Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bones42 View Post
    Wouldn't change my mind at all. I still see no need for a person to own a semi-automatic gun.

    In case you care....this incident did not cause me to have that belief.
    There are many things I see absolutely no reason for people to own too. I mentioned some of them in an earlier post above, yet because they are legal to own I wouldn't interfere with a law abiding citizens right to own them.

    The simple fact that you deny over and over and over is these are the acts of CRIMINALS or the MENTALLY ILL. Not the average everyday citizen gun owner. The problem is NOT the gun but the person choosing to use it in these horrific manners. I hope there is a day when we can identify those with these homicidal leanings and get them the help they need, or isolate them from society before they perpetrate these horrible crimes. But for now, in cases like this, where he was known to have issues, we need easier access to mental health care. Perhaps if he had gotten help this never would have happened...unfortunately like every other hypothetical situation we will never know. But I do know this, this country is great at hand wringing and knee jerk reactions and absolutely p i s s poor at looking at realistic workable answers to predictable situations.

    I have never heard anyone suggesting banning cars when a drunk driver kills an entire family by crashing into them. I have never seen anyone suggesting banning cars or stopping people over the age of 65 from driving when an elderly person blasts into a building or runs down a crowd of people. WHY? Obviously the person holds no personal responsibility for the incident and it is entirely the cars fault. RIGHT? So we must ban cars, or at least much more heavily restrict who can own and operate them.

    Frankly, if YOU don't want to own a semi-sutomatic rifle or pistol more power to you. I do and I will and I don't see anything changing that anytime, ever.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
      Should the President's security detail have semi or fully automatic firearms? How about Governors details, or just plain cops? At what point are the lives of our politicians worth more than that of us common folk?
      We're not discussing the usage of these weapons by individuals who use them for those purposes.
      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
        Frankly, if YOU don't want to own a semi-sutomatic rifle or pistol more power to you. I do and I will and I don't see anything changing that anytime, ever.
        I have no problem with anyone owning either type of weapon. I'm advocating limiting magazine size and doing 100% background checks.
        I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          We're not discussing the usage of these weapons by individuals who use them for those purposes.
          Um, in reality, YES we are. You want to restrict my rights to own certain firearms. I may infact use those firearms to protect myself, my loved ones, or even innocent bystanders. So it really isn't any different, unless you are saying that in our society only certain classes of people have the right to protect themselves against assault.
          Crazy, but that's how it goes
          Millions of people living as foes
          Maybe it's not too late
          To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
            Um, in reality, YES we are. You want to restrict my rights to own certain firearms. I may infact use those firearms to protect myself, my loved ones, or even innocent bystanders. So it really isn't any different, unless you are saying that in our society only certain classes of people have the right to protect themselves against assault.
            That assumes that is your only choice. It is not. I've only advocated for limiting magazine capacity. According to the anti-gun control posters, changing magazines is no big deal.

            Also, while there are claims that semi-auto weapons shouldn't be regulated because the majority of people use them responsibly. And that why aren't other things that kill people being given the same scrutiny. I could make the same case for things that are very highly regulated even though the majority of folks who use them are incredibly responsible.

            Explosives being a prime example.
            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
              That assumes that is your only choice. It is not. I've only advocated for limiting magazine capacity. According to the anti-gun control posters, changing magazines is no big deal.

              Also, while there are claims that semi-auto weapons shouldn't be regulated because the majority of people use them responsibly. And that why aren't other things that kill people being given the same scrutiny. I could make the same case for things that are very highly regulated even though the majority of folks who use them are incredibly responsible.

              Explosives being a prime example.

              An interesting point of comparison as it is useful to see what other countries have done. In Canada the AR15 is considered a restricted weapon...you can still purchase with a criminal background check etc but face significant restrictions in terms of storage, use, and transportation. Maximum magazine capacity for all centre fire firearms in Canada is I believe only 5 rounds.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                That assumes that is your only choice. It is not. I've only advocated for limiting magazine capacity. According to the anti-gun control posters, changing magazines is no big deal.

                Also, while there are claims that semi-auto weapons shouldn't be regulated because the majority of people use them responsibly. And that why aren't other things that kill people being given the same scrutiny. I could make the same case for things that are very highly regulated even though the majority of folks who use them are incredibly responsible.

                Explosives being a prime example.
                You love to dance away from the topic to the ridiculous. That is and always has been your M.O. Try carrying on a serious discussion on topic just one time. Although I don't believe you can.

                Frankly, by your standards alcohol, candy, potato chips and more would be banned or heavily regulated because they kill thousands every year, And YES, that is exactly how ridiculous your defense of gun control actions are.
                Crazy, but that's how it goes
                Millions of people living as foes
                Maybe it's not too late
                To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
                  You love to dance away from the topic to the ridiculous. That is and always has been your M.O. Try carrying on a serious discussion on topic just one time. Although I don't believe you can.
                  What topic did I dance away from?

                  Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
                  Frankly, by your standards alcohol, candy, potato chips and more would be banned or heavily regulated because they kill thousands every year, And YES, that is exactly how ridiculous your defense of gun control actions are.
                  I would submit there are far more regulations on all those products than there are on guns.
                  I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by braidjansen View Post
                    An interesting point of comparison as it is useful to see what other countries have done. In Canada the AR15 is considered a restricted weapon...you can still purchase with a criminal background check etc but face significant restrictions in terms of storage, use, and transportation. Maximum magazine capacity for all centre fire firearms in Canada is I believe only 5 rounds.
                    Other countries allow gun ownership and they don't seem to have the problem of frequent mass shootings. I believe it is time to review what is done in those countries and adopt what works.
                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Other countries allow gun ownership and they don't seem to have the problem of frequent mass shootings. I believe it is time to review what is done in those countries and adopt what works.
                      It is interesting to compare gun control regimes in other countries and compare them to the US but it is also an exercise of limited usefulness. The US is simply unique when it comes to attitudes towards guns. I will use the Canadian example as it is what I know best.

                      1) You have the right to bear arms...we do not. This fact alone makes you unique and makes gun control not just a political issue (which is what it is in most countries), but also an issue of fundamental basic rights. Canadians do not have the right to bear arms and we never have. We did not gain our independence through a violent revolution and we do not tend to believe that we need firearms to protect ourselves from a corrupt government.

                      2) Canadians do not, as a rule, like guns. Most Canadians believe that the types of weapons used last Friday should only be possessed by law enforcement and the military. The vast majority of firearms in this country are manual action hunting rifles and shotguns. The private ownership of military grade assault weapons and hand guns is simply outside the realm of what is considered normal.

                      3) Because of these two factors, very few people owned assault rifles and handguns in the early 1990's when, in response to a gun massacre in Montreal (google search "Marc Lepine" for the details), the federal government significantly restricted private ownership of every type of firearm other than the above mentioned hunting rifles and shotguns. With so few people effected it was a fairly easy thing to do. Latest figures out of the US would seem to indicate that there are 89 privately owned firearms for every 100 Americans, many of them assault weapons and handguns. So the opportunity to bring in the kind of sweeping restrictions that we saw here has already past in the US.

                      So in many ways the example provided by foreign countries when it comes to gun control of of limited or no value in the American debate. A made in US policy is required and, given the complexities and tone revealed in this thread thus far I don't envy you the task.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                        Other countries allow gun ownership and they don't seem to have the problem of frequent mass shootings. I believe it is time to review what is done in those countries and adopt what works.
                        They don't have a problem or we dont' hear about it?

                        China has gun control and is dealing with a trend of school stabbings. We don't hear about that, though...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          A pump action shotgun or rifle can be cycled and shot almost as quickly (some good shooters seem to be faster, btw) as a semi-auto and is much more reliable. With that logic, there would be no need for anyone to own a pump. Bolt actions aren't much slower, so there's no need to own a bolt action. To extend that logic further, a double action revolver can be shot about as quick as a semi-auto DAO, so there's no need for a revolver. Pretty soon, there's no need for anyone to own any firearm....but the bad guys will still have them.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            We're not discussing the usage of these weapons by individuals who use them for those purposes.
                            How convenient.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                              Other countries allow gun ownership and they don't seem to have the problem of frequent mass shootings. I believe it is time to review what is done in those countries and adopt what works.
                              Exactly. There's far more to the issue than banning guns, we have a real issue with personal responsibility, devaluation of human life and looking for quick fixes that solve nothing.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                What topic did I dance away from?

                                By injecting your ridiculous comparison of guns to explosives. Which, by the way, MILLIONS use every year around the 4th of July for celebrations. Oh I know tht isn't what you had in mind but it is true that millions of people use them every year causing no harm to themselves or others.


                                I would submit there are far more regulations on all those products than there are on guns.

                                Really? Actually the comparisons between alcohol and guns are almost exact. Given that the legal drinking age is 21 and that is how old you need to be to buy a handgun. Well, except there is a "cooling off period" when you buy a handgun, generally 48 hours, there is no such law in place for purchasing booze. Would you support that? A waiting period to buy booze?

                                Do tell what the restrictions for buying, owning and consuming candy and potato chips are. Heck the government subsidizes the purchase of those items with Foodstamps. Nice try, ridiculous, stupid and without merit, but nice try anyways.
                                It is so readily apparent that you search these forums for these types of topics. Your posts are nonsenical and troll like serving no purpose other than to enflame. Sorry I am not getting upset I mostly laugh at your indefensible posturing.
                                Crazy, but that's how it goes
                                Millions of people living as foes
                                Maybe it's not too late
                                To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X