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!
Yet that hasn't stopped people like you from trying to ban abortions so I'm not really sure how either side is being any better. One side wants to ban guns, the other side wants to ban abortions. Well apart from the fact one party claims to be Pro-Life yet Pro-Guns.
They are not mutually exclusive, unlike the left's supposed claim of being "Pro-Choice." Liberals don't give a damn about choice. They want control to shape the world around them as they see fit. It's as simple as that.
The guy killed 20 little kids and you dont think he would be able to get the keys or code from his mom for a gun safe?I am an advocate of gun safes to prevent random theft, but a gun safe wouldn't have prevented anything here.
Guns kill 30,000 people annually. The NRA and the Right fight tooth and nail over any gun laws such as the AWB, but yeah, they aren't mutually exclusive. If this wacko had throwing knives, I have a hard time believing he kills 20 people. And I give a damn about choice. I'm not a woman, not sure how you or I can tell them what to do with their body. Do they not have a right to do with their body what they want? So what about pregnant woman drinking? Should we ban that too? Smoking?
With the proliferation of weapons here in America, especially as a purely for profit item and the lax laws, he would rounded it up elsewhere. Probably Uncle Ted Nugents house.
If the guy was willing to kill his own mother, yeah, he could have tortured everything out of her. If thats the case, I doubt there was going to be anything to stop him; guns or no guns.
This seems the quickest, easiest and probably cheapest form of defense. An armed officer at every school throughout the day. Consider that there were 600 kids in that school, so presumably 600 parents. What would the cost be of stationing an armed cop? $1,200 a day, maybe? Works out at $2 / day per parent. Who wouldn't fork over $10 a week for that extra security?
Good lord.
Oh relax, it isn't meant to be funny. It is what everyone in this thread is doing. Rallying against guns instead of focusing on the actual issue: mentally disturbed individuals who do these types of things.Good lord.
1200 dollars a day? That comes out to 120/hr for a 10 hour day. That seems really high for a policeman.
Yeah, I was thinking of overhead as well as wages. Car, equipment, etc, etc. Anyway, if it's less than I said, that makes it even more attractive as a potential defense.
Well sometimes it is much easier to fix the how instead of the why. Nobody has really proposed much of a solution to stop the mental health issue. Are we going to revoke privacy laws? Are we going to require more stringent background checks along with mental health interviews to own a gun? For the latter, you would be changing the gun laws which is what some are against. And additionally, just like there are a few people with guns who go off and kill people, there are only a few crazy people who go on and kill people. Of course bad things happen when the two combine, so I think one of the most obvious things is to make it harder for crazy people to get guns, which would ultimately make it harder for anyone to get a gun.Oh relax, it isn't meant to be funny. It is what everyone in this thread is doing. Rallying against guns instead of focusing on the actual issue: mentally disturbed individuals who do these types of things.Good lord.
Now of course people found some signs of impending dangers in the few months leading up to Aurora but it didn't appear to be a lifelong problem that many people want to think. But just like people have talked about the viability of getting rid/banning all guns. So what is the viability of keeping guns out of crazy people's hands without mandatory background checks, mental health examinations and mandatory waiting periods?
Yeah you are correct. I didn't think about all the logistical stuff.
Less guns for you, more animals alive. Win/win.
I don't claim to have the answers. You'd have to talk to a whole lot of really smart shrinks to hopefully get something. I do know that another 'how' will pop up if guns disappeared. Then people will rally against that. Then that'll get banned. Then yet another 'how' will come. And all along, no one will have spent any effort to get to the core issue. How would a mandatory background check have prevented this? Or the previous shooting? The guns were stolen. Background / mental health checks will do very, very little.Well sometimes it is much easier to fix the how instead of the why. Nobody has really proposed much of a solution to stop the mental health issue. Are we going to revoke privacy laws? Are we going to require more stringent background checks along with mental health interviews to own a gun? For the latter, you would be changing the gun laws which is what some are against. And additionally, just like there are a few people with guns who go off and kill people, there are only a few crazy people who go on and kill people. Of course bad things happen when the two combine, so I think one of the most obvious things is to make it harder for crazy people to get guns, which would ultimately make it harder for anyone to get a gun.Oh relax, it isn't meant to be funny. It is what everyone in this thread is doing. Rallying against guns instead of focusing on the actual issue: mentally disturbed individuals who do these types of things.Good lord.
An expert had this to say after the Aurora shooting
Now of course people found some signs of impending dangers in the few months leading up to Aurora but it didn't appear to be a lifelong problem that many people want to think. But just like people have talked about the viability of getting rid/banning all guns. So what is the viability of keeping guns out of crazy people's hands without mandatory background checks, mental health examinations and mandatory waiting periods?
I agree that it will only do so much. But again, I'd much prefer a knife than a gun in this situation. It is the lesser of two evils. So that is point one. As far as the gun locks, I am for them as well. I was just trying to point out how we really can't solve the mental health issue especially without putting some restrictions on guns.I don't claim to have the answers. You'd have to talk to a whole lot of really smart shrinks to hopefully get something. I do know that another 'how' will pop up if guns disappeared. Then people will rally against that. Then that'll get banned. Then yet another 'how' will come. And all along, no one will have spent any effort to get to the core issue. How would a mandatory background check have prevented this? Or the previous shooting? The guns were stolen. Background / mental health checks will do very, very little.Well sometimes it is much easier to fix the how instead of the why. Nobody has really proposed much of a solution to stop the mental health issue. Are we going to revoke privacy laws? Are we going to require more stringent background checks along with mental health interviews to own a gun? For the latter, you would be changing the gun laws which is what some are against. And additionally, just like there are a few people with guns who go off and kill people, there are only a few crazy people who go on and kill people. Of course bad things happen when the two combine, so I think one of the most obvious things is to make it harder for crazy people to get guns, which would ultimately make it harder for anyone to get a gun.Oh relax, it isn't meant to be funny. It is what everyone in this thread is doing. Rallying against guns instead of focusing on the actual issue: mentally disturbed individuals who do these types of things.Good lord.
An expert had this to say after the Aurora shooting
Now of course people found some signs of impending dangers in the few months leading up to Aurora but it didn't appear to be a lifelong problem that many people want to think. But just like people have talked about the viability of getting rid/banning all guns. So what is the viability of keeping guns out of crazy people's hands without mandatory background checks, mental health examinations and mandatory waiting periods?
Stealing of guns can be prevented with gun safes and guns can be locked with trigger locks. Implement those two things for gun owner. If they are caught without them, they can no longer own firearms, get a massive fine and/or jail time. Any responsible owner would be okay with this. Will it stop everyone? No. But there are only so many things that can be done.
Jesus Christ.
Are you ever going to understand that people aren't blaming guns?
This is true, but even more important are the rules of pluralism- up to this point, those people opposed to gun control are willing to cast their vote with this issue as a primary concern. Those people in favor of gun control, though quite possibly a majority of Americans (at least in favor of AWB) are not willing to cast their vote with this issue as a primary concern. That's the long and short of it. Until either of these facts change, gun control will NOT take place.
This is true. The combination of which obviously is deadly.
Please show your work. And when you do, please account for the social, educational, and cultural influences that might support or interfere with this blanket assertion. The WHO might be a good place for you to start. Abortion is a complicated issue. I don't think you want to go there. Try something easier. Like the assault weapon ban and the rate of deaths caused by assault rifles before and after the 1994 legislation.Look, don't try to argue that fewer guns will mean more deaths. The data don't support that, and it makes your argument look really stupid.'proninja said:
You're wrong. Liberals as a group compared to conservatives are enlightened and adjusted for a modern world. With your views on guns, Jesus, and women's rights, you might as well be living in the 1800s. The difference is that my choices about abortion don't affect you. Your choices--and that mothers choices--about guns can surely affect me.
I like how you threw that bit about the guns in at the end there. While we may not have stopped him, can you concede that the guns made this crime far worse than if he had a hunting knife or a bow and arrow or nunchucks?
Whether you're trying to be funny or not, it's a really dumb thing to post, and a worse thing for some conservative to sit down and take the time to make. I'd say it is bad taste but that's far too generous.Oh relax, it isn't meant to be funny. It is what everyone in this thread is doing. Rallying against guns instead of focusing on the actual issue: mentally disturbed individuals who do these types of things.Good lord.
Of course he understands. He chooses not to acknowledge it. It's called being purposefully obtuse, and it's what you do when you'd rather not confront the real issues.
Not really.
I don't think anyone is claiming a weapons ban would bring gun related crimes to zero - well except you when you set up these silly strawmen.
No, but people are saying that it would stop people from using these guns in crime.
Cool with the Patriot act then?
Not really.
I don't think that's what most people are saying. I think most people are saying that the trade off between certain types of weapon bans and the reduction in violence caused by those weapons could be a net benefit to society.
Could be?
Sample size of 1? Good enough for me!!!
Thank you.
This is the problem with most laws. Poorly directed sentiment and the lack of foresight to see unintended consequences. in the same vain I would like to see much more aggressive effort to see people with mental issue are committed.
I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.
And carry Gun Insurance?'Matthias said:
a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?
Gun owners.a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?
so basically a person goes to a shrink several times (being modest) @ 100's a pop to get cleared to buy a 200-500 $ gun? Then Im guessing will have to do this all over again just to be say to buy any additional gun? Sounds expensive and like any Dr. you're going to have different opinions. Also, who determines what Dr.'s are certified to clear people that want firearms? The government just cut the mental health fund by what 80-90%? I also have a hard time thinking the government isnt some what responsible for helping with a bill to see a Dr. about a law they're enforcing that doesnt guarantee a person will be cleared. Dr. also has the task of reporting a person to a government official to document the visit in a database to make sure the potential gun owner doesnt just go down the street to another Dr if denied. I could go on but sounds like a lot of loop holes is what Im getting at.'BigSteelThrill said:Gun owners.'Sweet Feet said:a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?'Rayderr said:
