Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

they use high security systems, walls, barriers, even hired security and secure communities ............ and then turn right around and talk about open borders and how American's don't need to have a choice in means of self defense. 

I'd think that would be an obvious view ... its not is it ?

They have told you dont have a choice in your means of self defense? 

Not sure why average Joe needs that security, but whatever.   I am sure I would have more security if I had a $1M house, $200k, or was a public figure.  

Or maybe a drug dealer, or had a stockpile of guns.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

They have told you dont have a choice in your means of self defense? 

Not sure why average Joe needs that security, but whatever.   I am sure I would have more security if I had a $1M house, $200k, or was a public figure.  

Or maybe a drug dealer, or had a stockpile of guns.... 

How many people have a Ring doorbell? 

Ten years ago very few people had home surveillance. Is it popular now because of marketing or because of need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Gun bans prohibit possession. Cigarette bans prohibit use. 

Walk into a gun free zone that also bans cigarettes, set a handgun and a pack of cigarettes on the table. Wait to see what you're charged with. 

Possession of a gun is use of a gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know what that is.  

Also dont know what that has to do with my question about whtly the obsession of how celebrities and rich folks protect themselves or why Joe Q  Public would need 5-6 lines of defense for their house.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

An assault weapon is defined by the legislation that addresses it.

created by people - inaccurate and really silly if you think about it

if there are "assault" rifles, then too must there be assault knifes, bats, hanguns, cars, hands etc

which is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

They have told you dont have a choice in your means of self defense? 

Not sure why average Joe needs that security, but whatever.   I am sure I would have more security if I had a $1M house, $200k, or was a public figure.  

 

why would you have more security ?

fear ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Possession of a gun is use of a gun. 

no

 

I've possessed several guns I never used. I even had a boat once in my possession I never used.

 

wrong again 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

no

 

I've possessed several guns I never used. I even had a boat once in my possession I never used.

 

wrong again 

You are conflating owning and possessing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

created by people - inaccurate and really silly if you think about it

if there are "assault" rifles, then too must there be assault knifes, bats, hanguns, cars, hands etc

which is it ?

The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.   It is now a legally defined term.  Arguing otherwise is ignorant and pointless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KCitons said:

So you're siting intent? Death without intending to kill.

What is the intent of a drunk driver? When a drunk driver kills someone, it is the equivalent of a stray bullet. 

 

No.  I said let me know when someone is killed with a stray knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

exactly - nobody is killed by a stray knife and a gun isn't violent

"467 people were killed with “blunt objects,” like hammers and clubs in 2017, 403 were killed with rifles, the recent FBI crime statistics show."

"Knives or cutting instruments” were used to kill 1,591 people, the 2017 crime figures show, while 403 were killed with rifles."

 

so now .... what sense is this rallying cry for banning semi-auto rifles ?

 

Please let me know when someone is killed with a stray knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

exactly - nobody is killed by a stray knife and a gun isn't violent

"467 people were killed with “blunt objects,” like hammers and clubs in 2017, 403 were killed with rifles, the recent FBI crime statistics show."

"Knives or cutting instruments” were used to kill 1,591 people, the 2017 crime figures show, while 403 were killed with rifles."

 

so now .... what sense is this rallying cry for banning semi-auto rifles ?

 

Because the factual data shows that restricting them results in a decrease in mass shooting deaths and injuries.  Since that’s a valid goal, it’s a reasonable approach.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why would you have more security ?

fear ?

More valuable stuff and/or being in the public eye.  

I get why you do it- a high % of break in are looking for drugs and guns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

You are conflating owning and possessing. 

So then the Sandy Hook shooter was okay? He didn't own the gun, his mother did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

You are conflating owning and possessing. 

Also, you missed this question a few hours ago.

3 hours ago, KCitons said:

@Politician Spock, if you went to a Conservative board, do you think they would tell you that your opinions on gun control are wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

So then the Sandy Hook shooter was okay? He didn't own the gun, his mother did.

Possession is use of a gun. Doesn't matter who owns it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

Possession is use of a gun. Doesn't matter who owns it. 

Would you rather someone possess a gun at you, or shoot a gun at you?

It's been said that the purpose (use) of a gun is to kill. How can the simple possession of a gun kill someone?

If that were true, then millions of people would die every minute due to the number of guns in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KCitons said:

@Politician Spock, if you went to a Conservative board, do you think they would tell you that your opinions on gun control are wrong?

It's possible but I doubt it. Most people, conservatives included, have no problem with training, testing and licensing requirements.

The problem is most people, conservatives included, don't understand why we can't require that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

It's possible but I doubt it. Most people, conservatives included, have no problem with training, testing and licensing requirements.

The problem is most people, conservatives included, don't understand why we can't require that. 

Beto, is that you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Would you rather someone possess a gun at you, or shoot a gun at you?

Regardless of my preference, both are still uses of a gun. 

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's been said that the purpose (use) of a gun is to kill. How can the simple possession of a gun kill someone?

If that were true, then millions of people would die every minute due to the number of guns in the world. 

One can use a gun for target practice just like one can shoot their load at porn. But we both agreed that shooting your load at pictures isn't the purpose of private parts, and by extension shooting at targets isn't the purpose of guns. 

The purpose of an object is a subset of all types of ways it can be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

It's possible but I doubt it. Most people, conservatives included, have no problem with training, testing and licensing requirements.

The problem is most people, conservatives included, don't understand why we can't require that. 

BTW - Do you have anything to back up your claims? Or is this another "because I said so" things?

I highly doubt your complete stance would be well received. It's not the training so much, as it is the licensing. Which effectively becomes a gun registry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

BTW - Do you have anything to back up your claims? Or is this another "because I said so" things?

I highly doubt your complete stance would be well received. It's not the training so much, as it is the licensing. Which effectively becomes a gun registry. 

You asked me what do I think I would experience on another board. My answer is entirely speculative. Not sure why you are expecting something more than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

You asked me what do I think I would experience on another board. My answer is entirely speculative. Not sure why you are expecting something more than that. 

No. You're first (and last) sentences are speculative. The bolded would require some type of polling to prove. 

45 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

It's possible but I doubt it. Most people, conservatives included, have no problem with training, testing and licensing requirements.

The problem is most people, conservatives included, don't understand why we can't require that. 

So, I will take that as either false or a lie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KCitons said:

No. You're first (and last) sentences are speculative. The bolded would require some type of polling to prove. 

So, I will take that as either false or a lie. 

From: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing/

Quote

Public opinion polls show that Americans strongly support licensing laws. A 2019 survey found that 77% of Americans support a law requiring a person to obtain a license from local law enforcement before buying a gun. This support includes more than two-thirds of gun owners (68%).

You've been shown numerous polls showing public support like this numerous times in this thread. I seriously don't understand why you choose to ignore it, and anything that supports arguments you are opposed to. You are the epitome of the dangers of confirmation bias. 

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

From: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing/

You've been shown numerous polls showing public support like this numerous times in this thread. I seriously don't understand why you choose to ignore it, and anything that supports arguments you are opposed to. You are the epitome of the dangers of confirmation bias. 

Actually, I've been shown left leaning sites that are bias. Of which Giffords Law Center would be considered. If SC can't post things from Fox News, then perhaps we shouldn't post things from Giffords Law Center. 

Even with that said:

Quote

Public opinion polls show that Americans strongly support licensing laws. A 2019 survey found that 77% of Americans support a law requiring a person to obtain a license from local law enforcement before buying a gun.9 This support includes more than two-thirds of gun owners (68%).10

Quote

There is nothing for the #10 footnote. It references footnote #9 which links to a Quinnipiac poll:

Voters also support 77 - 19 percent requiring individuals to obtain a license before being able to purchase a gun.

Voters also support 63 - 33 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Again, Republicans and gun owners are the only listed groups opposed, while voters in gun households are divided

 

We don't get a breakdown for the voter support on licensing. Does that meant that Republicans and gun owners were the only listed groups that oppose? Which makes me question your comment:

1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

It's possible but I doubt it. Most people, conservatives included, have no problem with training, testing and licensing requirements.

The problem is most people, conservatives included, don't understand why we can't require that. 

 It mentions nothing about training or testing. 

Giffords Law Center has also come under fire for the credibility of some of their reports. I don't blame them for their bias, it's named after a shooting victim. But, that doesn't mean I have to believe their reporting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-15a6ac71b5dd0189892e79a4b4eeea7f

click link

 

tell me which is "assault" and which isn't and why

 

I'll wait

what state are we in?   In Washington State, they're all classified as "assault rifles" since the Washington legislature did not want there to be any way to get around the law by modifying a weapon or a component to avoid the application of the law.     The 1994 federal restriction defined assault weapons by component, similar to Connecticut's current law:

Quote

 

In Connecticut, most but not all would be classified as "assault weapons" under the following definitions and identifications:

Connecticut defines an “assault weapon” as:

Any “selective-fire” firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic or “burst fire” at the option of the user;3

Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle, regardless of the date produced, that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:  1) A folding or telescoping stock; 2) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or other stock that would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing; 3) A forward pistol grip; 4) A flash suppressor; or 5) A grenade or flare launcher;4

A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:  1) The ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside the pistol grip; 2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer; 3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm without being burned (except a slide that encloses the barrel); or 4) A second hand grip;5

A semi-automatic shotgun that has both of the following features:  1) A folding or telescoping stock; or 2) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;6

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has:  1) a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or 2) an overall length of less than 30 inches;7

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the ability to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;8

A semiautomatic shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine; or9

A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.10

Specific Prohibited Weapons

Connecticut bans the following specifically named semi-automatic firearms:

Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson “Linda” Pistol.11

Connecticut bans the following semiautomatic centerfire rifles, or copies or duplicates of such rifles with their capability, that were in production before or on June 18, 2013:

AK 47; AK 74, AKM, AKS-74U, ARM, MAADI AK 47, MAK90, MISR, NHM90; NHM91, Norinco 56, 56S, 84S and 86S, Poly Technologies AKS and AK47, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, WASR-10, WUM, Rock River Arms LAR-47; Vector Arms AK-47; AR-10; AR-15; Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster XM15, Bushmaster ACR Rifles, Bushmaster MOE Rifles; Colt Match Target Rifles; Armalite M15; Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8 and K9 Rifles; DPMS Tactical Rifles; Smith and Wesson M&P15 Rifles; Rock River Arms LAR-15; Doublestar AR Rifles; Barrett REC7; Beretta Storm; Calico Liberty 50, 50 Tactical, 100, 100 Tactical, I, I Tactical, II and II Tactical Rifles; Hi-Point Carbine Rifles; HK-PSG-1; Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU Rifles, and RFB; Remington Tactical Rifle Model 7615; SAR-8, SAR-4800 and SR9; SLG 95; SLR 95 or 96; TNW M230 and M2HB; Vector Arms UZI, Galil and Galil Sporter; Daewoo AR 100 and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN 308 Match and L1A1 Sporter; HK USC; IZHMASH Saiga AK; SIG Sauer 551-A1, 556, 516, 716 and M400 Rifles; Valmet M62S, M71S and M78S; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine; and Barrett M107A1.12

Connecticut also bans the following specified semiautomatic pistols, or copies or duplicates of such pistols with their capability, that were in production prior to or on June 18, 2013:

Centurion 39 AK; Draco AK-47; HCR AK-47; IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47; Mini-Draco AK-47; Yugo Krebs Krink; American Spirit AR-15; Bushmaster Carbon 15; Doublestar Corporation AR; DPMS AR-15; Olympic Arms AR-15; Rock River Arms LAR 15; Calico Liberty III and III Tactical Pistols; Masterpiece Arms MPA Pistols and Velocity Arms VMA Pistols; Intratec TEC-DC9 and AB-10; Colefire Magnum; German Sport 522 PK and Chiappa Firearms Mfour-22; DSA SA58 PKP FAL; I.O. Inc. PPS-43C; Kel-Tec PLR-16 Pistol; Sig Sauer P516 and P556 pistols; and Thompson TA5 pistols.13

Finally, Connecticut bans all IZHMASH Saiga 12 shotguns or copies or duplicates with the capability of such shotguns that were in production before or on June 18, 2013.14

 

We could go through all of the legislation in the country, but we don't need to.    Assault weapons are what they are defined to be by applicable legislation.  That is undeniably true.    Your ridiculous claim that there is no such thing is ignorant and false.   You have no clue how laws work, and demonstrate it every day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 of those are hunting rifles - always have been, they're not military, they're not assault, they're a winchester and a remington hunting rifle that have been used deer hunting for a long time. 

the other ... is the same caliber, shoots very much the same way and is also a solid deer rifle .... it just looks different

those 2 hunting rifles are now "assault" and according to the liberal left needs banned - at least we're finally starting to see the honesty and the ignorance in what things are. The liberal left is trying to change definitions to fit their needs. -fish- has shown us that at least and Beto and the crowds saying ban and applauding 

 

at least we're seeing truth's now instead of lies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

2 of those are hunting rifles - always have been, they're not military, they're not assault, they're a winchester and a remington hunting rifle that have been used deer hunting for a long time. 

the other ... is the same caliber, shoots very much the same way and is also a solid deer rifle .... it just looks different

those 2 hunting rifles are now "assault" and according to the liberal left needs banned - at least we're finally starting to see the honesty and the ignorance in what things are. The liberal left is trying to change definitions to fit their needs. -fish- has shown us that at least and Beto and the crowds saying ban and applauding 

 

at least we're seeing truth's now instead of lies

Now you are arguing the definition. so at least we have progress that you agree there is a definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Now you are arguing the definition. so at least we have progress that you agree there is a definition.

they can relabeled dilithium crystal powered phasers .... that doesn't mean they are

"weapons of war" is another catch phrase Beto and the radical left are trying to coin ... of course, knives and handguns have always been used in war, Jeep's too ... ban all those?

 

its ridiculous and many people just blindly follow along :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/media/beto-orourke-gun-ban-columbine-survivor

 

Columbine survivor ... that the media cold shouldered when they found out he's not for gun bans

"

"It's insulting and dangerous," he said earlier in the interview. "You're removing the means of protection for millions and millions of law-abiding Americans. I think his ban is misplaced.

"It goes after the wrong people and it goes after the wrong issues," Todd continued. "The law-abiding citizens in this country aren't the problem. There's an element that is a problem. And I think we need to address the realities of mental health and other issues. And the reality is that there's evil in this world.""

 

truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

As has been said numerous times in this thread and others, the goal is to reduces incidents, not eliminate incidents, as elimination is impossible to achieve.

Requiring licensing for purchasing and consuming alcohol would reduce incidents. 

false

the goal is NOT to reduce incidents at all ... the goal is to force violent people to use handguns and shotguns (by taking semi-auto rifles away)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

More valuable stuff and/or being in the public eye.  

I get why you do it- a high % of break in are looking for drugs and guns.  

that's true to a degree .... you have people breaking in for valuables to sell for drugs, maybe even break in's looking for guns .... then you have some people who break in to rape and murder too. I mean there are many reasons I guess ... bottom line when these criminals come, when violence is there ..... who's going to stop them ?

millions of incidents of assault and rape, attacks and thefts and break in's ...... just sit back and thank God we have signs and laws saying they can't do what they're doing ? i think we know that's not going to work, don't we ?

rare is someone attacked because they're in the public eye .... I am curious if there is any proof wealthier people get robbed more? I don't know .... I'd actually say not since they afford better security but I dunno

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll suggest a compromise. 

A full ban of semi automatic weapons, including a mandatory buyback. But the 2nd Amendment is changed to identify and give absolute protection for revolvers and other rifles/shotguns (pump, lever, bolt).  There will never be a chance for a slippery slope. Non semi automatic rifles that have removable magazines would be grandfathered in. All new rifles would be manufactured without removable magazines. But, this means that new designs may allow a gun to hold more that 10 rounds. 

If the Dems are concerned that semi automatic weapons are the main factor in mass shootings, then they would get what they want. Gun owners would be able to replace their semi automatic weapons with other models and not worry about the government taking any of them in the future. 

Would anyone agree to this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically, it is very stupid IMO for Trump to hem and haw and avoid commitment rather than push for a background check law. He thinks he’s going to lose part of the base- he isn’t. They’re with him no matter what. 

And look what he would gain: he might make an inroads in the suburbs, which he absolutely has to in order to be re-elected. He takes away a big issue from the Democrats, or even better for him, puts the Republicans in the role of moderates and the Dems in the role of extremists, playing the Beto tape over and over. 

Thankfully he doesn’t get any of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Politically, it is very stupid IMO for Trump to hem and haw and avoid commitment rather than push for a background check law. He thinks he’s going to lose part of the base- he isn’t. They’re with him no matter what. 

And look what he would gain: he might make an inroads in the suburbs, which he absolutely has to in order to be re-elected. He takes away a big issue from the Democrats, or even better for him, puts the Republicans in the role of moderates and the Dems in the role of extremists, playing the Beto tape over and over. 

Thankfully he doesn’t get any of this. 

Then you're happy that he's not pushing for the background check law?

Your posting is very confusing. Seems like your hedging your bets for a later date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Then you're happy that he's not pushing for the background check law?

Your posting is very confusing. Seems like your hedging your bets for a later date.

No. My last comment was in terms of the election. I’m glad he’s clueless because I want him to lose. 

But given the choice I would rather see him push for universal background checks so that we could get it passed- that’s more important. We can worry about the election later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that's true to a degree .... you have people breaking in for valuables to sell for drugs, maybe even break in's looking for guns .... then you have some people who break in to rape and murder too. I mean there are many reasons I guess ... bottom line when these criminals come, when violence is there ..... who's going to stop them ?

millions of incidents of assault and rape, attacks and thefts and break in's ...... just sit back and thank God we have signs and laws saying they can't do what they're doing ? i think we know that's not going to work, don't we ?

rare is someone attacked because they're in the public eye .... I am curious if there is any proof wealthier people get robbed more? I don't know .... I'd actually say not since they afford better security but I dunno

 

I am guessing that they get a little more attention, creeps, death threats, stalkers, etc..  than Joe Q. Public does.   I get they would have a couple more lines of protection than I would, or I would expect the average person to have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

I am guessing that they get a little more attention, creeps, death threats, stalkers, etc..  than Joe Q. Public does.   I get they would have a couple more lines of protection than I would, or I would expect the average person to have.  

that's a reasonable thought, I don't disagree with it although with all the above comes better security etc .... risk/reward 

my point all along was most people have several lawyers of protection for their property and lives. that some of us want to have guns .... that's our constitutional right and if I want a handgun, shotgun or semi-auto rifle that's my business and my choices

not -fish's or the radical liberal lefties of the world 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/beto-orourke-gun-ban-columbine-survivor

 

Columbine survivor ... that the media cold shouldered when they found out he's not for gun bans

"

"It's insulting and dangerous," he said earlier in the interview. "You're removing the means of protection for millions and millions of law-abiding Americans. I think his ban is misplaced.

"It goes after the wrong people and it goes after the wrong issues," Todd continued. "The law-abiding citizens in this country aren't the problem. There's an element that is a problem. And I think we need to address the realities of mental health and other issues. And the reality is that there's evil in this world.""

 

truth

I respect his right to hold this opinion

Edited by toshiba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

that's a reasonable thought, I don't disagree with it although with all the above comes better security etc .... risk/reward 

my point all along was most people have several lawyers of protection for their property and lives. that some of us want to have guns .... that's our constitutional right and if I want a handgun, shotgun or semi-auto rifle that's my business and my choices

not -fish's or the radical liberal lefties of the world 

 

Please quote every time I've ever advocated for a gun ban of any kind.   Why do you keep lying about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Please quote every time I've ever advocated for a gun ban of any kind.   Why do you keep lying about this.

lets say 50 million American's own 100 million semi-auto rifles

you ok with that right ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

that's a reasonable thought, I don't disagree with it although with all the above comes better security etc .... risk/reward 

my point all along was most people have several lawyers of protection for their property and lives. that some of us want to have guns .... that's our constitutional right and if I want a handgun, shotgun or semi-auto rifle that's my business and my choices

not -fish's or the radical liberal lefties of the world 

 

The problem is this gets talked about because your fence, alarm, doorlock, security lights stay at your house and only effect your family or somebody breaking into your house.  

Guns and dogs on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

lets say 50 million American's own 100 million semi-auto rifles

you ok with that right ? 

I think it’s incredibly stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’ve advocated for a gun ban of any kind.  You keep lying and saying I’m trying to take your guns.  Show me any post where I advocated for a gun ban.  Or stop lying.

i totally understand why some people want to ban assault weapons.  It’s just not the approach I would take.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

The problem is this gets talked about because your fence, alarm, doorlock, security lights stay at your house and only effect your family or somebody breaking into your house.  

Guns and dogs on the other hand...

actually not so much

60 million homes have guns? 80 million today? 400 million total?

if they were a problem - the ones law abiding people have - I think you'd know it, don't you ?

its the criminals and violent people ... those are what needs talked about, don't you think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

I think it’s incredibly stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’ve advocated for a gun ban of any kind.  You keep lying and saying I’m trying to take your guns.  Show me any post where I advocated for a gun ban.  Or stop lying.

i totally understand why some people want to ban assault weapons.  It’s just not the approach I would take.

there are no assault weapons - there are semi-auto rifles that people use to hunt and for self defense ..... you don't want to take those do you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

actually not so much

60 million homes have guns? 80 million today? 400 million total?

if they were a problem - the ones law abiding people have - I think you'd know it, don't you ?

its the criminals and violent people ... those are what needs talked about, don't you think ?

No, because there are plenty of law abiding and well intentioned people that do stupid things and put other people in danger - and to me that means people walking around with guns,  their guns getting used in crimes, etc... 

It doesn't matter to me what we are talking about, do what you want at home.  When it starts effecting the public as a whole, then I think it needs to be talked about and addressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 2:59 PM, -fish- said:

nirvana fallacy.

Explain? Where is the fallacy in the statement?

Edited by zDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, because there are plenty of law abiding and well intentioned people that do stupid things and put other people in danger - and to me that means people walking around with guns,  their guns getting used in crimes, etc... 

It doesn't matter to me what we are talking about, do what you want at home.  When it starts effecting the public as a whole, then I think it needs to be talked about and addressed.  

you just covered cigarettes, opioids, automobiles, obesity and other things that people die from ......... are taking away those things the solution ? no ? why not ?

take away the violent people that use guns that are known criminals, that shouldn't have gotten guns etc ... how many are actually legal, law abiding people who never did anything wrong but all of a sudden snapped and killed people ?

10% ?  5%  ?

 

I don't think its high - these people killing others are already known threats to society - its not common for one of the tens of millions of gun owners to actually go crazy and kill 

We, the legal law abiding gun owners are NOT THE PROBLEM. Please focus the attention on the criminals, it'd sure help things a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.