This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How about let's not deflect and address the heart of your issue:OK, you can have your hunting rifles so you can be macho and shoot bunnies. But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.
It becomes that much harder to get them. Which could potentially stop some if not many or most of these crimes from occurring. The guns today were legally registered to the mother. This woman had no business having them in the house.
It stops with the things that are used to commit heinous mass murders. You keep your little bow and arrow for now. And if there are an outbreak of bow and arrow mass murders we can sit down and revisit it. Ok?
LoL- not "dramatically altering the constitution"- not impinging on "god given rights" and more than on your god given right to test nukes in your yardYou people crack me up.
It's not about punishing you, shooter.
This.I think my hypothesis is it would be harder to acquire such weapons and, in many cases, would never happen. It seems imaginable to me that these children today who were massacred might be home enjoying supper with their families if these weapons were not legally available. It seems our paranoia about the government and hobbiests are what keep us from limiting the availability of these instruments of destruction. And, I'm having a hard time continuing to appease the paranoia and hobby-seekers at the expense of 6 year old kids.No, I havent but Im just trying to gauge what you guys realistically think could or should be done. Im not a gun owner nor do they interest me much but like I wrote earlier in the thread.. if a person plans out something and wants a weapon, they'll find it. Im not saying guns arent a problem because they are but a high % of gun owners abide by the laws and are responsible with them.If you've ever worked with people with mental illness, this isn't much of a stretch. At all.yea.. seriously? You feel that people just wake up one day and say.. Im gonna go kill lots of people for the hell of it?Seriously?what are you talking about?!? What "attacks" are just spur of the moment unplanned events?
Otis = LHUCKS East
Fake Hitler quote, no proof or documentation that he ever said that. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
I agree that LHUCKS ban was silly. He did nothing wrong other than people with a grudge against him seeing a chance to get rid of him. Why is Raidernation not banned for his role in the lhucks banning? But its not my board and I respect the mods and the choices they make.
Drinking too much water can kill you.
Like I wrote before.. I dont own a gun nor do they interest me. You can make gun laws tougher but its a state by state decision and 99.9% of gun owners are law abiding responsible people. I realize why some people are in uproar but I'm looking at the big picture of owners.
nice rebuttal
sure, there's some hyperbole there. - An outright ban on all guns, as many are calling for, would require a constitutional ammendment...something that has only been done a handful of times. That counts a a significant alteration.- LoL at your false equivalency.
so that is a yes??
Sure. Lots of things. Slippery streets. Tall buildings. Cigarettes. Even bare hands kill people. Of course, none of these things is a weapon specifically designed to kill people. But a minor point I know.
When you have a chance shoot me a link to that article about all the women who were potential rape victims but warded off 250 lb would be rapists with handguns. Because you know, that sort of thing happens all the time.
long time otis!
you would probably find a way to do it without guns. I remember just a few years ago - thousands of folks were killed with essentially a few box-cutters. Before that, hundreds were killed with essentially fertilizer.It's my belief that eliminating guns will not eliminate people wanting to kill other people, and they will find other means to do so, regardless of having guns or not.
So 99.9% of gun owners own assault rifles?
A woman? My wife's sister was raped 4 years ago while training for a race. She was running on a trail and was attacked. She carries a small gun now, and so does my wife. Both of them can shoot better than me.
I didnt say that.. you didSo 99.9% of gun owners own assault rifles?
Sorry the sarcasm was lost on youI didnt say that.. you didSo 99.9% of gun owners own assault rifles?
way to bring something to the tableArgumentI didnt say that.. you didSo 99.9% of gun owners own assault rifles?
This is the answer. If the YEEEEEHAW! I BLEED RED WHITE AND BLUE DONT TREAD ON ME DONT TAKE MY GUNS crowd is not willing to give up the guns they need for a sport like hunting, that's fun. Allow people to continue to buy hunting rifles. They're long and hard to conceal, and you would imagine it would be a lot harder for someone to continue to reload a hunting rifle repeatedly during one of these mass murders. But the assault rifles, the uzis, the things that are designed for the fast and efficient murder of human beings? Yeah, those need to go, like yesterday.
Its early.. maybe I need to eat and shower then come back
Go ahead and link up your data that shows lots of armed civilians leads to less gun crime.Kind of like the school shootings?
Im not saying that but where's your data that guns dont protect people from attacks?Go ahead and link up your data that shows lots of armed civilians leads to less gun crime.Kind of like the school shootings?
- The 2nd amendment was about militias, not about some teacher in Connecticut stockpiling arms in her shoe closet. It was also created hundreds of years ago at a time when the technology didn't allow for such fast and efficient mass murder. - It's not a "false equivalency." My point is that there is no "god given right" to own a gun any more than there is a god given right to drive a humvee with a rocket launcher down the streets of manhattan.
so you did some soul-searching, a cost/benefit analysis, and decided it wasn't worth having a gun in your house, and are willing to cite that as appropriate for the rest of the US population?
- that may have been what the 2nd was about hundreds of years ago, but it still stands. You want to ban all guns, you are going to have to do it via constitutional amendment. Are'n lawyers supposed to be on top of things like this?- driving a humbvee with a rocket launcher in Manhattan <> target practice at the local range. HTH.
You have continuously called gun owners morons, idiots, hicks, hillbillies, and other insults. It's par of the course with you with discussing anything you disagree with. You are one of the most self-centered, shallow, needy, rude, and arrogant posters on this board.
How many do you have?
- so you agree the 2nd amendment was intended to cover a different purpose. Isn't that reason enough to reconsider it?- Of course those aren't the same thing. My point is that you have a god given right to neither. Just like you have no god given right to drive a car or fly an airplane.
No. I was confessing that despite how strongly I feel about the gun issues now, I myself even considered buying one. My analysis has nothing to do with the rest of the country. 20 dead 5 year olds should be enough for the rest of the country. And yet people are relentless. That's why I'm seething about this.
Why? Are you itching to call me a hillbilly, moron, idiot, or hick? My wife has one. I've already mentioned her sister was raped four years ago, and now her and her sister both own guns, and I'm glad they do.
This proves the point perfectly. Nobody is saying that banning guns will bring around world peace. And nobody is saying kids will never be attacked again. What we're saying is that if you make it hard to get guns, things would be different. If this kid didn't have an arsenal in his mom's closet, maybe he does take a knife to the school and do what the attacker in your article above did. The result? Only two children "seriously" wounded. That's a lot different from the result in Connecticut.I'm just astonished that the pro gun crowd is still fighting this.
Nope, I won't call you anything. Do you wife and sister carry their guns with them? Do they secure them somewhere? How would you feel if someone got ahold of those guns and took them to a school like what happened yesterday?
