because it does not involve me..   And furthermore where did I claim to be liberal?  And I am sorry but what?  Every body cares about people, but we also must have a scope of things.. Take school shootings for instance, they are so rare that its insulting to even be the target of things when there are far more causes of deaths per year then the three decades of school shootings combined.  The fact of the matter is I see putting a "guard" in every school as negligent funding to prevent a possible average of 10 deaths a year when we have way greater death tolls on other problems with in the United States occuring each year.. Where is the out rage for them?

  I have stated they are indeed tragic, but to make this the target of billions of dollars of money to funnel to prevent these deaths when we have far greater death tolls each year then this from other events?  Fvcking irresponsible. 

Actually, one side is more in the wrong here. Governor Cuomo pushed through draconian gun regulations in the state of New York.

Where's the legislation from Steven Segal?

airshocker

I don't know how a law that had to be approved by a GOP-controlled senate counts as pushed through, nor what makes the SAFE act draconian. All seems pretty reasonable at best and toothless at worst. 

And the point is that sort of "more guns are the solution, no exceptions" and "any regulation is tyranny" mentality from the gun-lobby and -culture is precisely the reason concerns about the effectiveness of things like the assault weapon ban aren't taken seriously. You're never going to get comprehensive and reasonable regulation when one side's starting position is "if anything, we really need to be loosening restrictions on ownership". 

Assault weapon is a made up term. Its even more annoying when people say things like "military grade assault weapons". 

My friends favorite hunting and target shooting rifle is a Remington 700

.....Other wise known as the M24 in this picture being used by a US Army Soldier.

Yet that rifle has NO chance of ever being banned for civilian use.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Those people are already going to die anyways if there is a gunman nearby trying to shoot them. If the victims are armed they have a much better chance of surviving. If you were in a classroom at school and some guy walked in with a gun and started shooting people, would you rather you and your classmates be armed or unarmed? The answer should be obvious.Laihendi

Last thing cops need is a hostage pulling his gun out, and the gunman deciding that if one hostage wants to be a hero they might all try.

Gotta have those Bayonet mounts and drum mags right? In case the buck charges right?Nibroc420

In a free society you need a reason to ban something. What possible reason do you have for banning bayonet lugs? Has there been an outbreak of killings with bayonetted rifles?

As for the drum magazine bit, if you check back into my previous posts on the matter, I don't particularly mind the banning of high capacity drum magazines. What I do mind is the banning of standard 30 round magazines and an arbitrary round cap of SEVEN. Evidence has already shown a neglible difference in time that it takes a shooter to reload from a 10 round magazine, to a 30 round magazine. I'm not in favor of banning something when it'll have no effect on shootings.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Gotta have those Bayonet mounts and drum mags right? In case the buck charges right?airshocker

In a free society you need a reason to ban something. What possible reason do you have for banning bayonet lugs? Has there been an outbreak of killings with bayonetted rifles?

As for the drum magazine bit, if you check back into my previous posts on the matter, I don't particularly mind the banning of high capacity drum magazines. What I do mind is the banning of standard 30 round magazines and an arbitrary round cap of SEVEN. Evidence has already shown a neglible difference in time that it takes a shooter to reload from a 10 round magazine, to a 30 round magazine. I'm not in favor of banning something when it'll have no effect on shootings.

.........................   :|  Oh boy.. The ole fascist stand of either being with you or against you.. I am sorry but there is more to the argument then that.. I have no opinion on the said law because it does not involve me..   And furthermore where did I claim to be liberal?  And I am sorry but what?  Every body cares about people, but we also must have a scope of things.. Take school shootings for instance, they are so rare that its insulting to even be the target of things when there are far more causes of deaths per year then the three decades of school shootings combined.  The fact of the matter is I see putting a "guard" in every school as negligent funding to prevent a possible average of 10 deaths a year when we have way greater death tolls on other problems with in the United States occuring each year.. Where is the out rage for them?

  I have stated they are indeed tragic, but to make this the target of billions of dollars of money to funnel to prevent these deaths when we have far greater death tolls each year then this from other events?  Fvcking irresponsible. 

sSubZerOo

Stay focused, I know it's hard for you. We're talking about the provisions of the NY SAFE act which say nothing about having guards in schools.

So explain to me how it's reasonable to ban a 30 round magazine when it's been shown that: A) criminals don't follow gun control laws, and B) a shooter can reload a ten round magazine into his weapon just as quickly as a 30 rounder.

Explain to me how it's reasonable to put forth legislation that prevents people from putting more than seven rounds in a 10 round magazine.

Explain to me why the aesthetic features of an AR-15 should be banned when they make no difference on the performance of the weapon.

You can't neither support nor defend something. Either you're for, or against such arbitrary laws.

Lets say a reload takes... 5 seconds? That's pretty long but it's an easy number. At one round every second, You'd have to reload your gun with a 10 round magazine 4 times a minute. 40 rounds a minute. Where as with a 30 round magazine, you'd only have to reload once, and you could fire 55 rounds in the same amount of time. Would you prefer if an enraged gunman to be able to fire 40 bullets a minute? or 55?Nibroc420

It doesn't take five seconds to reload a magazine in an AR-15. As this gentlemen has shown and I already know from experience. You'll want to fast forward near the end. Sorry, fast-forward to 4:20 or so.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Gotta have those Bayonet mounts and drum mags right? In case the buck charges right?airshocker

In a free society you need a reason to ban something. What possible reason do you have for banning bayonet lugs? Has there been an outbreak of killings with bayonetted rifles?

As for the drum magazine bit, if you check back into my previous posts on the matter, I don't particularly mind the banning of high capacity drum magazines. What I do mind is the banning of standard 30 round magazines and an arbitrary round cap of SEVEN. Evidence has already shown a neglible difference in time that it takes a shooter to reload from a 10 round magazine, to a 30 round magazine. I'm not in favor of banning something when it'll have no effect on shootings.

  See I am not too sure about that thing.. We see videos of professionals who have been firing guns for decades isolated in a practice range to "prove" it doesn't matter.. When shootings are usually done by people who do not have the same kind of experience and are actually shooting PEOPLE that are running and screaming.. That reload may indeed make a person falter and fumble a bit when they are hopped on adrenaline.. As for the SAFE Act, there are some parts that are agreeable such as greater background checks, but others like increasing assault rifle profile I do not agree with what so ever..   Which is exactly my point.. There are more sides to the argument then two sides.. 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Lets say a reload takes... 5 seconds? That's pretty long but it's an easy number. At one round every second, You'd have to reload your gun with a 10 round magazine 4 times a minute. 40 rounds a minute. Where as with a 30 round magazine, you'd only have to reload once, and you could fire 55 rounds in the same amount of time. Would you prefer if an enraged gunman to be able to fire 40 bullets a minute? or 55?airshocker

It doesn't take five seconds to reload a magazine in an AR-15. As this gentlemen has shown and I already know from experience. You'll want to fast forward near the end.

  See I am not too sure about that thing.. We see videos of professionals who have been firing guns for decades isolated in a practice range to "prove" it doesn't matter.. When shootings are usually done by people who do not have the same kind of experience and are actually shooting PEOPLE that are running and screaming.. That reload may indeed make a person falter and fumble a bit when they are hopped on adrenaline.. As for the SAFE Act, there are some parts that are agreeable such as greater background checks, but others like increasing assault rifle profile I do not agree with what so ever..   Which is exactly my point.. There are more sides to the argument then two sides.. 

sSubZerOo

You don't need to be a professional to reload an AR-15.

My point is, by being apathetic to the matter, you are supporting the SAFE act which does more harm than good.

You're saying it takes roughly the same amount of time to reload a 10 round mag as a 30 round one. I'm saying that means a shooter doesn't have to reload as often, which doesn't really hurt hunters or range-nuts; It only hurts murderers.Nibroc420

It hurts those of us who spent quite a bit of money on legal, pre-ban 30 round magazines. It also hurt range-nuts who don't want to have to load after every 7 shots. Or people like me who don't want to have to spend like 300 dollars just to get a few ten round magazines.