FLORIDA Students call for GUN BANS....

[RetiredGySgt]

Fully automatic weapons are really expensive even if you are licensed to buy them.

Which simply adds to the difficulty of legally obtaining them, which might explain why killers don't use them,

although it's a good guess many of them would like to.

Maybe they would, until they fired them the first time and realised how inaccurate they are.

Should we deregulate them down to the level of the AR 15 and find out?

Sure why not the 1994 ban did fuck all to stop anything.

I'm just pointing out an irrefutable fact, borne out by indisputable history.

No you are not fully automatic weapons are a waste of time if you plan to kill a large number of people dispersed through out a building.

 

[blackhawk]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.




Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

Before they call for a ban on something they should study prohibition and see how that worked out.

 

[asaratis]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.

Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

well we have laws against killing kids in school too but they do it. what laws can be passed that would have stopped *any* of the killings in the last 15 years?

i agree the "name in lights" could be a factor/driver in some of these. early on in journalism i learned we don't report on bomb *threats* because it encourages them. somewhere along the way we lost sight of that fact.

The news media will be the hardest to convince that publication of the shooter's name and background should be squelched. They are all in search of a scoop and to be known as "the first to show it". One of the Boston bombers was even shown in a photo that had him looking like he should be on the cover of GQ....and always there are photos of when the shooter was a happy little child...as if he is poor innocent victim of society.

One law that we could pass is one that makes it a crime to mention the name of a shooter. But then the MSM would cry for total freedom of speech. Another law that could be passed is one that prevents LEO from releasing the name at all....just a long, distinct but otherwise meaningless number. But then the ACLU would cry for enforcement of the freedom of information act. Our ability to suppress information is limited...mostly by liberal politics.

What would be wrong with requiring LEO to treat all shooters names as classified information? ....and arresting any people that leak that information or publish that information after having it leaked to them? ....and putting them in federal prisons after being convicted?

 

[deanrd]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.




Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

You must be a Republican.

They so love to kill people. They love to cry about protecting the fetus at any cost.

But the born? Not so much.

Only a Republican could think killing someone who is suicidal is a deterrent.

That may have to be explained to them, they are mighty slow.

 

[conserveguy877]

So how much did George Soros fund using the buses, hotels, and food? Sad that these kids are being used as pawns while their emotions are high not knowing the truth.

 

[asaratis]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.




Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

Did you just make the argument that laws against child molestation are useless?

Not at all...just that they do not prevent them...just as a ban on weapons does not prevent the illegal sale or use if them. You mentioned fully automatic weapons earlier. There are people that legally own fully automatic weapons but their sale is intensely monitored. Also, a good gunsmith can alter (illegally) a semi-auto to be a fully-automatic weapon.

The Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks to make his weapons fire nearly as fast as a fully automatic rifle. It did not change the weapon to fully automatic, but it did effectively turn it into one that fires faster. I am not opposed to the banning of bump stocks or similar attachments to semi-automatics that significantly increase their fire rate. These attachments are nothing more than devices used to circumvent the intent of the law.

Personally I think that all convicted child molesters should be shot dead...on live TV....after a week or so of advertising the date and time of the execution. This would be a deterrent to copycats that follow the news.

 

[asaratis]

This is not my position for or against gun bans, but it is an irrefutable fact that the ban on automatic weapons, or if you want to be precise, the severe limitations on buying and possessing automatic weapons is arguably the main reason we almost never (or never) see mass shootings done with automatic weapons, aka machine guns.

How many such shootings with automatic weapons can you name since those type guns were severely restricted?

Fully automatic weapons are really expensive even if you are licensed to buy them.

...and you won't find them at gun stores.

 

[asaratis]

Real Title


Jews call for gun ban for non-Jews.... after faking yet another school shooting....

You are a sick puppy.

 

[asaratis]

The school kids have every right to be upset

That's really like saying Enron's accountants have the right to be upset once their FRAUD got outed....

Again you prove that you are brain dead. Go Play in The Rubber Room.

 

[iceberg]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.

Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

well we have laws against killing kids in school too but they do it. what laws can be passed that would have stopped *any* of the killings in the last 15 years?

i agree the "name in lights" could be a factor/driver in some of these. early on in journalism i learned we don't report on bomb *threats* because it encourages them. somewhere along the way we lost sight of that fact.

The news media will be the hardest to convince that publication of the shooter's name and background should be squelched. They are all in search of a scoop and to be known as "the first to show it". One of the Boston bombers was even shown in a photo that had him looking like he should be on the cover of GQ....and always there are photos of when the shooter was a happy little child...as if he is poor innocent victim of society.

One law that we could pass is one that makes it a crime to mention the name of a shooter. But then the MSM would cry for total freedom of speech. Another law that could be passed is one that prevents LEO from releasing the name at all....just a long, distinct but otherwise meaningless number. But then the ACLU would cry for enforcement of the freedom of information act. Our ability to suppress information is limited...mostly by liberal politics.

What would be wrong with requiring LEO to treat all shooters names as classified information? ....and arresting any people that leak that information or publish that information after having it leaked to them? ....and putting them in federal prisons after being convicted?

Dunno but good ideas

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is not my position for or against gun bans, but it is an irrefutable fact that the ban on automatic weapons, or if you want to be precise, the severe limitations on buying and possessing automatic weapons is arguably the main reason we almost never (or never) see mass shootings done with automatic weapons, aka machine guns.

How many such shootings with automatic weapons can you name since those type guns were severely restricted?

Fully automatic weapons are really expensive even if you are licensed to buy them.

Which simply adds to the difficulty of legally obtaining them, which might explain why killers don't use them,

although it's a good guess many of them would like to.

One percent of murders take place in mass shootings.

A fully auto is no good outside of that.

Even soldiers rarely fire their service rifles on full auto. Machine guns are used for suppression of enemy troops or for engaging heavily fortified locations

 

[hazlnut]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.




Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

So, explain why we have laws then.

 

[asaratis]

....at the Florida Senate Building. They propose a ban on certain types of guns. They advocate that this will preclude any school shootings that may occur in the future. It will make them safer while at school. They are naive and clearly driven by emotion and errant logic.

Their principle errant thought is that a ban on anything will be observed by criminals and others that seek, for whatever reason, to circumvent it. We already have several hundreds of thousands of bans on things and actions. They are called laws. Not one law that we have, in any municipality, state or region actually prevents a person or a group of people from violating it. It merely provides legal means to fine or punish those caught and convicted of violating it.

Laws are kept only by people that aware of them and choose not to violate them, or by those that are unaware of them and coincidentally do not violate them. As a silly example of the latter, I have been to Florida several times and never tied an elephant to a parking meter without depositing the parking fee.

We have laws against child molestation. It occurs every day.
We have laws against murder. It occurs every day.
We have laws against rape. It occurs every day.
We have laws against possession of controlled substances. It occurs every day.

You cite a law, it is highly likely that it has been violated multiple times.

Any law or ban on the possession of firearms will do NOTHING to control the criminal possession or use of firearms.

I contend that we can do more to reduce school shootings by changing how we treat them after they are caught or killed.

1. Do not mention their names. Assign them a number.
2. Do not show their faces on TV.
3. Apply mandatory death sentences. After one failed appeal, kill them.




Aside:
CatStuff: Loony Laws about Animals

So, explain why we have laws then.

I suppose the most obvious reason is so that we can arrest, try and convict those who do things determined to be dangerous to the public or deemed to violate the rights of others. I'm sure there are other reasons but this comes to mind quite easily.