Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
I can hit non-moving, unarmed targets, I'm ready to take on a gun-wielding mad man HOORAY!
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
2,355
No, that's gun control. You control what types of guns people can purchase legally and to whom those guns can be legally sold to.

So you're a gun-grabber. I'm glad we cleared that up. BTW, you have no right to know why a gun owner "needs" this or that weapon, nor are gun shop owners required by law to ask such a question.

So if you ban glocks and the majority of crimes end up being committed with Smith & Wessons, are we gonna ban them too? How 'bout slingshots?

You can never eradicate a black market for goods, so to use that as an argument against gun control is retarded. It's the police's job to stop someone who was illegally able to get ahold of an uzzi, not the homeowner's

The police can't be everywhere at once. You can be killed long before you hear their approaching sirens.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Oh, and you might want to read up on what was actually said in the constitution. The right to bear arms was not "In case the British come back". lol

lol

Yes, while I don't doubt that you've developed a firm understanding of constitutional law and interpretation from high school and Wikipedia, it's actually a tid bit more complicated.

There are 5 other amendments in the Bill of Rights (including the 1st) that American citizens use everyday, which have been modified and updated to reflect modern advances.

Newsflash: we can't own black people anymore either. 1791 was a long time ago.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Not really. Tyrannical governments are as prevalent today as they were 1776, and the need for personal self-defense is timeless.

Yes, bc if China is able to defeat our military, I'm sure you'll do a great job saving the nation, Rambo.

:blowhard
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
2,355
Yes, bc if China is able to defeat our military, I'm sure you'll do a great job saving the nation, Rambo.

:blowhard

RedDawn-PosterArt.jpg
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
So you're a gun-grabber. I'm glad we cleared that up. BTW, you have no right to know why a gun owner "needs" this or that weapon, nor are gun shop owners required by law to ask such a question.

Under my bill of law they would.

bbgun said:
So if you ban glocks and the majority of crimes end up being committed with Smith & Wessons, are we gonna ban them too? How 'bout slingshots?

We haven't banned knifes or by other means have we? Which would you be more likely to survive from? 1 out of 6 shots? Or 20 out of 40?

bbgun said:
The police can't be everywhere at once. You can be killed long before you hear their approaching sirens.

Too bad. Plus I don't think your life insurance will pay out to your family in the case of: "killed during an unsuccesful shootout".
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
P.S. The kid never used the eeeeeeeeevil assault rifle.

"'Medical Examiner: Most of the dead were killed w/ the Bushmaster assault rifle. Fires 30 rounds a pop. Most kids shot "more than once'."
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
2,355
"'Medical Examiner: Most of the dead were killed w/ the Bushmaster assault rifle. Fires 30 rounds a pop. Most kids shot "more than once'."

Every other story has said that he left the .223 rifle in the car. Additionally, if he had been firing a .223 the coroner most likely wouldn't be finding any bullets in the bodies because they would have gone in one side and out the other. In any event, the gun he used was incidental. We need to know why, not how.
 

SixisBetter

Anywhere on the line.
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
370
Good arguments all around,IMO.
Sadly,there is no useful thing mankind,in it's infinite stupidity will not misuse.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 15, 2012

IN the harrowing aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind: Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?

The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.

Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.

So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.

American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000.

We even regulate toy guns, by requiring orange tips — but lawmakers don’t have the gumption to stand up to National Rifle Association extremists and regulate real guns as carefully as we do toys. What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.?

As one of my Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting, “It is more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun.”

Look, I grew up on an Oregon farm where guns were a part of life; and my dad gave me a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday. I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can’t we be equally adult about regulating guns?

And don’t say that it won’t make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun. We’re not going to eliminate gun deaths, any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually.

Likewise, don’t bother with the argument that if more people carried guns, they would deter shooters or interrupt them. Mass shooters typically kill themselves or are promptly caught, so it’s hard to see what deterrence would be added by having more people pack heat. There have been few if any cases in the United States in which an ordinary citizen with a gun stopped a mass shooting.

The tragedy isn’t one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.

We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.

“We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years,” President Obama noted in a tearful statement on television. He’s right, but the solution isn’t just to mourn the victims — it’s to change our policies. Let’s see leadership on this issue, not just moving speeches.

Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.


Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
2,355
Many cities in this country have buyback programs. They're not coercive, so most gun owners have no problems with it.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
4,315
This guy was a lunatic and now everyone is left looking for answers because what this piece of shit did is unimaginable. The bottom line is we'll never know why. People erroneously think that if you regulate the tools (ie: guns) of his crime, that you can avoid it from happening again. We can't. These are sick individuals and they live amongst us. I'm not a gun fanatic; I have two handguns and several shotguns that I use for hunting. But if I chose to purchase a Bushmaster, then that's my right so long as I have no criminal record and pass the background. I'm not into infringing on those rights because where will it end?

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

And we've implemented laws to help regulate the sales of weapons as well but banning certain weapons is not the answer. Do we ban the sale of certain cars because they're most likely to be involved in accidents? For that matter, if the national speed limit is 65 mph, then why do we need cars that travel up to 200 mph? Why not restrict the speed of all vehicles to 65 mph? Do we ban the sale of Porches? High end Mercedes? Josh Brent is responsible for his actions that killed Jerry Brown. But the car was traveling in excess of 100 mph. Do we ban that make/model? In essence, that's what folks are arguing.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
The saddest part about anything like this is it always provides a great avenue for people to pimp their agendas. Sickening.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
And we've implemented laws to help regulate the sales of weapons as well but banning certain weapons is not the answer. Do we ban the sale of certain cars because they're most likely to be involved in accidents? For that matter, if the national speed limit is 65 mph, then why do we need cars that travel up to 200 mph? Why not restrict the speed of all vehicles to 65 mph? Do we ban the sale of Porches? High end Mercedes? Josh Brent is responsible for his actions that killed Jerry Brown. But the car was traveling in excess of 100 mph. Do we ban that make/model? In essence, that's what folks are arguing.

The key word here is "accidents".

Stark contract to a soaring rate of intentional gun violence.

It reminded me of the dichotomy between the two sides of this argument regarding gun rights. There's a world full of people who just want to live their lives, not hurt anyone, and just be honest and sincere. Then there's the world where a corporation wants to sell you whatever it's making by any means necessary. This is where the NRA operates.

I can tell you this—most of the people I've met from the NRA don't believe the bullshit they're selling. Their ethos conforms to whomever pays their salary. That's a trap much bigger than most of us bother to notice. But let's take this small bite as we talk about how to keep people from shooting up kindergarten classrooms. Gun lobbyists, the guys drawing the big checks, aren't nutjobs and they don't love the Constitution any more than you do. They're Americans in it for a buck. They've taken a profitable position selling a lifestyle to frightened people who buy that lifestyle, ironically enough, from the very industry that funds their fear. They're not fanatics; they're just capitalists.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,563
Reaction score
9,053
There are definitely things that could be done to remove or prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't mentally stable enough to own them. I know of a person who last time I saw them was telling me about how he just got his concealed carry license. No fucking way he should have a gun at all.

Unfortunately no, there isnt.

Just like outlawing drugs doesnt prevent addicts from getting them, no types of gun control laws will prevent people who WANT a gun from getting it some way or another. The sad fact is bad people will find a way to get guns and use them if they want to.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Unfortunately no, there isnt.

Just like outlawing drugs doesnt prevent addicts from getting them, no types of gun control laws will prevent people who WANT a gun from getting it some way or another.

When's the last time a meth pipe went rouge and killed 20 children?

Gun control has worked in many other developed nations, and it's a far more pressing issue at this point bc just sitting with hands tucked under our asses hasn't really been helping.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,563
Reaction score
9,053
When's the last time a meth pipe went rouge and killed 20 children?

.

20 Children? Probably never. But I'm quite sure there are tons of examples of where somebody fried themselves with an illegal drug of some sort, then killed somebody.

Didnt they say this guy used his mom's gun/s to do this awful thing? If thats true, how would any type of extra gun control laws have prevented it?
 
Top Bottom