***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Spartans Rule]

The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

I'm with you man. Let's stop fighting wars in other countries and start designing a weapon against natural disasters.I can't wait to see this technology.

That's why I voted for Cobra Commander and his weather dominator.

 

[BassNBrew]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

The Taliban seem to be putting up a fight or at least prolonging it for a decade.How many countries where private gun ownership is prevalent have mown down a good chunk of their population?

 

[Spartans Rule]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

If you're shooting at him with your AK-47, you bet your ### he will.Basically, you've now shifted from, "my guns protect me" to, "human decency and American bond protect me." I'll believe the second part. I just don't believe the first bit.

How did that work out for Mubarek's regime, the military absolutely crushed the people. Oh wait they did not turn on their own population did they. Do you really think that the US Military would turn on the people that easily? Seriously think who is in the military?

You're doing an awesome job of destroying your original argument.

 

[johnnycakes]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

If you're shooting at him with your AK-47, you bet your ### he will.Basically, you've now shifted from, "my guns protect me" to, "human decency and American bond protect me." I'll believe the second part. I just don't believe the first bit.

How did that work out for Mubarek's regime, the military absolutely crushed the people. Oh wait they did not turn on their own population did they. Do you really think that the US Military would turn on the people that easily? Seriously think who is in the military?

Kent State.

 

[BassNBrew]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

Don't think anyone here is advocating to make grenade launchers legal.

Serious question: Why do you think nobody's arguing for that?Also, the restrictions on grenade were in the 1994 law that was repealed, which I assume you supported the repeal of. Is there new legislation banning grenade launchers?

Ninja...you just contradicted yourself here. You act like half of the people here are advocating grenade launchers and then say no one's arguing for that?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

Your Red Rider does not count. You apparently have no clue how difficult it is to turn a semi-automatic to automatic. They are totally different weapon platforms. Like saying you are going to turn your Prius into a Porsche. Please show me any link where a crime was committed by someone who turned a semi-auto into an auto. You also have no clue what an "assault weapon" is.Again the ignorance ABOUT WEAPONS in this thread is astounding.

 

[BassNBrew]

Kent State.

That worked out well for the side wanting to stay in the war.

 

[BassNBrew]

Nobody's explicitly arguing for it because it's ridiculous to think that anyone needs a friggin' grenade launcher. People are implicitly arguing for it whether they realize it or not when they say that they don't want any more gun control. It's not really me that's saying contradicting things.

OK, I understand...it was a confusing read. You do realize that most that want more gun control don't want to allow the purchases you're talking about in the other thread.

 

[Rayderr]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

Don't think anyone here is advocating to make grenade launchers legal.

Serious question: Why do you think nobody's arguing for that?Also, the restrictions on grenade were in the 1994 law that was repealed, which I assume you supported the repeal of. Is there new legislation banning grenade launchers?

more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally

It's saying that a gun that is capable of using a muzzle launcher is one of the criteria. the actual muzzle mount and the grenades are still illegal.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

The Taliban seem to be putting up a fight or at least prolonging it for a decade.How many countries where private gun ownership is prevalent have mown down a good chunk of their population?

We appear to be having different conversations here. Are you under the impression that the Taliban is sble to fight back even though the U.S. is a totalitarian regime bent on murdering them? Are you under the impression that things would go similarly on our own soil? Did you camp out for opening of the new Red Dawn?Afghanistan is not the United States. Nor is the United States a totalitarian regime in total control of the country of Afghanistan. If the U.S. government did on U.S. soil what you're suggesting, that little 'war'time would last about two hours. Or, you know, wouldn't happen. Because our government is made up of us. And democracies don't often begin wholesale murdering their populaces.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

The Taliban seem to be putting up a fight or at least prolonging it for a decade.How many countries where private gun ownership is prevalent have mown down a good chunk of their population?

Like Nazi Germany?

 

[BassNBrew]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

The Taliban seem to be putting up a fight or at least prolonging it for a decade.How many countries where private gun ownership is prevalent have mown down a good chunk of their population?

We appear to be having different conversations here. Are you under the impression that the Taliban is sble to fight back even though the U.S. is a totalitarian regime bent on murdering them? Are you under the impression that things would go similarly on our own soil? Did you camp out for opening of the new Red Dawn?Afghanistan is not the United States. Nor is the United States a totalitarian regime in total control of the country of Afghanistan. If the U.S. government did on U.S. soil what you're suggesting, that little 'war'time would last about two hours. Or, you know, wouldn't happen. Because our government is made up of us. And democracies don't often begin wholesale murdering their populaces.

I was awainting the Red Dawn reference, just expecting Wolverines???We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see more of a "Mission Accomplished" type of situation. Personally I see the biggest benefit of being armed is protecting yourself when the country is in turmoil and the gov't can't

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

The Taliban seem to be putting up a fight or at least prolonging it for a decade.How many countries where private gun ownership is prevalent have mown down a good chunk of their population?

We appear to be having different conversations here. Are you under the impression that the Taliban is sble to fight back even though the U.S. is a totalitarian regime bent on murdering them? Are you under the impression that things would go similarly on our own soil? Did you camp out for opening of the new Red Dawn?Afghanistan is not the United States. Nor is the United States a totalitarian regime in total control of the country of Afghanistan. If the U.S. government did on U.S. soil what you're suggesting, that little 'war'time would last about two hours. Or, you know, wouldn't happen. Because our government is made up of us. And democracies don't often begin wholesale murdering their populaces.

I was awainting the Red Dawn reference, just expecting Wolverines???We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see more of a "Mission Accomplished" type of situation. Personally I see the biggest benefit of being armed is protecting yourself when the country is in turmoil and the gov't can't

Fine. But that's not what I was talking about when I very specifically discussed people who think these weapons are for protecting us from our own government. Which is stupid. And it was pretty clear that's what you responded to with the Taliban comment.

 

[BassNBrew]

Nobody's explicitly arguing for it because it's ridiculous to think that anyone needs a friggin' grenade launcher.

People are implicitly arguing for it whether they realize it or not when they say that they don't want any more gun control. It's not really me that's saying contradicting things.

OK, I understand...it was a confusing read. You do realize that most that want more gun control don't want to allow the purchases you're talking about in the other thread.

Absolutely. I don't think there's any prayer of that happening though, and for me to stand in front of laws happening that can save lives because "Obama goin'a take mah guns" is ridiculous. I don't think the people who think nothing should be done or the people that think all guns should be illegal are being remotely rational, but at least the people who think all guns should be banned are doing it out of a sense of doing something good for humanity rather than a selfish desire to keep their guns. I own multiple guns. Just bought a new one yesterday. They're neat. I'd even love to go shoot an AR. They look neat. But for the love of all that is good, it's obvious that we need to at least discuss every option to lower the frequency with which people walk into schools and murder our kids. That, to me, is much more important than the fact that some people on that side of the argument think I am part of the problem and don't want me to have my guns, some of which I've had since I was 11.

Son't worry, Oats will be around to condemn you soon hillbilly. Have you welded the door shut on your bike yet?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Just like drugs, there are plenty of ways to get weapons even if they are banned.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

totally agreeThere is a lot of lunacy in this thread on both sides

That's maybe the sanest thing Todd Andrews has ever written. Bravo.

If they pass tighter gun laws and ban assault weapons, what about people who already own those guns? Do they have to turn them in?

 

[BassNBrew]

Fine. But that's not what I was talking about when I very specifically discussed people who think these weapons are for protecting us from our own government. Which is stupid. And it was pretty clear that's what you responded to with the Taliban comment.

I submit that local law enforcement is less cavalier about engaging citizens because many are armed. Unfortunately that means interactions with criminals with bad intent. On the flip side it usually means you don't have rogue solo cops committing brutality or violating our rights on regular basis because they usually have witnesses in tow in the form of other officers.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.com/ind-man-47-guns-arrested-school-threat-164928349.html

 

[RCon]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

 

[Henry Ford]

Fine. But that's not what I was talking about when I very specifically discussed people who think these weapons are for protecting us from our own government. Which is stupid. And it was pretty clear that's what you responded to with the Taliban comment.

I submit that local law enforcement is less cavalier about engaging citizens because many are armed. Unfortunately that means interactions with criminals with bad intent. On the flip side it usually means you don't have rogue solo cops committing brutality or violating our rights on regular basis because they usually have witnesses in tow in the form of other officers.

I submit that the drop in police brutality didn't happen when gun ownership became prevalent, it happened when video camera ownership became more prevalent.

 

[Standing Hampton]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.com/ind-man-47-guns-arrested-school-threat-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

 

[Rayderr]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

Don't think anyone here is advocating to make grenade launchers legal.

Serious question: Why do you think nobody's arguing for that?Also, the restrictions on grenade were in the 1994 law that was repealed, which I assume you supported the repeal of. Is there new legislation banning grenade launchers?

more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally

It's saying that a gun that is capable of using a muzzle launcher is one of the criteria. the actual muzzle mount and the grenades are still illegal.

Aren't the guns themselves legal since the 1994 bill expired?

you can now get a gun that is capable of using a muzzle grenade launcher. but you still can't get a muzzle grenade launcher.

 

[General Tso]

Just like drugs, there are plenty of ways to get weapons even if they are banned.

This is correct. Some people will still get their hands on banned guns. But other people - without the means, wherewithal, or willingness to deal with the black market, will not get these type of semiautomatic weapons and large magazines that most people are advocating that we ban. And I think the killer here, a social misfit with Aspurgers syndrome, probably falls into the second category. The only way a mentally ill person like this gets the Bushmaster is because his Mom purchased it legally.The Bushmaster weapon that did all the killing here needs to be banned. Is anyone in here still against banning this type of weapon?

 

[Glass Joe]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

totally agreeThere is a lot of lunacy in this thread on both sides

That's maybe the sanest thing Todd Andrews has ever written. Bravo.

If they pass tighter gun laws and ban assault weapons, what about people who already own those guns? Do they have to turn them in?

Sure, of course. Just compensate the owners.And - jail time if they're not turned in. There needs to be a deterrent.

 

[BassNBrew]

Fine. But that's not what I was talking about when I very specifically discussed people who think these weapons are for protecting us from our own government. Which is stupid. And it was pretty clear that's what you responded to with the Taliban comment.

I submit that local law enforcement is less cavalier about engaging citizens because many are armed. Unfortunately that means interactions with criminals with bad intent. On the flip side it usually means you don't have rogue solo cops committing brutality or violating our rights on regular basis because they usually have witnesses in tow in the form of other officers.

I submit that the drop in police brutality didn't happen when gun ownership became prevalent, it happened when video camera ownership became more prevalent.

You may be right.

 

[General Tso]

Good article

 

[Rohn Jambo]

America has less than 5% of the world population but 50% of the guns (300 million)

 

[parasaurolophus]

Good article

Zero issues with the magazine ban and the required background checks. 40% of sales going down without one is ridiculous.I would also not care if each sale had to be reported to the ATF.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Number of legal gun dealers in the US: 129,817

Number of gas stations: 143,839

Number of supermarkets and grocery stores: 36,569

And these are last year's statistics.

 

[Otis]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right?

I don't think they are.

 

[Otis]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

Do you even understand what you're arguing at this point?

 

[Otis]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Yeah, but an armed citizenry is our first line of defense when the Reds/terrorists/ Chinese/Socialists/Aliens/insert boogeyman here land on our shores.Don't you watch the movies?

What's funny is that I honestly believe these Weekend Rambos truly are hoping for something like this, and they can't wait to break out their sweet weapons and kick some Chinamen tail.You're not in an action movie, nerds.

 

[Otis]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

 

[Otis]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

totally agreeThere is a lot of lunacy in this thread on both sides

I see it on one side. Where's the "lunacy" in thinking it's a decent idea to not let civilians have guns? I could see an argument that it's too ambitious. But I don't see lunacy. I do see some pretty clear cut lunacy on only one side of this.

 

[Otis]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

Your Red Rider does not count. You apparently have no clue how difficult it is to turn a semi-automatic to automatic. They are totally different weapon platforms. Like saying you are going to turn your Prius into a Porsche. Please show me any link where a crime was committed by someone who turned a semi-auto into an auto. You also have no clue what an "assault weapon" is.Again the ignorance ABOUT WEAPONS in this thread is astounding.

Show off.

 

[Otis]

Just like drugs, there are plenty of ways to get weapons even if they are banned.

Oh. Well in that case why bother regulating anything? Just let people do what they want. It would be too hard to enforce it.

 

[ATC1]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.co...-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

What is scarry is that if it were not for the shooting on Friday, nothing would hve been done. Things need to change. It's a shame it takes such a horrible circumstance for us to realize it. Kneejerk reaction to get rid of all guns is just unreasonable and will be shot down quickly. The other side will not come to the table with that.

 

[Glass Joe]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.co...-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

What is scarry is that if it were not for the shooting on Friday, nothing would hve been done. Things need to change. It's a shame it takes such a horrible circumstance for us to realize it. Kneejerk reaction to get rid of all guns is just unreasonable and will be shot down quickly. The other side will not come to the table with that.

If the other side doesn't come to the table they'll be left out of the discussion.

 

[Henry Ford]

I had oral argument in a federal appellate court a couple of weeks ago and had the pleasure of hearing the NRA appeal a case before I went up. Never heard a more ridiculous, circuitous, full -of-B.S. oral argument in my life. Really enjoyed hearing the panel slap the attorney around for 20 minutes.

 

[Otis]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

 

[Sammy3469]

Just like drugs, there are plenty of ways to get weapons even if they are banned.

Oh. Well in that case why bother regulating anything? Just let people do what they want. It would be too hard to enforce it.

Pretty sure we should just throw up our hands, sing kumbaya, and pray these attacks stop, Otis.

 

[ATC1]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.co...-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

What is scarry is that if it were not for the shooting on Friday, nothing would hve been done. Things need to change. It's a shame it takes such a horrible circumstance for us to realize it. Kneejerk reaction to get rid of all guns is just unreasonable and will be shot down quickly. The other side will not come to the table with that.

If the other side doesn't come to the table they'll be left out of the discussion.

You don't know how a democracy nation is run, do you?

 

[Otis]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.co...-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

Constitution. Nothing to be done. Definitely not a problem at all.

Besides, we can't just let these one two three four fifty 100 1,000 irresponsible gun owners spoil it for all the really responsibly gun owners. That's just not fair.

 

[Otis]

Just like drugs, there are plenty of ways to get weapons even if they are banned.

This is correct. Some people will still get their hands on banned guns. But other people - without the means, wherewithal, or willingness to deal with the black market, will not get these type of semiautomatic weapons and large magazines that most people are advocating that we ban. And I think the killer here, a social misfit with Aspurgers syndrome, probably falls into the second category. The only way a mentally ill person like this gets the Bushmaster is because his Mom purchased it legally.The Bushmaster weapon that did all the killing here needs to be banned. Is anyone in here still against banning this type of weapon?

The zealots are avoiding this question. Refuse to answer.

 

[Sammy3469]

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

http://news.yahoo.co...-164928349.html

This is what I am afraid of.

What is scarry is that if it were not for the shooting on Friday, nothing would hve been done. Things need to change. It's a shame it takes such a horrible circumstance for us to realize it. Kneejerk reaction to get rid of all guns is just unreasonable and will be shot down quickly. The other side will not come to the table with that.

If the other side doesn't come to the table they'll be left out of the discussion.

You don't know how a democracy nation is run, do you?

Pretty sure we aren't a democracy

 

[Henry Ford]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

I can't even imagine the mindset in which one says 'tracgic about those kids, but they better not try to take my assault rifle away.'

 

[Otis]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

I can't even imagine the mindset in which one says 'tracgic about those kids, but they better not try to take my assault rifle away.'

It's completely deranged. They're either so brainwashed that they can't work through the logic fairly in their own minds, or there is something wrong with them.

 

[ATC1]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

What if one of the teachers in the school was a responsible gun owner was allowed to carry on school campus and took action to stop this psyco before he killed the children?

 

[Otis]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

What if one of the teachers in the school was a responsible gun owner was allowed to carry on school campus and took action to stop this psyco before he killed the children?

1. How many times has that happened?2. Do you think parents want armed teachers in their schools? As a parent, let me answer that one for you: absolutely not.3. We've already seen the argument that the principal should have had an M4. And then what? She'd have dodged the bullets, ducked and rolled, ran to her office, got the key, unlocked the gun cabinet, pulled the gun out, loaded it, and then killed the shooter? 4. What happens when certain of these teachers who have guns either (1) misplace them so a kid gets his hands on them, (2) have an accident, or (3) worst of all, lose it themselves? I can't imagine a worse approach to this problem than introducing MORE guns into the equation.People, you're not Bruce Willis, this isn't the Wild West. That's not the real world.

 

[ATC1]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

One of the features of "serious discussion" would probably include reading the opposing arguments rather than intentionally mischaracterizing them.

I read the arguments. Some of them went like this, and I'm not characterizing:- it's fun and entertaining to practice eye-hand coordination and shoot guns in our yard, and my family enjoys that, so why should we give that up?- it's important that the populous has guns so we can fight the government and keep them honest/afraid of us- the principal in Newtown should have had an M4.- what would the people with all these guns do with them if we outlawed them?- people are going to try and get guns illegally anyway, and therefore since it will be hard to police, we shouldn't bother policing itNot once has anyone addressed the principle argument I and others are making. Despite the benefits of fun, entertainment, collecting, and hobbyist stuff, if it could potentially stop or curtail these sorts of mass murders even incrementally, how is that not worth the trade off of you losing your hobby? What kind of person are you that you wouldn't jump to your feet this very second, surrender all your guns, and support strict gun control/bans of the most dangerous guns, if there were a chance it could have resulted in saving the life of even one of those six year olds?

What if one of the teachers in the school was a responsible gun owner was allowed to carry on school campus and took action to stop this psyco before he killed the children?

1. How many times has that happened?2. Do you think parents want armed teachers in their schools? As a parent, let me answer that one for you: absolutely not.3. We've already seen the argument that the principal should have had an M4. And then what? She'd have dodged the bullets, ducked and rolled, ran to her office, got the key, unlocked the gun cabinet, pulled the gun out, loaded it, and then killed the shooter? 4. What happens when certain of these teachers who have guns either (1) misplace them so a kid gets his hands on them, (2) have an accident, or (3) worst of all, lose it themselves? I can't imagine a worse approach to this problem than introducing MORE guns into the equation.People, you're not Bruce Willis, this isn't the Wild West. That's not the real world.

1. 0, it is illegal to carry on school grounds. There are instances were armed citizens stop people in stores, resturants all the time. Movies and Schools are no gun zones. Where do you think most mass shootingsw occur?2. Why not? because guns are dangerous or you don't trust the person that is teaching your child everyday?3. That guy is an idiot. But if she had a gun on her hip and taken a self defense class and practice, I would say the odds would be in her favor to take this guy out.4. Misplace them on their hip? I have never heard of someone say I misplaced the gun that was on my hip a second ago. It just disappeared and ended on my desk for someone to pick up. The gun does not go off if you don't pull the trigger. More restrictions to those not familiar and irresponsible. Less restrictions to those properly trained and responsible.