***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

The thing is, we have the NRA who fights tooth and nail over everything gun related. So if it is a question between no semi automatic rifles or no restrictions, I'm going with no guns. The NRA actually should be heading the laws so that they can get a seat at the table and get the verbiage they want in the laws.

I've been irrational and upset b/c this is just upsetting. So perhaps banning semi-assault rifles isn't the prudent thing to do but I think everyone obviously agrees that something needs to be done and the system appears somewhat broken. Now it is just agreeing what we should do but I hope/think this will push this to the forefront b/c something isn't working.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

Well actually, she got the guns legally. So if these guns weren't legal to obtain, she would have no access to these guns. It would be hypothesis to the fact fallacy to suggest otherwise that he would get a gun either way. When stolen guns are used in crimes, that goes against gun control b/c those guys wouldn't be regulated. But if she couldn't legally get these guns, they aren't used today. Additionally, if we held persons more liable for their guns, perhaps access to these guns wouldn't be so easy.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

To be fair, we already have that applied to alcohol. There is no Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

We have much stricter gun laws than alcohol laws. I would agrue that we have a constitutional right to drink at this time since it took prohibition to outlaw it.

Prohibition did not make drinking illegal. It made making, transporting and selling alcohol illegal. Also, it did not "take" an amendment to outlaw it. We have no amendment outlawing marijuana or other drugs.

I guess I learned about the 18th Amendment for nothing.

There are plenty of reasons to learn about the 18th Amendment. However, a Constitutional Amendment was not the only route by which the sale or production of alcohol could have been made illegal. In fact, there were states that enacted prohibition before the Constitutional Amendment was ratified. A state can not enact complete gun prohibition anymore than it can enforce a voting age of 21 or allow slavery.

 

[butcher boy]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

 

[RCon]

Prohibition did not make drinking illegal. It made making, transporting and selling alcohol illegal. Also, it did not "take" an amendment to outlaw it. We have no amendment outlawing marijuana or other drugs.

Back when we took the Commerce Clause seriously, yes, it did take an amendment to make alcohol illegal. Now that the Commerce Clause is effectively a rubber stamp, Congress could probably outlaw alcohol without an amendment. They could also effectively outlaw it by taking away funding from states that refused to outlaw it themselves.

 

[Ilov80s]

Prohibition did not make drinking illegal. It made making, transporting and selling alcohol illegal. Also, it did not "take" an amendment to outlaw it. We have no amendment outlawing marijuana or other drugs.

Back when we took the Commerce Clause seriously, yes, it did take an amendment to make alcohol illegal. Now that the Commerce Clause is effectively a rubber stamp, Congress could probably outlaw alcohol without an amendment. They could also effectively outlaw it by taking away funding from states that refused to outlaw it themselves.

Do they even need to do that? Couldn't they just make alcohol a Schedule 1 drug and automatically make it illegal to produce, buy, sell, transport, possess?

 

[lod01]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

I am sorry, I thought you were talking about some form of legislation regulating which people could purchase a gun. I missed the sarcasm.I disagree that these events are not preventable. I agree it isn't preventable with simple 1 law solutions, but through systemic changes, these acts can be minimized.

 

[jamny]

FTR: I'm for an assault weapons ban and strict background check and wait time to buy guns.

 

[lod01]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

Well actually, she got the guns legally. So if these guns weren't legal to obtain, she would have no access to these guns. It would be hypothesis to the fact fallacy to suggest otherwise that he would get a gun either way. When stolen guns are used in crimes, that goes against gun control b/c those guys wouldn't be regulated. But if she couldn't legally get these guns, they aren't used today. Additionally, if we held persons more liable for their guns, perhaps access to these guns wouldn't be so easy.

Would not have stopped this guy unless ALL guns are banned. Without a total ban, she would have had legal guns. He would have used those legal guns to commit his mass murder. This, once again is impossible to stop via ANY gun control. Only dreamers think otherwise. I can already hear it. 'Well she wouldn't have bought just a .357 for protection if that was all that was legal'.

 

[17seconds]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

You already know how the son got a hold of the guns?

If the media has that part correct, he shot his mom in the face with her guns first. If that is indeed correct, you have no solution for it and thus this debate is worthless.I am no fan of these guns that were apparently used but gun control won't solve ####. The phrase if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns is true.

Only outlaws will have guns but there will be fewer outlaws with guns.If you outlaw guns, then far fewer teenagers will have access to guns because very few parents will have guns.This is really not that complicated. If there are millions of guns out there in the general population, it is easier for a crazy person to get a gun.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

Well actually, she got the guns legally. So if these guns weren't legal to obtain, she would have no access to these guns. It would be hypothesis to the fact fallacy to suggest otherwise that he would get a gun either way. When stolen guns are used in crimes, that goes against gun control b/c those guys wouldn't be regulated. But if she couldn't legally get these guns, they aren't used today. Additionally, if we held persons more liable for their guns, perhaps access to these guns wouldn't be so easy.

Would not have stopped this guy unless ALL guns are banned. Without a total ban, she would have had legal guns. He would have used those legal guns to commit his mass murder. This, once again is impossible to stop via ANY gun control. Only dreamers think otherwise. I can already hear it. 'Well she wouldn't have bought just a .357 for protection if that was all that was legal'.

Yep. Gun laws are treating the symptoms, not the cause. However, that does not automatically mean no gun law reform is needed. Both can exist.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Seems like Israel does a pretty good job of dealing with guns based on that article, which is the only thing I know about their gun policy. Guns are not evil, but I think it's clear that as a country we're doing something wrong compared to the rest of the world that doesn't seem to have this shooting problem that we do.

Well look here, we have the same views and you didn't even have to be a jag about it.

I'll "try and" do better next time for you

I failed my Junior year of English.

 

[lod01]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Like I said earlier, without 100% banning fo guns, this still happens. Nothing says otherwise. Best result with gun control is that he is firing a say a .357 revolver and has to reload at 6 shots or whatever the legal gun limit is. That would lessen the casulties but the crime would still be committed. I'm not against a law resticting types of guns (it would probably be a good idea) but at this point with them already out there, only the outlaws will then have the most powerful guns....and this still happens.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

Well actually, she got the guns legally. So if these guns weren't legal to obtain, she would have no access to these guns. It would be hypothesis to the fact fallacy to suggest otherwise that he would get a gun either way. When stolen guns are used in crimes, that goes against gun control b/c those guys wouldn't be regulated. But if she couldn't legally get these guns, they aren't used today. Additionally, if we held persons more liable for their guns, perhaps access to these guns wouldn't be so easy.

Would not have stopped this guy unless ALL guns are banned. Without a total ban, she would have had legal guns. He would have used those legal guns to commit his mass murder. This, once again is impossible to stop via ANY gun control. Only dreamers think otherwise. I can already hear it. 'Well she wouldn't have bought just a .357 for protection if that was all that was legal'.

Yep. Gun laws are treating the symptoms, not the cause. However, that does not automatically mean no gun law reform is needed. Both can exist.

Then what is the cause? And spare me the "not enough guns" rhetoric. Not that you seem like the guy who would go there but just saving us some time. Why doesn't this happen in foreign countries where guns are non-existent? Sure, they still have massacres, we can't stop them all, but do they have them on this level? People always bring up knives, should we ban them. Well which would you rather your attacker have? A knife or a gun? I'd prefer a knife b/c there is no way a kid with a knife is able to kill 20 students without being subdued. Someone linked the Chinese article about a knife attack. Nobody died and the guy was subdued by security guards. Sounds like a better outcome than here doesn't it?Perhaps I am too simplistic with this but I look at gun crime here and abroad and see the staggering difference. Then see that we have one of if not the most lax rules regarding guns of all OECD countries and wonder if our gun violence has just a tiny bit to do with that?

 

[butcher boy]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Defining crazy would be up to the lawmakers, but I do think it's something that can be done if that's what you're getting at. Bottom line, gun ownership should be a very, very exclusive priviledge.

 

[Clifford]

So anger and questioning God are not appropriate emotions and thoughts today?

Not trying to offend, but your posts display a high level of anger every day.

None taken. I know why you think that.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Maybe I am also missing your sarcasm too, but a person with aspbergers/autism is not crazy by default. I appreciated your defense of my statement, but as someone that works with both crazy people and people with autism/aspbergers, I strongly disagree with your statement.

 

[simey]

Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy.

Autism and/or Aspergers does not = crazy.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Defining crazy would be up to the lawmakers, but I do think it's something that can be done if that's what you're getting at. Bottom line, gun ownership should be a very, very exclusive priviledge.

Problem #1, lawmakers already have defined insanity, "a condition that renders the affected person unfit to enjoy liberty of action, because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to himself and others; insanity denotes, by extension, a degree of mental illness that negates legal responsibility for one's actions". That definition says "crazy" people should not have full freedom and do not hold legal responsibility for their actions. How does one prove their housemates deserve their full freedoms and are legally responsible for their actions? How does an enforcement agency prove otherwise?

 

[butcher boy]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Defining crazy would be up to the lawmakers, but I do think it's something that can be done if that's what you're getting at. Bottom line, gun ownership should be a very, very exclusive priviledge.

Problem #1, lawmakers already have defined insanity, "a condition that renders the affected person unfit to enjoy liberty of action, because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to himself and others; insanity denotes, by extension, a degree of mental illness that negates legal responsibility for one's actions". That definition says "crazy" people should not have full freedom and do not hold legal responsibility for their actions. How does one prove their housemates deserve their full freedoms and are legally responsible for their actions? How does an enforcement agency prove otherwise?

Yeah I get this. My kneejerk response is basically "too bad." Anyone on the fence like this gets denied. Shooting metal pellets at things might be a fun hobby but not at the expense of 20 dead kindergarteners. I just feel like something drastic has to happen. Everytime this happens there's always discussion along the lines of something something Constitution, and something something full freedom, and then it dies and a month later there's another masacre.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Like I said earlier, without 100% banning fo guns, this still happens. Nothing says otherwise. Best result with gun control is that he is firing a say a .357 revolver and has to reload at 6 shots or whatever the legal gun limit is. That would lessen the casulties but the crime would still be committed. I'm not against a law resticting types of guns (it would probably be a good idea) but at this point with them already out there, only the outlaws will then have the most powerful guns....and this still happens.

Well the point is, how did the mom obtain the guns? She did so legally, yes. But so did James Holmes. I would think we need to put more restrictions on one's ability to obtain said guns in light of what happens. Not completely banning all guns necessary. Additionally, some on here have brought up holding gun owners liable for their gun. This doesn't mean that if it is stolen out a locked glove box or safe they should necessarily be liable. But if they leave it in plain sight and it is stolen, they should be liable. If they let a friend borrow it or do a straw purchase, they should be very liable. As far as the revolver. I doubt he is able to succeed with the magnitude of this plot with a revolver. He wouldn't have had the time to reload. How long would it take to get off 100 shots with a 6 shot revolver? I'd probably still be there trying to reload after dropping bullets in the heat of the moment. Finally, as far as the outlaws having more powerful guns. I don't see the issue here. They already have more powerful guns. I'm sure the outlaws have automatic assault rifles. And I'm not sure why it matters what the outlaws have as long as police have equivalent power.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Maybe I am also missing your sarcasm too, but a person with aspbergers/autism is not crazy by default. I appreciated your defense of my statement, but as someone that works with both crazy people and people with autism/aspbergers, I strongly disagree with your statement.

Well his brother said he was autistic and had a personality disorder. So I guess I should have mentioned that part. I just didn't want to quote the whole thing b/c the brother didn't seem to know exactly what was wrong but that something was obviously wrong. But that said, it would be impossible to regulate this. You have all the Dr. Drews on here talking about missed signs then the people that knew him saying they couldn't believe it. Fact is, you could pick through all of us and find something negative/crazy that we might have said and done and run with that. People always go on their facebook/twitter and look for posts that might be a sign. Well I can't tell you all the times I've seen depressed/fed up with life quotes on facebook.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Maybe I am also missing your sarcasm too, but a person with aspbergers/autism is not crazy by default. I appreciated your defense of my statement, but as someone that works with both crazy people and people with autism/aspbergers, I strongly disagree with your statement.

Well his brother said he was autistic and had a personality disorder. So I guess I should have mentioned that part. I just didn't want to quote the whole thing b/c the brother didn't seem to know exactly what was wrong but that something was obviously wrong. But that said, it would be impossible to regulate this. You have all the Dr. Drews on here talking about missed signs then the people that knew him saying they couldn't believe it. Fact is, you could pick through all of us and find something negative/crazy that we might have said and done and run with that. People always go on their facebook/twitter and look for posts that might be a sign. Well I can't tell you all the times I've seen depressed/fed up with life quotes on facebook.

I am educated and work in special education with a major in emotional impairments, but am not a psychologist. However, there is so much overlap between PD and ASD, that we are getting into an area that I believe even psychologists would disagree on. This is too much speculation for me. Regardless, being diagnosed with both autism and PD, is not enough to have you labeled legally "crazy".

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Defining crazy would be up to the lawmakers, but I do think it's something that can be done if that's what you're getting at. Bottom line, gun ownership should be a very, very exclusive priviledge.

Problem #1, lawmakers already have defined insanity, "a condition that renders the affected person unfit to enjoy liberty of action, because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to himself and others; insanity denotes, by extension, a degree of mental illness that negates legal responsibility for one's actions". That definition says "crazy" people should not have full freedom and do not hold legal responsibility for their actions. How does one prove their housemates deserve their full freedoms and are legally responsible for their actions? How does an enforcement agency prove otherwise?

Yeah I get this. My kneejerk response is basically "too bad." Anyone on the fence like this gets denied. Shooting metal pellets at things might be a fun hobby but not at the expense of 20 dead kindergarteners. I just feel like something drastic has to happen. Everytime this happens there's always discussion along the lines of something something Constitution, and something something full freedom, and then it dies and a month later there's another masacre.

Where do we build the fence at? Something drastic does need to happen. Gun law isn't drastic. Gun laws are the same old ( drug laws, prohibition,etc)

 

[MAC_32]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

 

[Ilov80s]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

 

[Abraham]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

The REDCOATS are coming!!

Exactly.

 

[sporthenry]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Maybe I am also missing your sarcasm too, but a person with aspbergers/autism is not crazy by default. I appreciated your defense of my statement, but as someone that works with both crazy people and people with autism/aspbergers, I strongly disagree with your statement.

Well his brother said he was autistic and had a personality disorder. So I guess I should have mentioned that part. I just didn't want to quote the whole thing b/c the brother didn't seem to know exactly what was wrong but that something was obviously wrong. But that said, it would be impossible to regulate this. You have all the Dr. Drews on here talking about missed signs then the people that knew him saying they couldn't believe it. Fact is, you could pick through all of us and find something negative/crazy that we might have said and done and run with that. People always go on their facebook/twitter and look for posts that might be a sign. Well I can't tell you all the times I've seen depressed/fed up with life quotes on facebook.

I am educated and work in special education with a major in emotional impairments, but am not a psychologist. However, there is so much overlap between PD and ASD, that we are getting into an area that I believe even psychologists would disagree on. This is too much speculation for me. Regardless, being diagnosed with both autism and PD, is not enough to have you labeled legally "crazy".

Well I wasn't trying to get into a politically correct or even a science debate. Just saying even if isn't crazy, I think most wouldn't necessarily mind if autistic people couldn't get guns.

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

One way would be to not give a license to someone who has "bat#### crazy" people living in the household. Yeah, Strict gun control would have to be extremely strict. Sorry if this means some people can't enjoy their hobby of killing animals or shooting metal at stationary targets.

What evidence was there that her son was crazy? Also, please define crazy in terms that are enforceable.

Normal people don't do this, maybe? Dude, I'm explaining that this could not be stopped with any form of gun control. This punk, 'crazy' or not, was going to do this.

The point he is making is that, was it diagnosed before hand or are we just calling him crazy b/c he did this. Truth is, his brother said he was autistic/had aspergers or something along those lines so he was indeed crazy. The problem with the whole talk of mental health is that even when you get past privacy laws, they are tough to regulate. Yes, some of these people are truly nuts. But others are fairly normal human beings. It is easy to play Monday morning QB and look at all the small things someone does and say they are signs but at the time of his shooting, Holmes didn't really seem that crazy with his actions beforehand. People tried to put the pieces together but if everyone who showed any inkling of depression/craziness were counseled, we'd need more psychiatrists. Heck, I'm sure there were people who think/though I was weird or depressed at one time so I just don't think it would be that easy to weed out the crazy ones like Holmes. As far as your original claim that gun control wouldn't have stopped this. If the mom didn't have a gun, would this happen. Again, you are working under the hypotheses contrary to the fact fallacy that this would have happened regardless. How would he have gotten a gun? If he tried to stab 26 people, do you think he would have been successful? Now we don't know all the details, such as if this was planned or spur of the moment, but if this was heat of the moment, he would not had time to build a bomb. Perhaps that is why I am so against guns, b/c they allow things in the heat of the moment to get out of hands.

Maybe I am also missing your sarcasm too, but a person with aspbergers/autism is not crazy by default. I appreciated your defense of my statement, but as someone that works with both crazy people and people with autism/aspbergers, I strongly disagree with your statement.

Well his brother said he was autistic and had a personality disorder. So I guess I should have mentioned that part. I just didn't want to quote the whole thing b/c the brother didn't seem to know exactly what was wrong but that something was obviously wrong. But that said, it would be impossible to regulate this. You have all the Dr. Drews on here talking about missed signs then the people that knew him saying they couldn't believe it. Fact is, you could pick through all of us and find something negative/crazy that we might have said and done and run with that. People always go on their facebook/twitter and look for posts that might be a sign. Well I can't tell you all the times I've seen depressed/fed up with life quotes on facebook.

I am educated and work in special education with a major in emotional impairments, but am not a psychologist. However, there is so much overlap between PD and ASD, that we are getting into an area that I believe even psychologists would disagree on. This is too much speculation for me. Regardless, being diagnosed with both autism and PD, is not enough to have you labeled legally "crazy".

Well I wasn't trying to get into a politically correct or even a science debate. Just saying even if isn't crazy, I think most wouldn't necessarily mind if autistic people couldn't get guns.

Well, some people with autism might mind that.

 

[jamny]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

 

[MAC_32]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

You could have just said I can't, or nothing.

 

[MAC_32]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

Yes, you could. Still, no good reason above for a civilian to own a gun.

 

[Ilov80s]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

Yes, you could. Still, no good reason above for a civilian to own a gun.

We could give you reasons, but you will never find a reason good. It is just a pointless debate. It does not mean you are right or wrong, just inflexible on this topic.

 

[Otis]

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.

There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.

YWIA

 

[Otis]

But I like it!!! And it's cool and my right!11

####### morons.

 

[MAC_32]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

Yes, you could. Still, no good reason above for a civilian to own a gun.

We could give you reasons, but you will never find a reason good. It is just a pointless debate. It does not mean you are right or wrong, just inflexible on this topic.

Probably correct, just shows me pro gun people are only pro gun because they want to own one and not because they think it's a good thing for society.

 

[sporthenry]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

I beg to differ. I have no idea how to make a pipe bomb and I've taken college science classes. But I figured out how to operate a gun at a range after only shooting a BB gun before. In order to build a pipe bomb, you presumably have to go online and post in forums which are monitored by the DHS. Then you have to proceed and buy stuff for pipe bombs. I'm sure you can make one with relatively most homemade stuff but it would still be difficult, the guarantee of success that you actually built correctly aren't 100% and perhaps most importantly, you have to plan it out. We don't know how this went down but some gun crimes seem to be spur of the moment and even massacres like this seem to be that people snap. Guns don't really give you a chance to sit back and think. Building a pipe bomb, you have to go through all the steps which would be a deterrent in itself. Sure it wouldn't stop people like Columbine who planned for it, but it would stop other senseless crimes which happen at a moment's notice.

 

[jamny]

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

How about the people who were able to defend their property against armed looters after Sandy because they had a gun?

 

[Otis]

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

How about the people who were able to defend their property against armed looters after Sandy because they had a gun?

Yeah there was tons of that. THANK GOODNESS FOR THOSE GUNS!! SAVED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FROM HAVING THEIR BOATS LOOTED!!Do the words "trade-off" sound like Chinese to you? Or can you make sense of them? Try hard.

 

[jamny]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

I beg to differ. I have no idea how to make a pipe bomb and I've taken college science classes. But I figured out how to operate a gun at a range after only shooting a BB gun before. In order to build a pipe bomb, you presumably have to go online and post in forums which are monitored by the DHS. Then you have to proceed and buy stuff for pipe bombs. I'm sure you can make one with relatively most homemade stuff but it would still be difficult, the guarantee of success that you actually built correctly aren't 100% and perhaps most importantly, you have to plan it out. We don't know how this went down but some gun crimes seem to be spur of the moment and even massacres like this seem to be that people snap. Guns don't really give you a chance to sit back and think. Building a pipe bomb, you have to go through all the steps which would be a deterrent in itself. Sure it wouldn't stop people like Columbine who planned for it, but it would stop other senseless crimes which happen at a moment's notice.

Me and my friends made a pipe bomb long before the internet and blew it up in a cemetary. I'm sure there are much more detailed instructions nowadays.

 

[Otis]

"What about that time the aliens came down and Will Smith helped save the world with guns?!??!?!?!?!"

I'm completely ####### surrounded in this life by half-wits. I'm certain of it.

 

[Otis]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

I beg to differ. I have no idea how to make a pipe bomb and I've taken college science classes. But I figured out how to operate a gun at a range after only shooting a BB gun before. In order to build a pipe bomb, you presumably have to go online and post in forums which are monitored by the DHS. Then you have to proceed and buy stuff for pipe bombs. I'm sure you can make one with relatively most homemade stuff but it would still be difficult, the guarantee of success that you actually built correctly aren't 100% and perhaps most importantly, you have to plan it out. We don't know how this went down but some gun crimes seem to be spur of the moment and even massacres like this seem to be that people snap. Guns don't really give you a chance to sit back and think. Building a pipe bomb, you have to go through all the steps which would be a deterrent in itself. Sure it wouldn't stop people like Columbine who planned for it, but it would stop other senseless crimes which happen at a moment's notice.

Me and my friends made a pipe bomb long before the internet and blew it up in a cemetary. I'm sure there are much more detailed instructions nowadays.

You guys were a pretty neat crowd.

 

[drfeelgood]

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.

There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.

YWIA

Always the attention whore aren't you?

 

[Ilov80s]

For the record, I have never made a pipe bomb nor shot a gun.

 

[sporthenry]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Since you said a good reason and good would be totally subjective and based on your opinions (which are anti gun) I suspect you are waiting on the impossible.

Let's keep talking about the how and not the why. You could just as easily throw a homemade pipe bomb into a classroom.

I beg to differ. I have no idea how to make a pipe bomb and I've taken college science classes. But I figured out how to operate a gun at a range after only shooting a BB gun before. In order to build a pipe bomb, you presumably have to go online and post in forums which are monitored by the DHS. Then you have to proceed and buy stuff for pipe bombs. I'm sure you can make one with relatively most homemade stuff but it would still be difficult, the guarantee of success that you actually built correctly aren't 100% and perhaps most importantly, you have to plan it out. We don't know how this went down but some gun crimes seem to be spur of the moment and even massacres like this seem to be that people snap. Guns don't really give you a chance to sit back and think. Building a pipe bomb, you have to go through all the steps which would be a deterrent in itself. Sure it wouldn't stop people like Columbine who planned for it, but it would stop other senseless crimes which happen at a moment's notice.

Me and my friends made a pipe bomb long before the internet and blew it up in a cemetary. I'm sure there are much more detailed instructions nowadays.

That still doesn't refute my original claim that on the whole, it is easier to obtain and fire a gun than build a pipe bomb nor does it refute the immediacy of things. Not sure how many future killers have pipe bombs just sitting around but I'd wager a lot more have guns sitting around.

 

[Otis]

I considered getting a hand gun for the house when we first had a kid. Mostly because I'm educated and responsible and so I could protect my family from the 75% of people in this world who are on the bottom quartile of the IQ bell curve. But the truth is I'd gladly give up my "right to bear arms" to keep guns out of the hands of the stupid. Or at least to make them less accessible. It's just not worth it.

 

[MAC_32]

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

How about the people who were able to defend their property against armed looters after Sandy because they had a gun?

There are trade off's to every decision. Saving one life >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saving hundreds of people's personal belongings