fucking stupid, and essentially about half the country thinks alongside Ben Carson when he said "no bullet holes in any body" would be as sad as the day our right to bear arms is taken away. Awesome stuff, Ben. Seriously, this is how our country thinks. Just the way it is.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mass shootings Â
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I almost had to close and open my eyes up again just to check and see if I was dreaming or actually reading it. After a mass shooting. After multiple mass shootings, including children as low as 4 years old....that is the language he chooses to use. An utter disgrace of a thought if you ask me.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mass shootings Â
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mass shootings Â
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
.
I don't think that there is much of any data that any proposed solution actually accomplishes much of anything. Nearly all arguments are emotionally based and as valid as any other.
I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
wanting to keep their right to bear arms. But to not understand the consequence and what is happening in our society is completely and utterly ridiculous.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
Exactly.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mass shootings Â
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
The "well this is an argument for another day" or Â
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
This simplistic approach to this plague doesn't cut it anymore. At this point, they should change the Constitution to say "We come to the conclusion that Americans cannot handle the right to bare arms anymore. We have to take them away. BTW, you have a militia already you fucking dopes"
I think that Amendment would be cool.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
100% agreed. And the other side should come out and say they feel powerless to mass shooting events (even though minuscule) and it frightens the shit out of them. Guns are a tool being used in these situations, not the root cause.
Once both sides can honestly admit that, maybe we can finally try and get to the true societal cause for our violent culture.
the bombs at Columbine didn't explode as they were intended.
You are correct, they did not explode. IIRC, their initial plan was actually to have the bombs go off during the times when the most people would be in the hallways, and then they were going to stand outside the school and pick off people as they ran away.
When the bombs didn't go off, they went into the school and started shooting.
RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital Â
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
It's obviously very complex and not as simple as guns are cool. I got to get to work though. I'll try to chime in more in tomorrows death thread.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
Sure?
RE: RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital Â
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
What words am I putting in your mouth? You said homemade napalm and pipe bombs were things you could make at 14 without the internet, and that people would start using bombs instead of guns.
If you're trying to have a real discussion, then I guess give something to support your position.
You may be trying to have a "real discussion" (as opposed to a fake discussion?), but it's coming off as trying to come up with scenarios to support a position that you're already invested in.
And to be clear, I'm not calling you stupid... I don't know you. I'm just saying your comment about guns and bombs was stupid, and I stand by that.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms. Â
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I pray that you're never on the wrong end of a gun, as I pray that none of us are. If one is ever pointed at me and I'm about to meet my maker, at least I'll know I was on the right side of the issue.
RE: RE: RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital Â
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
But we need a compromise. We have to come to a middle ground. People are digging their heels in based on ideology, and as they do so, others are being murdered.
from doing an executive order based on this. General political comment but - what Repubs are going to have the balls to come out and say they agree? I think it would actually look good for them/help guys like Rubio or Bush for the final push if they came out in support of stricter gun laws.
for the people who grew up in a "normal" gun culture environment. Guys who hunt, shoot for fun, good ole country folk, who aren't a part of the problem (well maybe they are part of the "accident problem"). Guns are probably like football to those people. I didn't grow up that way, but I get it on some level. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ban legal ownership.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
Do you really believe that this discussion began in 2008?
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion Â
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle.
The statistics also show that more knives are owned and used by more people more frequently than are guns. Why, it's not even 9 am here yet and I've already used a knife 3 times. I have used a gun twice in 43 years.
It's hard enough to get enough competent teachers at most schools Â
capably trained people to staff up armed guards, not to mention the money to pay them. Yeah if there were 1 million bored secret service guys out there, sure. But the far more likely scenario is that we would be arming people who are incredibly undertrained and putting them in an extremely difficult situation that's basically asking for accidents.
RE: RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion Â
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
That were it not for the availability of guns, these individuals would make napalm, or run over people with a car, head butt them to death of the mutitude of other Final Destination of scenerios on can think of to kill someone.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
Fucking ponderous.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mass shootings Â
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
And... that would be a pretty significant downgrade, would it not be?
Let's put it this way: if that argument of yours were turned against your by the anti gun folks, you'd feel quite different about it. "Don't worry, you can just use something else instead of a gun now!"
Wouldn't make the Top 20 of public health issues/epidemics this country has faced.
Which isn't to say there are acceptable and reasonable changes to be made, but not a single person has suggested an incremental regulation that would have prevented Oregon or Sandy Hook.
RE: RE: RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion Â
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
It needs to be a requirement for all states. It's absurd that something this simple isn't a requirement.
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
Quote:
In comment 12536258 SoDev said:
Quote:
In comment 12536153 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
Quote:
In comment 12536265 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12536258 SoDev said:
Quote:
In comment 12536153 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
.
I don't think that there is much of any data that any proposed solution actually accomplishes much of anything. Nearly all arguments are emotionally based and as valid as any other.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
Yes, you are a stupid American if you value your pride over the slaughter of children.
Quote:
Apparently.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
Exactly.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I think that Amendment would be cool.
Quote:
Apparently.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
100% agreed. And the other side should come out and say they feel powerless to mass shooting events (even though minuscule) and it frightens the shit out of them. Guns are a tool being used in these situations, not the root cause.
Once both sides can honestly admit that, maybe we can finally try and get to the true societal cause for our violent culture.
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
When the bombs didn't go off, they went into the school and started shooting.
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Quote:
In comment 12536290 Sonic Youth said:
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
Der?
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
Yes
Why in the hell would you have armed guards at a school that is shut down?
Didn't make any sense to me.
Quote:
In comment 12536304 SoDev said:
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
It's obviously very complex and not as simple as guns are cool. I got to get to work though. I'll try to chime in more in tomorrows death thread.
Sure?
Quote:
In comment 12536334 giant24 said:
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
What words am I putting in your mouth? You said homemade napalm and pipe bombs were things you could make at 14 without the internet, and that people would start using bombs instead of guns.
If you're trying to have a real discussion, then I guess give something to support your position.
You may be trying to have a "real discussion" (as opposed to a fake discussion?), but it's coming off as trying to come up with scenarios to support a position that you're already invested in.
And to be clear, I'm not calling you stupid... I don't know you. I'm just saying your comment about guns and bombs was stupid, and I stand by that.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I pray that you're never on the wrong end of a gun, as I pray that none of us are. If one is ever pointed at me and I'm about to meet my maker, at least I'll know I was on the right side of the issue.
Quote:
In comment 12536338 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
In comment 12536334 giant24 said:
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check “loopholes,” such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the “illegal gun pipeline” by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
But we need a compromise. We have to come to a middle ground. People are digging their heels in based on ideology, and as they do so, others are being murdered.
You are an intensely stupid person.
Quote:
a President that is willing to step in and do something about pretty much the worst epidemic this country has ever seen.
You are an intensely stupid person.
Well, I always say, if you're gonna do something, do it all the way.
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
Quote:
In comment 12536063 RobCrossRiver56 said:
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12536158 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle.
The statistics also show that more knives are owned and used by more people more frequently than are guns. Why, it's not even 9 am here yet and I've already used a knife 3 times. I have used a gun twice in 43 years.
Quote:
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
Fucking ponderous.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
And... that would be a pretty significant downgrade, would it not be?
Let's put it this way: if that argument of yours were turned against your by the anti gun folks, you'd feel quite different about it. "Don't worry, you can just use something else instead of a gun now!"
Which isn't to say there are acceptable and reasonable changes to be made, but not a single person has suggested an incremental regulation that would have prevented Oregon or Sandy Hook.
Quote:
In comment 12536397 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
It needs to be a requirement for all states. It's absurd that something this simple isn't a requirement.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?