Latest Comments by tntrn

tntrn 21,986 Views

I am happily retired after 35 years of Labor and Delivery nursing. My passions now are two wonderful grandchildren, quilting on my HQ 16, sewing, and going where life takes me with my husband of 28 years. I am primarily conservative with moderate views on a couple social issues.

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 0

    Quote from herring_RN
    Did anyone post that a baseball bat, a knife, or hammer can not be used in a violent manner?
    No. But nobody calls for background checks on them either, when they clearly are used for assaults. Ditto on Cars and Utility vans.

  • 2

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    "I called the police because it was OUTRAGEOUS to me that somebody can simply set-up a gun show in their front yard and call it a Yard Sale and
    subject their neighbors to the obvious potential danger."

    I don't know what the danger would be.

    "Do you this guy was conducting background checks, or any other kind of check other than, 'you got cash?'"

    Why would he when no background checks are required?

    " The only purpose of an AR-15 is to inflict
    maximum damage. That is why it is the choice weapon of mass shooters."

    That's factually incorrect. We should be greatful that thus far mass shooters have chosen such a low powered weapon. You will notice that in the mass shootings only about 50% of those shot die. We're the shooters to choose, let's say, a normal rifle, like those used for deer hunting across the country, we should expect more dead and fewer wounded.
    The .223 round fired by the Amalite 15 rifle was specifically designed to wound humans. It's also also widely used hunting cartridge, but for small game and varmits. It's not even legal to use for deer and other big game hunting in many states because it can't be counted on the humanely kill deer sized game.
    We're mass shooters to instead choose something like a 30-06, the most popular big game cartridge in the USA, and available in all kinds of actions, including semi autos, instead of 10 killed and 10 wounded, we would expect 19 killed and 1 wounded.
    The Armalite 15 rifle functions no differently that a variety of other rifled that have been widely available for a 100 years or more in the USA. It's main difference is that it's ugly and looks tactical.
    I wish I could "Like" this 1000 times. Thank you for providing more detailed information (again) for those who clearly don't have the facts.

  • 0

    Quote from ElvishDNP
    Baseball bats or knives don't rack up a high body count quicky. So when these idiots go on rampages in London or wherever they decide to act up, they're able to be contained or neutralized with far fewer fatalities and a lower body count than what we get on almost a daily basis. For someone who argues about the rights of fetuses inside a uterus, I'm surprised that you would not be in favor of something that would keep fewer people from dying once they're extrauterine.

    Or were you previously unaware that it's harder to kill someone with a baseball bat or a knife than with a firearm?
    My intent for having a firearm is precisely because, if I need to defend myself, a firearm will be way more efficient than any other kind of weapon. My firearms are meant for self-defense...nothing else.

    And unless I need to defend myself while in my own home or out in public, no one ever knows I have it.

  • 0

    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Just in case someone didn't already know this, baseball bats and hammers are not designed for combat or for causing intentional harm to a person or animal. Only some specific knives are designed to be a weapon of aggression.

    The same cannot be said for the AR and AK rifles. They were designed for human combat scenarios. It is reasonable to regulate the ownership of the tools of warfare, IMHO.

    Trying to equate owning a baseball bat with owning a firearm is intellectually dishonest.

    What is dishonest is not acknoledging that a baseball bat or a knife can be used in a violent manner and when done so, what difference does it make what it was originally designed for?

  • 0

    Quote from MunoRN
    I think you mean some would argue it's not an assault rifle, since that is also a term that applies to a specific group of military weapons. There are various definitions of assault weapons based on the varying laws and proposals that address them, but in general it refers to a semiautomatic firearm where the primary purpose isn't for defense, hunting, or sport but offensive use. In other words it's primary design benefit is to kill a bunch of people before you can be stopped.
    You are correct. And we should point out than just anything can be used as an assault weapon. ballball bat, knife, hammer.....shall we place restrictions on sales of those items also?

  • 0

    Quote from Lil Nel
    I don't think one needs to be an expert on the inner workings of guns in order to have an opinion here.

    It is really pretty simple.

    If you want to live in a society awash in guns (with few restrictions placed on ownership), then please learn to accept the violence that will occur. Don't act shocked, shocked, shocked when guns are used to commit crimes and kill and maim innocent people.

    It's a simple matter of knowing which side you are on, and then accepting the consequences of the side you have chosen.
    The problem I was addressing was people who argue without knowing how certain weapons are classified. Assault rifle vs semi-automatic for example.

    And there are more and more and more gun restrictions all the time......have any of them stopped any of the mass shootings? They have been committed by people who had legally obtained weapons, so how does that get fixed? Are we supposed to grant a gun permit or purchase to someone who passes a background check, but MIGHT, at some point in the future, use it to murder people? Who will that work?

  • 2
    herring_RN and Avid reader like this.

    Quote from Avid reader
    Thought I clearly indicated that I have no opinion because of ignorance and cultural bias. I opined about violence. Should someone so easily irritated have so many guns?

    If you have no opinion that is fair. However there are plenty of people who do have opinions and are not knowledgeable about the facts.

  • 1
    SC_RNDude likes this.

    Quote from Avid reader
    How do you know this stuff?
    I am married to a hunter and an avid gun collector and shooter.I have a concealed carry permit; I own 3 weapons of my own....2 handguns and an AR-15. I shoot regularly, for fun and in low-key competitions. It is my reponsibility to know these things. I consider it part of my responsibility to share correct information to those who don't have it.

    It would behoove those, like yourself, who don't know about guns, don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun, to also know this information prior to arguing about gun issues.

  • 0

    Quote from Lil Nel
    I don't remember if Adam Lanza used an AR-15 to mow down the first graders at Newtown. I thought he did. Please
    correct me if you know for sure what assault weapon he used. Didn't the San Bernardino shooters use AR-15s?

    An AR-1 is a semi-automatic so not an assault weapon. Each shot requires one pull.

  • 0

    Quote from Lil Nel
    There are other things that the federal government could do such outlawing certain types of bullets. But they have refused to do that too. Cowards. And what about banning assault rifles? Does anybody need an assault rifle to go hunting? No. It is a weapon of war. Oh, it has been used to kill the maximum number of people in several mass shooting including Sandy Hook/Newtown.

    Maybe you mean semi-automatic rifles? Because assault rifles are also called machine guns and are completely unable to be had in some states and at great cost, both with permitting and prices of the weapons, which can start at about $15K.

    Many states don't allow the scary AR-15 for hunting anyway, because the ammo used isn't powerful enough to bring down a large animal with one shot.

  • 1
    Avid reader likes this.

    Quote from azhiker96
    I think everyone agrees on this point. In the article it notes that the charges against him were dropped. I don't know why they were dropped but they were. People's rights are not taken on a whim. It takes something solid like a conviction or diagnosis.
    Exactly why we voted against an initiative here in this Washington regarding mental illness. There was no requirement for any kind of actual diagnosis to be done by a professional. I don't think the judge signing a person's rights away even needed to ever be face-to-face with the person. There are far too many false accusations (of all kinds) for an initiative like that to become law.

  • 0

    Quote from ElvishDNP
    Apparently, gun regulation DOES work in Australia, because after the Port Arthur massacre, it was 20+ years between occurrences that in the USA happen every day. I'll take those odds.

    If you're really interested in what I have to say about gun regulation, you can search my posts. I've stated my piece many times over and am tired of the intellectual dishonesty or laziness or whatever you want to think it is that keeps you from listening every stinking time I say it.
    The problem is that it doesn't eradicate violence.....attacks by knives, and anything that can be used as a weapon will be substituted. I read recently where Australia is asking for another "voluntary" gun take back....which tells me the problem isn't solved at all.

  • 0

    Quote from ElvishDNP
    You haven't been paying attention then, and no. I'm not kidding. It should go without saying that I hope the Congressman's condition improves and he makes a full recovery. It should go without saying that I don't believe in violence and wish no one had ever been shot at a Congressional baseball practice.

    Shootings were happening for a long time and were heartbreaking but Newtown was where I reached the end of my rope. Twenty first-graders died. Six year olds were pretending to be dead while listening to their classmates' blood gurgling in their throats as they were murdered. I had a second-grader at the time. I have a six-year-old now.

    The shaken feeling, the brokenness, the fear these Congresspeople are feeling, the people who continued to vote against sensible policies.....that's my feeling every g-d time a shooting happens. What makes me angriest is that these folks - meaning Congressional Republicans in general - have been unwilling to listen to constituents when it was OUR kids dying. When it was ME that was afraid to send my second-grader to school the Monday after Newtown happened. While it's been me worried for the last six years that every time the school system pops up on my caller ID that it's finally happened here, Congress has done nothing.

    So have chickens come home to roost? Yeah. They have. I'm only surprised that it's taken this long.

    It's possible to feel both revulsion at the act and revulsion for the policies and inaction that have made it an almost everyday occurrence in this country. The only industrialized country where this sh!t happens more days than it doesn't.

    So I'll return the favor....are you kidding me?

    So other than completely disarming the entire American population, which doesn't work as we have seen in Australia, what new laws or policies from those who make them, in your opinion, would have prevented Newtown, or any of so many other mass shootings, where the shooters passed background checks and bought those weapons legally, then went off somehow and used them to the detriment of many?

  • 1
    nursej22 likes this.

    Quote from nursej22
    I fear that the not-for profit, private organization will be underfunded. In fact, I do not understand how this new entity will be funded: by airlines, by port authorities or local municipalities, tax on airfare? And I have read of concern that smaller airports that don't have the revenue stream that larger ones do.

    And my exposure to private, for and not for profit businesses tells me that when the budget is tight, the first thing cut is wages, including wages for training.

    If the private sector is mostly better run than the government, then why are prisoners dying of thirst, women giving birth in shackles, and people being fed spoiled, insect infected food in privately owned prisons?

    I answered your questions, tntrn, now how about you answer mine?
    The biggest reason I would personally support privitation is that a poor employee can and will be fired. Government workers keep their jobs no matter what.

    As to how privatization would look, I don't really know....and my DH who would isn't a member here. (Also he is away for a few more days and I won't bother him with this.)

  • 1
    Avid reader likes this.

    Security theater is a great way to describe it. It really makes us no safer. We haven't had an air disaster than would prompt such a move, but making government smaller and creating private sector jobs is important.

    Why assume the training would be lax or relaxed? I think most private sector jobs are far more well run than anything the government ever does.