ENOUGH....Time for Gun Control....NOW

[martybegan]

So still no clear explanation how passing laws keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens helps stop violent people from massacring others.

In mass shooting, it's usually a case of law abiding citizens who go off the deep end and massacre others. For gun control to work you must either identify the potential killers and deny them guns or deny guns to all. To do either would take very strong support from the public which is not there, at least not yet.

And it would take a massive federal and state level assault on the citizens do not want to be disarmed.

 

[KNB]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Love seeing RWs shot down so completely that all they can do is whine 3rd grade level insults.

Try answering the post ...

Its hilarious...especially when you consider the "basement dweller" crack from a man who lives in a city that is technically below sea level.

On the other hand, it's sad and unfortunate that 1/2 of the nation thinks that they still need weapons around them--not because of anecdotal evidence but because some guy who was around before the invention of street lights said you may want to surround yourself with weapons if you're in a militia. In any other society, they'd be committed as paranoid schizophrenics.

Agree. They're terrified to come out from under their beds without a gun clutched in their sweaty paws.

A child was killed this morning. A child left his home this morning and will never return and look what they have to say about killing kids.

Hey sweetie, I'm not terrified of anything.
Unless you want to count liberal policies, then yes I'm petrified of what you people are all about.

 

[martybegan]

can america learn to commit suicide just like the japanese do?

The xenophobic Japanese allows in very little immigration. Japan is for the Japanese. After the earthquake and tsunami, there was zero looting. None. It isn't the lack of guns that make the Japanese differences, it's that the Japanese are very different people.

Bahahahaha....You idiot. The area around Fukushima was RADIOACTIVE after the nuclear power plant melt down of three reactors, you stupid freak. No one in their right mind went up there. What was to loot?

LMAO...and MartyB thanks you for your STUPID post.

So Fukishima was the ONLY place affected by the tsunami?

Plus at the time right after the tsunami and quake there was no release of radiation, and even after the amount released wasn't immediately harmful.

Do you work hard at being this stupid, or does it come naturally?

 

[Avatar4321]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

To punish them after the fact. And hopefully deter them from breaking the law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

For most crimes, laws propose to punish the criminal, to provide a deterrent effect.

But with these mass murders, the shooter usually intends to die while committing his crime, so such laws obviously have no effect.

So why do the gun-haters keep proposing such laws for these mass murders, knowing they won't have any effect?

 

[tanfojam0]

I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

I am not sure I believe in more gun control, but here is something I came up with:

1a. The English system--with very, very few exceptions, prohibit semi-automatic rifles and pistols.
1b. If mental issues are present, pass a severe psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun.
2. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, and while most people are able to safely own a firearm, not all people are. It is fairly simple to obtain a gun if you have no criminal background.
3. A prohibition on semi-automatic rifles and pistols would help prevent these mass killings, since they are the ones that can cause the most damage. All of the killers were mentally unstable, and many of these instabilities were known before the shooting. Obviously this wouldn't prevent them from taking the gun from someone else, but it would help prevent them from obtaining a gun legally, while the prohibition on the semi-automatics would keep them from taking it.
4. The Bill of Rights does not grant citizens a right to EVERYTHING. There are limits to Free Speech--you can't slander, lie, use fighting/offensive words, make threats, etc. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right [to bear arms] is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," only weapons that are 'necessary,' as some people see fit, solely for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. These semi-automatic weapons are not. The weapons can be very, very dangerous, not just to the owner, but to everyone around him.

 

[Siete]

really? Your thinking is referred to as myopic.

the japan lesson: Can america learn from the country that has almost zero gun deaths?
the japan lesson: Can america learn from the country that has almost zero gun deaths? - the washington post

the contrast between the united states and japan could not be starker. If the united states has the loosest gun laws in the developed world, then japan has the strictest. Most guns are illegal, with onerous restrictions on the few that are legal. Police also have far broader search-and-seizure powers. But the country also has a remarkably low rate of firearm deaths.

in 2008, when the united states experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed friday in newtown, conn.""""""

can america learn to commit suicide just like the japanese do?

The xenophobic Japanese allows in very little immigration. Japan is for the Japanese. After the earthquake and tsunami, there was zero looting. None. It isn't the lack of guns that make the Japanese differences, it's that the Japanese are very different people.

there ya go, now the real issue is being addresses. The people. Encourage the people to go lay on bridges and point guns at the establishment then feel BIG about it, and sooner or later one of those people take it to the next level and start pulling triggers screaming "the revolution has begun" ... until the revolution mindset goes away laws are worthless ...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

B]Obviously both of you are too lazy to do simple things, as I suggested in my previous post:
[/B]
B]"I]"Wrong, oh civic's test "whizzz". If you read any state's gun laws statutes, start with Connecticut and note the repetitive use of the phrase "with the exception of", you will understand why gun laws don't work.
The laws are heavily skewed towards exemptions which are imposed by outside influence to the point they are completely neutralized.""[/I]

Since you both are so very smart, I'm sure that after reading through at least 5-6 pages of individual state gun law statutes you will be able to come back here and report your findings, as I did after Sandy Hook. [/B]

Still no explanation of how the additional laws demanded by the OP, would affect people who don't obey laws, such as these shooters and mass murderers.

Nothing but the usual namecalling, plus an occasional "Look it up yourself".

I didn't ask for additional laws. You imposed that with your own bias.

I told you to do something very simple and you won't do it because you know I'm right.

So keep tap dancing, you lazy twit. Add nothing to this thread except your flimsy ego boost.

 

[martybegan]

I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

I am not sure I believe in more gun control, but here is something I came up with:

1a. The English system--with very, very few exceptions, prohibit semi-automatic rifles and pistols.
1b. If mental issues are present, pass a severe psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun.
2. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, and while most people are able to safely own a firearm, not all people are. It is fairly simple to obtain a gun if you have no criminal background.
3. A prohibition on semi-automatic rifles and pistols would help prevent these mass killings, since they are the ones that can cause the most damage. All of the killers were mentally unstable, and many of these instabilities were known before the shooting. Obviously this wouldn't prevent them from taking the gun from someone else, but it would help prevent them from obtaining a gun legally, while the prohibition on the semi-automatics would keep them from taking it.
4. The Bill of Rights does not grant citizens a right to EVERYTHING. There are limits to Free Speech--you can't slander, lie, use fighting/offensive words, make threats, etc. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right [to bear arms] is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," only weapons that are 'necessary,' as some people see fit, solely for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. These semi-automatic weapons are not.

The police would have to follow the exact same restrictions, and you know that won't happen.

All you do when you ban semi-autos is make it easier for a criminal to out-gun a law abiding citizen, simple as that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

For most crimes, laws propose to punish the criminal, to provide a deterrent effect.

But with these mass murders, the shooter usually intends to die while committing his crime, so such laws obviously have no effect.

So why do the gun-haters keep proposing such laws for these mass murders, knowing they won't have any effect?

So, what kind of law WOULD have an effect against these criminals who mostly don't care if they die?

They committed their crime for some reason, in their warped and demented minds.

If we can figure out that reason, and deny it to them, might that have an effect?

What is the reason most of them commit their mass murders?

 

[JoeNormal]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

 

[martybegan]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

All those other places are not the United States.

 

[KNB]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

To punish them after the fact. And hopefully deter them from breaking the law.

But that obviously doesn't work, proven by the weekly mass shootings all over the country, especially when you have the richest criminals in the country setting a double-standard of "too big to fail".

Some criminals can make so much money that the cops can't do shit to them, and they effected millions of more people than any mass shooter.

Perhaps we should have at least one mass shooting on Wall Street? Let them know how it feels.

 

[kaz]

Active Shooter at Oregon High School

BREAKING: Reports of active shooter at high school near Portland | Q13 FOX News

PORTLAND — There were multiple reports of an active shooter around 8:30 a.m. at a high school in Troutdale, Oregon.

According to the Columbian Newspaper, area police requested assistance from Clark County Washington sheriff’s deputies at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, Ore. to respond to calls of a possible shooting.

Read more: BREAKING: Reports of active shooter at high school near Portland | Q13 FOX News



Sorry, children. It's time to make it harder to get your shiny, dangerous toys. Too many loonies out there. Every week now.

The "GOOD GUY WITH A GUN" at Walmart ended up in the hospital in Las Vegas. SO there goes that Wayne LaPierre bullshit myth.

The shooter didn't kill enough people for you?

 

[JoeNormal]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

All those other places are not the United States.

Is that because of that American exceptionalism that Americans are so proud of?

 

[Avatar4321]

B]Obviously both of you are too lazy to do simple things, as I suggested in my previous post:
[/B]
B]"I]"Wrong, oh civic's test "whizzz". If you read any state's gun laws statutes, start with Connecticut and note the repetitive use of the phrase "with the exception of", you will understand why gun laws don't work.
The laws are heavily skewed towards exemptions which are imposed by outside influence to the point they are completely neutralized.""[/I]

Since you both are so very smart, I'm sure that after reading through at least 5-6 pages of individual state gun law statutes you will be able to come back here and report your findings, as I did after Sandy Hook. [/B]

Still no explanation of how the additional laws demanded by the OP, would affect people who don't obey laws, such as these shooters and mass murderers.

Nothing but the usual namecalling, plus an occasional "Look it up yourself".

I didn't ask for additional laws. You imposed that with your own bias.

I told you to do something very simple and you won't do it because you know I'm right.

So keep tap dancing, you lazy twit. Add nothing to this thread except your flimsy ego boost.

So you want to control guns without passing any new laws. How exactly?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

His/her arguments are not deduced in logic.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

All those other places are not the United States.

You're right, and if the NRA were in those countries I bet everybody would have guns there, too.

How does being brainwashed by huge lobbyists like the NRA feel? Do you get dizzy, nauseous, or is like being high and giddy?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a shooter, so let's make sure everyone is completely unarmed and at the mercy of the next shooter that comes along.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

Well unfortunately, we can't live in a fantasy world.