Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

To post a link to a facebook page that I would like people to join?

Its a page dedicated to rallying support and get suggestions from others on how to combat shootings, whether in schools or malls or what have you.

If it violates board rules thats fine. I just am trying to be as active as I can with this

And btw I meant if it violates board rules I wont post it haha not thats its fine with me and all suffer the reprecussions

I'd be interested.

www.facebook.com/StandUpToShooters

We have only had around fifteen likes so far but we just started it this morning. BTW if you feel like this page attacks your political views, that is NOT what its intended to do. I just want people to help some how.

While I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of good people will greatly reduce the incidence of gun violence in this country, the state of mental health care is apalling, to say the least. It was one of the glaring weaknesses in law enforcement I observed while working as a deputy.

No problem, off topic is welcome to anything.

woundedknees wrote:While I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of good people will greatly reduce the incidence of gun violence in this country, the state of mental health care is apalling, to say the least. It was one of the glaring weaknesses in law enforcement I observed while working as a deputy.

guns don't kill people, people kill people. You can make a bomb out of dishsoap and gasoline and neither of those things will be outlawed. It is a tragic event for sure and I'm not going to make light of it, but we HAVE to stop killing people with Drone strikes, too. It is illegal and imo, even worse than some crazy person going off is a supposedly sane and rational person deciding they need to kill. https://twitter.com/dronestream

20+ kids stabbed in china in a similar incident. Fortunately none died, but choice of weapon won't make a substantial difference. Someone can go in and kill a lot of kids in an elementary school whether they do it with a gun, knife, hands, bomb, etc.

People who have issues are going to do what they are set out to do. It's a matter of stopping them before they can do too much damage, which ironically, being more liberal with guns could accomplish. IMO if teachers, pilots, people in a mall, in theatre who carried guns, these insane people who start shooting at everyone would get killed before they do serious damage.

I'm not saying we should give teachers guns, etc., but something to think about. Taking all guns away is ideal, unfortunately the black market and other markets will still exist regardless if we ban guns. On the contrary, if everyone has guns, at least everyone has an equal opportunity to protect them selves, as opposed to just the criminals dictating their violence at will.

UOducksTK1 wrote:20+ kids stabbed in china in a similar incident. Fortunately none died, but choice of weapon won't make a substantial difference. Someone can go in and kill a lot of kids in an elementary school whether they do it with a gun, knife, hands, bomb, etc.

People who have issues are going to do what they are set out to do. It's a matter of stopping them before they can do too much damage, which ironically, being more liberal with guns could accomplish. IMO if teachers, pilots, people in a mall, in theatre who carried guns, these insane people who start shooting at everyone would get killed before they do serious damage.

I'm not saying we should give teachers guns, etc., but something to think about. Taking all guns away is ideal, unfortunately the black market and other markets will still exist regardless if we ban guns. On the contrary, if everyone has guns, at least everyone has an equal opportunity to protect them selves, as opposed to just the criminals dictating their violence at will.

I see your point, and it's one that certainly carries some validity. I'm just not sure we want the type of situation that devolves into a vigilante firefight.

I agree w/ your overall premise that a prohibition against guns will have little impact; outside of making criminals out of legal and responsible gun owners. As Duck07 notes, folks will just as easily resort to creating home-made bombs. What we should be doing, IMO, is working toward preventative measures that focus on mental health evaluations and treatment. Perhaps we can then begin to address the what it is that pushes people into such tragic circumstances.

Elduderino wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:20+ kids stabbed in china in a similar incident. Fortunately none died, but choice of weapon won't make a substantial difference. Someone can go in and kill a lot of kids in an elementary school whether they do it with a gun, knife, hands, bomb, etc.

People who have issues are going to do what they are set out to do. It's a matter of stopping them before they can do too much damage, which ironically, being more liberal with guns could accomplish. IMO if teachers, pilots, people in a mall, in theatre who carried guns, these insane people who start shooting at everyone would get killed before they do serious damage.

I'm not saying we should give teachers guns, etc., but something to think about. Taking all guns away is ideal, unfortunately the black market and other markets will still exist regardless if we ban guns. On the contrary, if everyone has guns, at least everyone has an equal opportunity to protect them selves, as opposed to just the criminals dictating their violence at will.

I see your point, and it's one that certainly carries some validity. I'm just not sure we want the type of situation that devolves into a vigilante firefight.

I agree w/ your overall premise that a prohibition against guns will have little impact; outside of making criminals out of legal and responsible gun owners. As Duck07 notes, folks will just as easily resort to creating home-made bombs. What we should be doing, IMO, is working toward preventative measures that focus on mental health evaluations and treatment. Perhaps we can then begin to address the what it is that pushes people into such tragic circumstances.

Which is a fair assumption, but I don't see any evidence of this from the small sample of cities where Mandatory gun or majority gun ownership is present. I'm not advocating mandatory, although I'm not completely against it, however, I'm merely arguing we should always have the ability to carry arms. Anyone blaming lack of gun control because of these recent incidents is severely mislead/confused.

One quick example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Elduderino wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:20+ kids stabbed in china in a similar incident. Fortunately none died, but choice of weapon won't make a substantial difference. Someone can go in and kill a lot of kids in an elementary school whether they do it with a gun, knife, hands, bomb, etc.

People who have issues are going to do what they are set out to do. It's a matter of stopping them before they can do too much damage, which ironically, being more liberal with guns could accomplish. IMO if teachers, pilots, people in a mall, in theatre who carried guns, these insane people who start shooting at everyone would get killed before they do serious damage.

I'm not saying we should give teachers guns, etc., but something to think about. Taking all guns away is ideal, unfortunately the black market and other markets will still exist regardless if we ban guns. On the contrary, if everyone has guns, at least everyone has an equal opportunity to protect them selves, as opposed to just the criminals dictating their violence at will.

I see your point, and it's one that certainly carries some validity. I'm just not sure we want the type of situation that devolves into a vigilante firefight.

I agree w/ your overall premise that a prohibition against guns will have little impact; outside of making criminals out of legal and responsible gun owners. As Duck07 notes, folks will just as easily resort to creating home-made bombs. What we should be doing, IMO, is working toward preventative measures that focus on mental health evaluations and treatment. Perhaps we can then begin to address the what it is that pushes people into such tragic circumstances.

Which is a fair assumption, but I don't see any evidence of this from the small sample of cities where Mandatory gun or majority gun ownership is present. I'm not advocating mandatory, although I'm not completely against it, however, I'm merely arguing we should always have the ability to carry arms. Anyone blaming lack of gun control because of these recent incidents is severely mislead/confused.

One quick example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Admittedly, I can't come up with any examples of the "wild-west" style firefights I was alluding to in my first post either. I think that is more the situation that I fear developing in those instances.

I'm a believer in the 2nd amendment as well (personally I think looking at these tragedies and instinctively yelling "No More Guns!" is actually taking the easy way out). I'm do support some gun-free zones, however.

Elduderino wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Elduderino wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:20+ kids stabbed in china in a similar incident. Fortunately none died, but choice of weapon won't make a substantial difference. Someone can go in and kill a lot of kids in an elementary school whether they do it with a gun, knife, hands, bomb, etc.

People who have issues are going to do what they are set out to do. It's a matter of stopping them before they can do too much damage, which ironically, being more liberal with guns could accomplish. IMO if teachers, pilots, people in a mall, in theatre who carried guns, these insane people who start shooting at everyone would get killed before they do serious damage.

I'm not saying we should give teachers guns, etc., but something to think about. Taking all guns away is ideal, unfortunately the black market and other markets will still exist regardless if we ban guns. On the contrary, if everyone has guns, at least everyone has an equal opportunity to protect them selves, as opposed to just the criminals dictating their violence at will.

I see your point, and it's one that certainly carries some validity. I'm just not sure we want the type of situation that devolves into a vigilante firefight.

I agree w/ your overall premise that a prohibition against guns will have little impact; outside of making criminals out of legal and responsible gun owners. As Duck07 notes, folks will just as easily resort to creating home-made bombs. What we should be doing, IMO, is working toward preventative measures that focus on mental health evaluations and treatment. Perhaps we can then begin to address the what it is that pushes people into such tragic circumstances.

Which is a fair assumption, but I don't see any evidence of this from the small sample of cities where Mandatory gun or majority gun ownership is present. I'm not advocating mandatory, although I'm not completely against it, however, I'm merely arguing we should always have the ability to carry arms. Anyone blaming lack of gun control because of these recent incidents is severely mislead/confused.

One quick example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Admittedly, I can't come up with any examples of the "wild-west" style firefights I was alluding to in my first post either. I think that is more the situation that I fear developing in those instances.

I'm a believer in the 2nd amendment as well (personally I think looking at these tragedies and instinctively yelling "No More Guns!" is actually taking the easy way out). I'm do support some gun-free zones, however.

Fair enough. Just curious, what are some of the gun-freeze zones you were thinking of?

What scares me is how little security there is at sports events. Taking any type of weapon / bomb into a stadium would be a walk in the park. At the blazers game I had a huge jacket on where I could be concealing anything at will, and they just let me walk by. I hate to say it, and I sure hope I'm not right, but a big time stadium will be the next big hit in America.

What a crazy world we live in sometimes, huh?

Most of the arguments against gun control rely on strawmen, most notably when people talk about how we shouldn't take guns away from people. There are zero noteworthy proposals to just take people's guns away and melt them or whatever. The gun control called for by most consists of banning some types of guns, limiting clip sizes, eliminating the loopholes that allow people to purchase guns without waiting periods and background checks, and such restrictions. A blanket ban isn't on any credible agenda, yet it's what most NRA-types take to be what gun control means.

Also, where gun violence is truly terrible is not in mass shootings. Mass shootings are understandably what people focus on, but it's a red herring. If we want to reduce gun violence, we should look at how most of it takes place, not the most extreme cases. We should also look to structural forces that create this violence if we're serious about reducing it. Our country has enormous levels of poverty, for instance. Relative to comparable countries (i.e. the industrialized world), we have absolutely scandalous levels of poverty, even though we are easily the richest country in the world. If we wanted to be serious about reducing violence, we would work on that, and with reasonable policies based on evidence. Instead, we have a bipartisan drive to cut what meager safety net exists for the poor. It is entirely predictable what that does to society, but it doesn't matter because government responds to the most powerful sectors of society, who themselves overwhelmingly respond to their own interests.

Lastly, Duck07, right on about drones. Our government engages in routine assassinations, with zero due process. It's terrorism. It's just not called that because terrorism only exists when it's committed by people we don't like. It also produces far more security threats than it eliminates, which policy planners know full well but don't care because our security is not the paramount interest. Global hegemony is. Unfortunately, drone warfare is just another small element of a ruthless, routinely illegal, and tragic foreign policy that the US has been committed to literally since the days of the Native American genocide. But, all that is another topic, and an enormous one at that.

Sometimes all that is needed to stop a shooting or prevent it from continuing is an armed citizen. Back when I was in high school there was a shooting not far from me. The kid was stopped by a vice principle that retrieved his pistol from his truck.

I have a license to carry and often do because I want mine on me so I can act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

A few years ago, I was a corrections deputy. In many states, Oregon included, state law makes no distinction between correction and patrol deputy positions regarding responsibility for "getting involved" while off duty. Technically, a sworn officer is on duty 24 hours a day.

Because of that, I usually carried while on my own time.

The only time I ever pulled that weapon was while on vacation with my wife. We were driving in the early AM, when approached by several young men who made it clear they intended to appropriate our car, at the least. Although I made the decision to pull the .40 cal Sig, it was not fired. The surprise factor evidently caused them to depart in haste.

Had I been alone, I am not sure I would have done that. With my loved one along, I chose to take a defensive stance on her behalf.

You have no idea how relieved I was when those young men drove away.