Man caught trying to enter Magic Kingdom with gun

[bhg469]

Please don't assume i don't know anything about guns. I have been brought up around them all my life and shot quite a range of pistols/rifles ( all at legally run gun clubs) My family has shot competitevly(sp) at a few common wealth games so i am pretty fine with guns in general and don't think a blanket ban is realistic or warranted just something needs to be done law wise.
Edit; there are at least 4 firearms at my parents house and they were there when i was growing up. Locked in a gun cabinet that i had no access to , plus ammunition by law is kept at the clubs.

Then you should know that a pistol grip doesn't make a gun any more dangerous than another. Sporterized AKs have been shipped here for years and they operate no different than a tiger ranch rifle. You cannot ban one without banning them all eventually with a tiny bit of creative legislation.

 

[Matthew]

Our Supreme Court has ruled twice that a complete ban is not allowable in this Country.

that could change.

 

[Vaughn4380]

That wasn't a terrorist attack it was attempted murderer as he was charged with 'aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon'.

but if you had a ban on guns in all likelihood he wouldn't of had a gun to attack people with anyway.

The article says it was an attempted mass shooting stopped by a permit holder. The attacker was firing into a group of people in a public square. What more do you want as proof? I can find more examples but I suspect you will find fault with all of them.

ETA: Mass shootings are an act of terrorism

 

[Matthew]

The article says it was an attempted mass shooting stopped by a permit holder. The attacker was firing into a group of people in a public square. What more do you want as proof? I can find more examples but I suspect you will find fault with all of them.

the charges leveled are the proof... the chap in question was not charged with terrorism. I specifically asked when the last time a terrorist attack was stopped by a civilian with a gun.

anyway chaps... its been fun but its home time for me as my work day has ended... may pop back later. like i said your gun control laws fascinate me, as does you politics etc. as a whole.

Peace!

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

that could change.

I fear it won't

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Assault rifles available for civilian purchase are not fully automatic.

Unfortunately, a distinction without a huge difference.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

An assumption on your part. Had a police officer stopped both of the scumbags the massacre could have been reduced. You are assuming the type of gun used makes a difference. It is the individuals that made a choice to kill that day, and they would have found a way to do so with or without the guns. Heck, the worst terrorist attack in our country was done with box cutters and airplanes. France just saw a horrible attack using a truck. There are no laws that will stop dedicated terrorists.

You seem to be confusing the possible with the probable.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

The article says it was an attempted mass shooting stopped by a permit holder. The attacker was firing into a group of people in a public square. What more do you want as proof? I can find more examples but I suspect you will find fault with all of them.

ETA: Mass shootings are an act of terrorism

Terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

The school shooters were not terrorists .

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Then you should know that a pistol grip doesn't make a gun any more dangerous than another. Sporterized AKs have been shipped here for years and they operate no different than a tiger ranch rifle. You cannot ban one without banning them all eventually with a tiny bit of creative legislation.

Never said it did

 

[Vaughn4380]

the charges leveled are the proof... the chap in question was not charged with terrorism. I specifically asked when the last time a terrorist attack was stopped by a civilian with a gun.

You are making the claim that mass shootings are not terrorism? How odd.

Here is another one for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mit-holder-stops-gunman-during-mass-shooting/

But the attacker was killed and could not be charged with anything. So I suspect you will also say this was not terrorism.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Yes he would have used the shotgun in the trunk... If you want to ban one gun You want to ban them all, this is over.

Again was this not legally bought by the mother ? ( i don't know on this) if it was then if had been either banned or properley secured there wouldn't have been an issue. I don't object to the family owning the guns just there should be some sort of legislation in place as to how they are kept.with yearly checks to keep your licence and guns.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

The school shooters were not terrorists .

From Wikipedia: "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."

The school shooters were responding to those who they believed had different ideologies.

Also from Wikipedia article about Columbine: "The attack has been referred to by USA Today as a "suicidal attack [that was] planned as a grand—if badly implemented—terrorist bombing."

If we can't agree that school shootings are acts of terrorism, I can't imagine there is any further point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

From Wikipedia: "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."

The school shooters were responding to those who they believed had different ideologies.

Also from Wikipedia article about Columbine: "The attack has been referred to by USA Today as a "suicidal attack [that was] planned as a grand—if badly implemented—terrorist bombing."

If we can't agree that school shootings are acts of terrorism, I can't imagine there is any further point in continuing this discussion.

Fair enough. Have a great day.

 

[Kman]

Yeah, because criminals follow the gun laws we already have. We just need more.

And those darn law abiding second amendment supporters are just the cause of all the problems.

ETA: Why don't they just make it illegal to murder someone? Then the criminals will just stop.

30,000+ annual deaths by firearms (criminal or otherwise) in the US tells me this discussion needs further consideration

 

[Matthew]

You are making the claim that mass shootings are not terrorism? How odd.

Here is another one for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mit-holder-stops-gunman-during-mass-shooting/

But the attacker was killed and could not be charged with anything. So I suspect you will also say this was not terrorism.

From the article:

"According NBC Philadelphia, the incident arose after two men got into a fight in the barbershop. An unnamed 40-year-old man fought with another customer then pulled out a gun and started shooting."

Clearly this was a fight that got out of hand and unfortunately one man had a gun and lost his head and then his life.... Also clearly not terrorism.

 

[bhg469]

30,000+ annual deaths by firearms (criminal or otherwise) in the US tells me this discussion needs further consideration

Many are suicides and many are police shootings.. So you consider just legitimate homicides then you are left with the criminal mind of our citizens. That's not changing until the economy improves and a life of crime doesn't seem so glamorous to these poor kids growing up.

Socioeconomic change will do miracles for all gun deaths simuicide, crime related or otherwise..

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Many are suicides and many are police shootings.. So you consider just legitimate homicides then you are left with the criminal mind of our citizens. That's not changing until the economy improves and a life of crime doesn't seem so glamorous to these poor kids growing up.

Socioeconomic change will do miracles for all gun deaths simuicide, crime related or otherwise..

Agree, glamourizing firearms isn't good but wouldn't tighter legislation (not ban) help as well ?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Many are suicides and many are police shootings.. So you consider just legitimate homicides then you are left with the criminal mind of our citizens. That's not changing until the economy improves and a life of crime doesn't seem so glamorous to these poor kids growing up.

Socioeconomic change will do miracles for all gun deaths simuicide, crime related or otherwise..

As will socialization making guns no longer an extension of masculinity, just an object. We turned the public at large against cigarettes. Same idea.

 

[Vaughn4380]

From the article:

"According NBC Philadelphia, the incident arose after two men got into a fight in the barbershop. An unnamed 40-year-old man fought with another customer then pulled out a gun and started shooting."

Clearly this was a fight that got out of hand and unfortunately one man had a gun and lost his head and then his life.... Also clearly not terrorism.

OK, How about this one:

https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/07/22/israeli-citizen-with-concealed-carry-stops-terrorist/

Or this one:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=201...ore-witness-subdues-attacker&s_cid=featured-1

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

From Wikipedia: "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."

The school shooters were responding to those who they believed had different ideologies.

Also from Wikipedia article about Columbine: "The attack has been referred to by USA Today as a "suicidal attack [that was] planned as a grand—if badly implemented—terrorist bombing."

If we can't agree that school shootings are acts of terrorism, I can't imagine there is any further point in continuing this discussion.

Yet Wikipedia doesn't list colombine in its list of US terrorist attacks (not saying they weren't but just pointing out a discrepency)