Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='detectiveconan16']So instead of victimizing responsible gun owners, we must go after responsible game players...[/QUOTE]

I think your side agrees with the part about video games causing these things buddy. I certainly don't believe either about guns or games.
 
Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?
 
[quote name='Clak']Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?[/QUOTE]

None of the gun nuts in this thread have the dignity to answer that question. They'd rather repeat the tropes from the NRA See N' Say.

WEN GONZ R OWTLAW'D...
 
This guy brought up a great point about the Koreans who defended their stores with firearms during the Los Angeles Riots.

He is an immigrant and it is interesting to see him comment as both a citizen who is now in the country and as someone who was once outside of the nation looking in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU
 
I just want "responsible gun owner" defined. A lot of gun owners bitch about keeping their guns locked up, but then you get idiots who leave them within easy reach of their kids too, so which is it? Is it your right to leave them out however you want with no regard to who might get them, or do you have a responsibility to keep them safe from others getting them?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']None of the gun nuts in this thread have the dignity to answer that question. They'd rather repeat the tropes from the NRA See N' Say.

WEN GONZ R OWTLAW'D...[/QUOTE]

Why am I a gun nut again? I'd be glad to answer that when I get home
 
[quote name='Spokker']This guy brought up a great point about the Koreans who defended their stores with firearms during the Los Angeles Riots.

He is an immigrant and it is interesting to see him comment as both a citizen who is now in the country and as someone who was once outside of the nation looking in.

[/QUOTE]

His first 2-3 minutes were well done. After that I started to tune him out really. The thing I disagree with his notion that "societal decay" as the reason for so many more mass shootings. What does that even mean? That seem like conservative double speak you get from Glen Beck and his ilk who think life was so much grander in the 40s and 50s. If anything, we as a nation have MORE freedom now then 50-60 years ago. We are actually taxed less, women and minorities are treated more equally, and gay rights are at the forefront of the civil rights push. But to some all those things are considered moral decay. The worst school massacre occurred in 1927. There are also countless cases of other mass shooting in US history. It also does not explain why the 90s had more than the 2000s. If we are decaying would not that number continue to rise? This is the reality. Some people are messed up. You give that person a gun and it is easier for them to kill people. That should not mean everyone else should not be allowed to own guns but lets be honest that 300 million guns IS a problem. When you make them so ubiquitous you run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.
 
[quote name='Clak']Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?[/QUOTE]

It should be expected for a gun own to keep his firearms secure (in a safe) and report them as soon as they are missing. That means checking on them at least weekly. I don't think that is unreasonable.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120'] That should not mean everyone else should not be allowed to own guns but lets be honest that 300 million guns IS a problem. When you make them so ubiquitous you run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.[/QUOTE]

Let's be honest, if we only have 1,000 guns in the United States we'd still run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.

Outside of a few states/cities the penalty for illegally owning or obtaining a gun is not harsh enough and not enforced thoroughly enough.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why am I a gun nut again? I'd be glad to answer that when I get home[/QUOTE]

In this discussion, I've seen zero willingness to consider *any* form of gun control from those on the right. In many cases, this also comes in the form of the willingness to entertain even any *debate* on the matter. Arguments are met with NRA talking points and slippery slope insanity of the "we need to defeat the government when the war comes" sort.

Rigid, absolute, ideological inflexibility = nut. Not the number or type of firearms you possess.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In this discussion, I've seen zero willingness to consider *any* form of gun control from those on the right. In many cases, this also comes in the form of the willingness to entertain even any *debate* on the matter. Arguments are met with NRA talking points and slippery slope insanity of the "we need to defeat the government when the war comes" sort.

Rigid, absolute, ideological inflexibility = nut. Not the number or type of firearms you possess.[/QUOTE]
The problem with your premise is that there is the intention from the Liberal Dems to compromise. Firearms and the Second amendment have been under attack since the inception and the latest rounds of proposed legislature is absolute banning of guns. This is where the conversation is started and why Reps refuse to budge because you're not talking about fixing what's wrong with the system, as said constantly by Reps over and over and over again. It's not that they aren't acknowledging that there is a problem, they're actually pointing out the way to fix them but all the left is bombarded with is Gabby Giffords being shamefully paraded in front of the media, Obama hiding behind a wall of kids, how the history books never mention political parties, how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the Confederates in the South that fought to keep slaves.

You say the Right refuses to compromise and rightly so, they've been compromising for many years to the point where the negotiations START at gun confiscation and criminalization. The perfect example of tyrannical government in the States is the Battle for Athens, Georgia, where Democrats committed rigged elections and were ousted by WW2 Veterans who could not take it any more.

The reason why Reps and the Right won't compromise is because you take gun control models from New York City, Chicago and California, you legislate and sow in propaganda into the proposals of these bills and motions of support that later get unleashed by the media. That's largely a despicable practice outright that can't be supported. I don't see why you have a problem with people opposing things that are not truthful, because that's what's happening despite all the media ignoring the reality of whats going on.
 
I liked the old days when Republicans were more for abusing the rights of women and gays and failing to see the irony. You know, like two months ago. Ah, those were the times.

Gun Control is like their collective clitoris. You even mention it and they orgasm a billion times over.
 
[quote name='Strell']I liked the old days when Republicans were more for abusing the rights of women and gays and failing to see the irony. You know, like two months ago. Ah, those were the times.

Gun Control is like their collective clitoris. You even mention it and they orgasm a billion times over.[/QUOTE]

For New Mexico, they haven't quite moved on from 2 months ago... New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
 
Years ago I remember hearing about this idea that a bunch of really rich people were going to buy a decommissioned military...something. It was like a missile launching silo platform out in the ocean. I can't remember the specifics exactly. The idea though was that these people would buy it and found their own country, complete with laws and a system of government and so forth. It was also parodied in the short-lived MTV animated series Undergrads.

The whole joke of the scenario was that you could declare yourself exempt from copyright laws, so it would become a data sharing heaven for the torrenting crowd. So really it was just an excuse to get free porn and anime and games. I imagine that this fell through given the rise of things like The Pirate Bay and other numerous channels to get free stuff.

At any rate, sometimes I wish I could do that and take a few choice individuals with me just to get away from the rest of the idiots. I'd settle for a tiny teeny place where we just sat around basking in the sun and wondering why the rest of the world was still this stupid.
 
I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']the latest rounds of proposed legislature is absolute banning of guns.[/QUOTE]

Well, okay, here's why Knoell was wondering why he's labeled a "gun nut." This is the other side of the "gun nut" premise - the person with absolutely no mental basis in reality. When compared to someone who legitimately believes that the government is going to take everyone's guns away, Knoell, I can totally see why you'd be incredulous at being called a "nut." You're not some Alex Jones/World Net Daily dumbfuck, yes, so in that sense you shouldn't be lumped in the same category as Randy Weaver up here.

[quote name='Clak']I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them. [/quote]

The second game's plot felt like it was a poorly written apology letter to angry "objectivists." The plot was like "no, there are problems with communism, too! here, see! we'll make the collectivist the villain!"

...and add multiplayer, I suppose. Yech. Anyway, yes, yes, Bioshock 1 was a very thinly disguised attempt to skewer Randian thought, but the sequel went into "oh, shit we must be 'fair and balanced'" overdrive, and the game was pretty uninspired as a result.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']It should be expected for a gun own to keep his firearms secure (in a safe) and report them as soon as they are missing. That means checking on them at least weekly. I don't think that is unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

I'm down with the first two and have mentioned those in the past, but the last one? Are you some kind of fascist gun grabber or something?:lol:

You know that by saying those things, you're throwing your lot in with "liebruls that want to ban guns" in the eyes of people that think any regulation is bad, right?
 
[quote name='Clak']I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them.[/QUOTE]
You realize that some people think that Colbert is some sort of meta comedy show and isn't satire, right?

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, okay, here's why Knoell was wondering why he's labeled a "gun nut." This is the other side of the "gun nut" premise - the person with absolutely no mental basis in reality. When compared to someone who legitimately believes that the government is going to take everyone's guns away, Knoell, I can totally see why you'd be incredulous at being called a "nut." You're not some Alex Jones/World Net Daily dumbfuck, yes, so in that sense you shouldn't be lumped in the same category as Randy Weaver up here.[/quote]
Honestly, if I seriously thought that the US government was going to ban all guns and confiscate them, I would be all up in that shit with the gun nuts too, but it is so far from reality that you'd have some sort of paranoia to the extent of being an actual clinical mental health issue.

The second game's plot felt like it was a poorly written apology letter to angry "objectivists." The plot was like "no, there are problems with communism, too! here, see! we'll make the collectivist the villain!"

...and add multiplayer, I suppose. Yech. Anyway, yes, yes, Bioshock 1 was a very thinly disguised attempt to skewer Randian thought, but the sequel went into "oh, shit we must be 'fair and balanced'" overdrive, and the game was pretty uninspired as a result.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that it was also done by a different studio. Not as fun either.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Don't forget that it was also done by a different studio. Not as fun either.[/QUOTE]

That is why I know Infinite is going to be amazing. If not, I will be a sad panda. I trust Ken Levine to deliver though.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']That is why I know Infinite is going to be amazing. If not, I will be a sad panda. I trust Ken Levine to deliver though.[/QUOTE]
Word. I'm actually happy about the delay because they're doing it to ensure a more superior product. I wish they did that with DmC. I'm a slightly depressed panda because of that.:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Honestly, if I seriously thought that the US government was going to ban all guns and confiscate them, I would be all up in that shit with the gun nuts too, but it is so far from reality that you'd have some sort of paranoia to the extent of being an actual clinical mental health issue.[/QUOTE]The perception that it's far from reality is only because it's being fought tooth and nail. The New York SAFE Act that several States have proposed to copy and enhance is a lesser version of what several bills were combined to be. Confiscation was there, if the SAFE Act passed as they wanted it to there would have been confiscation of guns, magazines and anything that fell into the assault weapon status which was basically every semi-auto rifle and shotgun out there.

MA's Governor introduced an Enhanced version of the SAFE Act that is being fought right now, the AWB that Feinstein and McCarthy have been trying to reinstate for 10 years now since 2003 now reads like the enhanced version of the SAFE Act. The Chief of San Diego Police seeks to disarm the population within a generation through gun control. It is very much real and there despite every Lib saying they don't want to take the guns, yet their voting record shows they're gun grabbers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']The perception that it's far from reality is only because it's being fought tooth and nail. The New York SAFE Act that several States have proposed to copy and enhance is a lesser version of what several bills were combined to be. Confiscation was there, if the SAFE Act passed as they wanted it to there would have been confiscation of guns, magazines and anything that fell into the assault weapon status which was basically every semi-auto rifle and shotgun out there.[/quote]
This might surprise you, but lots of lieberals are ok with people owning guns and would defend it. And just because there are items in a bill, doesn't mean that they're seriously considered. Someone could've thrown in a rider for killing all kittens, but it doesn't mean it'll make it to the final bill. This is just more slippery slope nonsense.

But hey, if gun owners don't want to abide by the law, they're no longer the law abiding gun owners they project themselves to be.

MA's Governor introduced an Enhanced version of the SAFE Act that is being fought right now, the AWB that Feinstein and McCarthy have been trying to reinstate for 10 years now since 2003 now reads like the enhanced version of the SAFE Act. The Chief of San Diego Police seeks to disarm the population within a generation through gun control. It is very much real and there despite every Lib saying they don't want to take the guns, yet their voting record shows they're gun grabbers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? I'm going to go all "both sides do it" and say that Reagan, gun manufacturers, AND the NRA had tons to do with the original ban. Not to mention that NY's state senate is controlled by Republicans and that prior to the act, buying a long gun in a vast majority of NY was ridiculously easy. Bring a NY driver's license and walk out with the store. IMO folding stocks suck anyways. If the gun nuts would actually engage in the debate, we would have more sensible regulation instead of banning things akin to ricing out a car. Hell, I would love for suppressors to be legal because I live less than a mile from a range and those damn hicks(I mean that affectionately) can't help but get their gun off at 6 in the morning on Saturdays. Otherwise, NICS checks on ammo and private sales are not bad things and neither are health professionals reporting people that have serious thoughts about going on a rampage. Gun safe provisions are solid as well. The mag capacity thing, I'm lukewarm about.

That said, I'm morbidly curious as to what Katrina has to do with this.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This might surprise you, but lots of lieberals are ok with people owning guns and would defend it. And just because there are items in a bill, doesn't mean that they're seriously considered. Someone could've thrown in a rider for killing all kittens, but it doesn't mean it'll make it to the final bill. This is just more slippery slope nonsense.

But hey, if gun owners don't want to abide by the law, they're no longer the law abiding gun owners they project themselves to be.[/QUOTE]I'll note your typo, yes, Lieberals. Freudian :)

If those Liberals would pick a side rather than let the media and the politicians determine their stance, the situation would be much better off. As it stands now you have Liberals letting their politicians, their media and everybody else do the speaking for them. But since you're unfamiliar with the SAFE Act, I'll help you along. The sponsoring Senators were sworn in on 1/9/13, the bills were proposed between the 1/9 and 1/11. On Monday 1/14, the Governor circumvented the State law requiring a 3 day staying period on legislation, waving that by "necessity". On 1/14 the State Senate was held until 11:30 at night as they hashed out what ultimately would become the SAFE Act. Assemblymen received their copies of the SAFE ACT shortly after 12, on 1/15 the SAFE Act was voted on and approved by the Democratic Majority and heralded as bipartisan because Senator Dean Skelos crossed party lines as he was the chairman of the committee responsible for sending the bill through in the Senate. It passed 103-47 or something in the Assembly and was signed the same day by the Governor.

The rejected proposals included confiscation of all semi-auto rifles, shotguns and magazines. It also included requiring ammunition coding which would have made all lawful gun owners criminals after 2 years if they possessed uncoded ammunition. On top of that they spread the lies that semi-auto rifles were capable of spray firing and killing large amounts of people because of that.

WTF are you talking about? I'm going to go all "both sides do it" and say that Reagan, gun manufacturers, AND the NRA had tons to do with the original ban. Not to mention that NY's state senate is controlled by Republicans and that prior to the act, buying a long gun in a vast majority of NY was ridiculously easy. Bring a NY driver's license and walk out with the store. IMO folding stocks suck anyways. If the gun nuts would actually engage in the debate, we would have more sensible regulation instead of banning things akin to ricing out a car. Hell, I would love for suppressors to be legal because I live less than a mile from a range and those damn hicks(I mean that affectionately) can't help but get their gun off at 6 in the morning on Saturdays. Otherwise, NICS checks on ammo and private sales are not bad things and neither are health professionals reporting people that have serious thoughts about going on a rampage. Gun safe provisions are solid as well. The mag capacity thing, I'm lukewarm about.

That said, I'm morbidly curious as to what Katrina has to do with this.
Click to expand...
There is your lovely misinformation, the New York Senate and Assembly is Democratic controlled, they hold a 2-1 Majority. You still had to undergo a NICS check to purchase a rifle, it wasn't simply walk in and walk out.

Those gun nuts you speak of are engaged in actual debate, look at all the Youtube footage of the SAFE Act, only one Democrat has their video posted and that's Tom Abinanti saying he's fed up with legal gun owners. Every Rep wants mental health reform, every single one of them went on video, posted their videos on youtube. It's all there and it's all transparent.

As for what this has to do with Katrina, the Vitter Amendment was enacted because the Police were disarming lawful LA gun owners, confiscating and destroying their guns. Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer and Frank Lautenberg all voted against the Vitter Amendment to protect the rights of lawful gun owners in aftermath of Katrina. Lautenberg and Feinstein have been on TV saying they don't want to take guns, their voting record speaks otherwise.
 
"Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade"

This is actually an interesting case of ironic conservative ideals. In theory I am not against teaching kids how to react to finding a gun or that guns are not to be played with. The part I find ironic is he wants it done at school. The same party that does NOT want schools teaching about safe sex, conception and STDs wants to teach 6-7 year old children gun safety. I guess I would make that compromise. We give you gun safety and you gives us sex safety.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/missouri-gun-education_n_2585217.html
 
[quote name='Strell']But if we teach kids about guns, then they'll ENGAGE IN GUN INTERCOURSE[/QUOTE]

I knew this comment was not far behind. Thanks for not disappointing. :lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']


Honestly, if I seriously thought that the US government was going to ban all guns and confiscate them, I would be all up in that shit with the gun nuts too, but it is so far from reality that you'd have some sort of paranoia to the extent of being an actual clinical mental health issue.

[/QUOTE]

Can I ask you this?

Are you for banning and confiscating "assault" weapons?

Do you realize "assauilt" weapons are a very, very small aspect of the gun "problem"?

What do you propose will happen with pistols when the assault weapons are long gone and the gun "problem" is still there? (Because statistically, it will be)

Do you know most of your side use a slippery slope situation as their model for gun control success?

Telling me you won't ban all guns this time, doesn't make me feel particularly confident you won't be back when someone else dies from a gun shot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In this discussion, I've seen zero willingness to consider *any* form of gun control from those on the right. In many cases, this also comes in the form of the willingness to entertain even any *debate* on the matter. Arguments are met with NRA talking points and slippery slope insanity of the "we need to defeat the government when the war comes" sort.

Rigid, absolute, ideological inflexibility = nut. Not the number or type of firearms you possess.[/QUOTE]

Tell me what you are suggesting for gun control.

It is pretty funny how it always seems on this board that the opposing ideology is just the worst thing in the world. "If they had their way, the world would be in shambles, and people would be dying in the street, and killing each other. Why do they prefer such chaos when we have such perfect solutions for them? Are they stupid?"

Demonizing is key i guess.
 
We obviously can't start policing everyone, law abiding citizens or not. Guns essentially are not the problem but just an extension of it, people who are using them for malice purposes. What do you guys propose, some sort of gun reform or stricter penalties for people who brake the law? I know the latter has different results depending on state and local laws but something does need to get done.

I in no way want the government to out right ban any type of gun (I don't own any and have shot very few) but I do feel people should have the right to make there own responsible choice. It's just sad to say there are far more idiots than there are people who know right and wrong. Maybe they should just start lobotomizing violent offenders and be done with it. :shock:
 
[quote name='Knoell']Can I ask you this?

Are you for banning and confiscating "assault" weapons?

Do you realize "assauilt" weapons are a very, very small aspect of the gun "problem"?

What do you propose will happen with pistols when the assault weapons are long gone and the gun "problem" is still there? (Because statistically, it will be)

Do you know most of your side use a slippery slope situation as their model for gun control success?

Telling me you won't ban all guns this time, doesn't make me feel particularly confident you won't be back when someone else dies from a gun shot.[/QUOTE]
I've already answered these questions without being asked and all you seem to do is strawman me. Look it up.

Hint: You can find it in this thread.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I've already answered these questions without being asked and all you seem to do is strawman me. Look it up.

Hint: You can find it in this thread.[/QUOTE]

All I have seen is you making fun of the suggestion that people want to ban guns altogether.

Funny, how you deflect every type of encounter with "that's a strawman brah".
 
[quote name='Knoell']All I have seen is you making fun of the suggestion that people want to ban guns altogether.

Funny, how you deflect every type of encounter with "that's a strawman brah".[/QUOTE]

In other words, you couldn't ass yourself to look. Congrats on proving my point that you're trying to lampoon.

Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Do you know how to search for a user's posts in a thread without going through their profile or search function?

edit: Just because it isn't worth a bump...

You can easily see who posted what by clicking on the number under the Replies column on the Vs. Threads page to see a list of who posted. Then, you click on the number next to the user of the posts you want to see and viola.

If a particular someone had bothered and/or known, they'd see that my thoughts on they types of legislation I'd like to see are basically my first 10 posts in this thread, of which I have 50 and are the opposite of what that particular person thinks my views are. Thanks to hit and run tactics, I'm now reminded of why I shouldn't be responding to trolls. So thanks for the reminder, knoell!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Tell me what you are suggesting for gun control.

It is pretty funny how it always seems on this board that the opposing ideology is just the worst thing in the world. "If they had their way, the world would be in shambles, and people would be dying in the street, and killing each other. Why do they prefer such chaos when we have such perfect solutions for them? Are they stupid?"

Demonizing is key i guess.[/QUOTE]

For starters:

Renewing the assault weapons ban. Much more interested in seeing magazine capacity shrink than particular firearms halt sale/production, though.

Eliminate the "gun show" loophole - yes, even private sales should be documented. We do it with automobiles, yes?

Provide states with funds for gun buyback programs. Seems absurd, but they do have an impact.

Allow all states to implement CCW licenses, allow reciprocity between states.

I'll think of other ideas later. Have a magnificent headache right now.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']His first 2-3 minutes were well done. After that I started to tune him out really. The thing I disagree with his notion that "societal decay" as the reason for so many more mass shootings. What does that even mean? That seem like conservative double speak you get from Glen Beck and his ilk who think life was so much grander in the 40s and 50s. [/QUOTE]

I don't know, and you may want to track him down and ask him, but his idea of societal decay may be different from Glen Beck's definition seeing as how he's an immigrant. I don't know when Ong got here, but I doubt he's reminiscing fondly of 1950s America with rose colored glasses. Also, believing that societal decay is happening does not necessarily mean you believe that the past was good in all aspects.
 
Well I guess even background checks are off limits to some Senators. Even with most polling putting background checks (even at gun shows) around 85-90% in favor of the practice some are saying it could infringe on our "liberty". Orrin Hatch from Utah thinks just that.


"But for Hatch (R-Utah), even that is a move toward tyranny.

"That's the way reductions in liberty occur," Hatch told reporters outside the Senate chamber. "When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who's who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty."

Hatch argued that the current system of background checks -- which excludes some 40 percent of gun transactions -- should be refined before Congress expands that system.

"We do have a check system, and it has worked whenever they really implement it," Hatch said. "I hesitate to go beyond that. Let's implement what we already have.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/orrin-hatch-gun-background-checks_n_2593761.html


I would like to point out that part in bold could be said about the census...which is in the Constitution.
 
Oh, you missed our argument about the census? Yeah, "some" people don't like that either, for similar reasons.
 
I think it was the President of the NRA earlier who said that he was against even mere background checks for private exchanges because it was too much effort. Like a gun should be so easy to trade.

As for a gun registry that would allow the government to trace better, he said that they'd know exactly where to go when they decided to take everyone's guns away, outright or through forced buybacks. That was after someone mentioned the car registry.

He's fighting a stupid battle now instead of a reasonable battle later.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']For starters:

Renewing the assault weapons ban. Much more interested in seeing magazine capacity shrink than particular firearms halt sale/production, though.

Eliminate the "gun show" loophole - yes, even private sales should be documented. We do it with automobiles, yes?

Provide states with funds for gun buyback programs. Seems absurd, but they do have an impact.

Allow all states to implement CCW licenses, allow reciprocity between states.

I'll think of other ideas later. Have a magnificent headache right now.[/QUOTE]

Ok so now provide me with something that backs up these knee jerk reactions to a tragic school shooting.

Show me assault weapons are part of the problem you are claiming, and that there has been increased gun violence since the ban has been lifted. Same with the mags.

Show me the "gun show loophole" is part of the problem you are claiming.

Gun buyback programs doing something is debatable.

Nearly every state has CCW permits, not sure what you want here?

Now tell me, once you do away with assault weapons (you know the big scary black guns), and nearly the same amount of people die from guns next year, what are your ideas going to be? Or did you get your whale(assault weapons) and are done being up in arms, even though you have achieved very little in your supposed goal of stopping the "excessive" violence.
 
Before going there (sorry, halfway out the door this AM), I'll ask you the same thing - what, if any, policy changes would you like to see?

(also of note: I'm not concerned solely about mass shootings. I've made that *perfectly* clear on a number of occasions here. Follow along.)
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok so now provide me with something that backs up these knee jerk reactions to a tragic school shooting.

Show me assault weapons are part of the problem you are claiming, and that there has been increased gun violence since the ban has been lifted. Same with the mags.

Show me the "gun show loophole" is part of the problem you are claiming.

Gun buyback programs doing something is debatable.

Nearly every state has CCW permits, not sure what you want here?

Now tell me, once you do away with assault weapons (you know the big scary black guns), and nearly the same amount of people die from guns next year, what are your ideas going to be? Or did you get your whale(assault weapons) and are done being up in arms, even though you have achieved very little in your supposed goal of stopping the "excessive" violence.[/QUOTE]
Your problem is you want numbers and reality from the people who use emotion and lies as their motivators. Because while Sandy Hook and incidents like it account for less than a percentage of all murders in the US, every law abiding gun owner must suffer for it. Ban everything. Never mind more than half killed by guns each year are due to suicides that don't involve "assault weapons". Mental health is clearly not an issue when it comes to gun violence, not when accidental discharges are labeled in the media as gun violence.

It's a machine and you can't put it in reverse. They only see the problem from as far as they can distance themselves from it.
 
"Most crimes involving firearms are committed with non-assult type firearms"

"Oh, well then I guess we should look into banning those instead, thanks for the info."

"Nononononononononono"
 
[quote name='mykevermin'];)[/QUOTE]
You sir are the master of context. Now tell me where "six rounds per second" got started in the media from and how it got introduced 2 mass shootings later than the shooting it referenced?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top