The right to bear arms

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The right to bear arms

I couldn't agree more. The 2nd Amendment must be changed to suit the times. Allow for a single bolt action rifle and a single shot revolver with a small amount of ammo. If you need more, then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range. No more vast amounts of ammo and weapons. No more automatic weapons. If you are a collector, then weapons should be unable to fire and disabled. Finally, there should be laws against buying pieces of weapons individually and then putting the weapon together piece by piece.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/anderson-cooper-reads-sister-victim-letter-intended-obama-151325260.html

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:....

digitalbeachbum wrote:

.... then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range.

 

 

  The Bill of Rights, an overtly political document, was not written to protect the rights of people to have hobbies.   Please link to a source where the original authors of that document support your bizarre interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

.... then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range.

 

 

  The Bill of Rights, an overtly political document, was not written to protect the rights of people to have hobbies.   Please link to a source where the original authors of that document support your bizarre interpretation of the right to bear arms.

I don't care what the bill of rights says, please update your reality to 2012. The bill of rights was written during colonial times and was written for those times and those people.

It needs to be updated.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't care what the bill of rights says, please update your reality to 2012. The bill of rights was written during colonial times and was written for those times and those people.

It needs to be updated.

 

  Well be sure to "update" all of the protections while you're at it..they were all written in colonial times        digital, you are clearly a totalitarian fascist in every sense of the word but at least you're honest about it.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't care what the bill of rights says, please update your reality to 2012. The bill of rights was written during colonial times and was written for those times and those people.

It needs to be updated.

 

  Well be sure to "update" all of the protections while you're at it..they were all written in colonial times        digital, you are clearly a totalitarian fascist in every sense of the word but at least you're honest about it.

LMAO. No. I'm not that... by far I am not that... I believe in democracies and balance of power for the good of the whole rather than the few.

I'm of the belief that the 2nd amendment needs some modifications. I do not believe that people should be allowed to have 40-50 guns in their house much less 5 guns. It isn't needed, even if you are a collector. And people don't need a huge stockpile of ammo in their house. It's bullshit.

Are you an anarchist?

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
If you want the 2nd to remain unchanged......

You may have all of the revolutionary style weaponry you want, nothing else.

http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/weapons-of-the-revolutionary-war

You actually had to have some skill to hit the broad side of a barn with a musket.

I'm fine with you having a cannon in your front yard.  Though I can see how your neighbor across the street might be a little nervous.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You may have all of

cj wrote:

You may have all of the revolutionary style weaponry you want, nothing else.

http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/weapons-of-the-revolutionary-war

You actually had to have some skill to hit the broad side of a barn with a musket.

I'm fine with you having a cannon in your front yard.  Though I can see how your neighbor across the street might be a little nervous.

 

 

     "Revolutionary style" weapons were the  modern weapons of that era.  Am I right ? 

If the revolutionary war were fought today do you think it would be fought with muskets or weapons of the present time period ?  Take a guess.

  Also, when it came to pistols and shoulder fired arms, civilians owned the same types of weaponry as the military.  And speaking of antiquated weaponry, the Brown Bess musket fired a huge 75 caliber  ( 3/4 of an inch in diameter ) lead ball.  Whatever that projectile hit was absolutely destroyed.  Civilians owned them.

 

 

 

Lastly, during the Arab Spring armed revolutions in Libya and Syria have you see any images of those civilians fighting their governments with antique weapons like muskets or flintlocks ?

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Are

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Are you an anarchist?

 

  Anarchism as a political term has usually been applied to those with extreme left-leaning ideologies.  Do anarchist support private ownership of firearms ?  

Personally, I don't care what term is used.  I support anyone who supports me.   http://pinkpistols.org/  ( see poster of two lesbians holding an AR 15 under the caption "Some people dislike gays. Others dislike guns.  We should not base our laws on personal dislikes" )

 

 If the link doesn't work then reference the wikipedia article and then scroll down and click on "Official website"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

                                                                       

 

      

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

You may have all of the revolutionary style weaponry you want, nothing else.

http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/weapons-of-the-revolutionary-war

You actually had to have some skill to hit the broad side of a barn with a musket.

I'm fine with you having a cannon in your front yard.  Though I can see how your neighbor across the street might be a little nervous.

     "Revolutionary style" weapons were the  modern weapons of that era.  Am I right ? 

If the revolutionary war were fought today do you think it would be fought with muskets or weapons of the present time period ?  Take a guess.

  Also, when it came to pistols and shoulder fired arms, civilians owned the same types of weaponry as the military.  And speaking of antiquated weaponry, the Brown Bess musket fired a huge 75 caliber  ( 3/4 of an inch in diameter ) lead ball.  Whatever that projectile hit was absolutely destroyed.  Civilians owned them.

Lastly, during the Arab Spring armed revolutions in Libya and Syria have you see any images of those civilians fighting their governments with antique weapons like muskets or flintlocks ?

 

My point - which you choose to misconstrue - is that the 2nd amendment was written for flintlocks.  It was not written with the thought of people owning 100 round magazines and semi- or full automatics. 

People owned the same weapons as the military because there were no weapons that were developed specifically for the military at that time.

Stop spouting off and think for a change.

You sound like a theist - "Look at Pol Pot and Stalin!  Don't challenge my beliefs!"  I am not saying you can not own weapons, I'm saying we need to reconsider and think.  I have said frequently that gun control is not the only answer - it may not be any answer.  But until we have enough information, we do not know what that answer may be.  On NPR just now, they mentioned that the NRA insisted that a national database of information on gun injuries and deaths be discontinued.  That is just insane.  How can we make reasoned choices without data? 

I have handled various weapons, I can hit the broad side of a barn.  And I don't need one for self defense or for my ego or for recreation.  But that is my choice and I have no desire to deny you or anyone else your choices.  I do think we need to have a conversation about the 2nd and about our culture and the consequences of our current culture, laws, and policies.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: My point - which

cj wrote:

 

My point - which you choose to misconstrue - is that the 2nd amendment was written for flintlocks.  It was not written with the thought of people owning 100 round magazines and semi- or full automatics.

 

  Please provide any documentation to that effect.  I would be surprised that James Madison included that stipulation in any writing of that period.

 

cj wrote:
People owned the same weapons as the military because there were no weapons that were developed specifically for the military at that time.

 

     And yet these same weapons were used to wage an armed revolution.  These civilian owned weapons maintained parity with what was being used against them.

 

cj wrote:
Stop spouting off and think for a change.

  

     Not agreeing with you equals spouting off ?

 

 

cj wrote:
You sound like a theist - "Look at Pol Pot and Stalin!  Don't challenge my beliefs!"  I am not saying you can not own weapons, I'm saying we need to reconsider and think.  I have said frequently that gun control is not the only answer - it may not be any answer.  But until we have enough information, we do not know what that answer may be.  On NPR just now, they mentioned that the NRA insisted that a national database of information on gun injuries and deaths be discontinued.  That is just insane.  How can we make reasoned choices without data?

 

  The NRA is frequently looked at as being a weak an ineffectual gun rights organization among many gun owners.  They have sold out gun owners before.  Owning a gun does not automatically mean I stand behind the NRA.  F**k the NRA, they are appeasers in the long run, just watch.

 

cj wrote:
I have handled various weapons, I can hit the broad side of a barn. 

 

    Yes, I've heard you reference that repeatedly.  A while back I believe you stated an affinity with a lever-action rifle.   Do you remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 ?

The shooter, Luke Woodham, used a lever-action 30-30 to kill his classmates.   Do we need to have a "serious discussion" about controlling lever action rifles ?  ( I imagine this is the point where you begin to equivocate ? ) 

 

 

cj wrote:
And I don't need one for self defense

 

  You may be as defenseless as you choose to be.  Why would I object ?

 

cj wrote:
  or for my ego or for recreation.

 

   What is this ego thing ? You aren't one of those "a gun is a substitute penis" are you ?   LOL !

 

cj wrote:
But that is my choice and I have no desire to deny you or anyone else your choices.

 

   Thank you for not wanting to deny me my choices.  

 

cj wrote:
  I do think we need to have a conversation about the 2nd and about our culture and the consequences of our current culture, laws, and policies.

 

 

   I agree with you in principal.   I fear that we will only get useless prohibitions that will be stepped up incrementally and will only affect those gun owners who had no intention of committing criminal acts. Like me.

  Have you noticed that most, if not all, of these shootings have occurred in "gun free zones" ?  

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

My point - which you choose to misconstrue - is that the 2nd amendment was written for flintlocks.  It was not written with the thought of people owning 100 round magazines and semi- or full automatics.

 

Please provide any documentation to that effect.  I would be surprised that James Madison included that stipulation in any writing of that period.

 

Of course not - WHICH IS MY POINT.  Forgive the yelling, but I am thinking I am talking to a brick wall.  They didn't have weapons like that, so they would not have a clue as to the consequences of the 2nd in today's culture.  If we all had crystal balls, we would all make different choices. 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
People owned the same weapons as the military because there were no weapons that were developed specifically for the military at that time.

     And yet these same weapons were used to wage an armed revolution.  These civilian owned weapons maintained parity with what was being used against them.

 

Of course.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
Stop spouting off and think for a change.

  

     Not agreeing with you equals spouting off ?

 

Not using your brain is spouting off.  Hanging on to your beliefs without reasoned thought is spouting off.  Not agreeing with me is immaterial. 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
You sound like a theist - "Look at Pol Pot and Stalin!  Don't challenge my beliefs!"  I am not saying you can not own weapons, I'm saying we need to reconsider and think.  I have said frequently that gun control is not the only answer - it may not be any answer.  But until we have enough information, we do not know what that answer may be.  On NPR just now, they mentioned that the NRA insisted that a national database of information on gun injuries and deaths be discontinued.  That is just insane.  How can we make reasoned choices without data?

 

  The NRA is frequently looked at as being a weak an ineffectual gun rights organization among many gun owners.  They have sold out gun owners before.  Owning a gun does not automatically mean I stand behind the NRA.  F**k the NRA, they are appeasers in the long run, just watch.

 

I was not saying anything about your affiliation with said organization, I was saying there is no reliable, consistently gathered data because of said organization.  If we had better data, we could make better decisions.  Agree?

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
I have handled various weapons, I can hit the broad side of a barn. 

    Yes, I've heard you reference that repeatedly.  A while back I believe you stated an affinity with a lever-action rifle.   Do you remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 ?

The shooter, Luke Woodham, used a lever-action 30-30 to kill his classmates.   Do we need to have a "serious discussion" about controlling lever action rifles ?  ( I imagine this is the point where you begin to equivocate ? ) 

 

No.  Yes, we do have to have the conversation.  I don't care what the fuck weapon we are talking about.  I happen to believe that limited magazines will at least minimize any damage.  Which should be a no brainer.  If you have to stop and reload, you can be taken down by someone unarmed.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
And I don't need one for self defense

  You may be as defenseless as you choose to be.  Why would I object ?

 

I am not defenseless and I do not believe a weapon provides defense.  Yeah, I know you don't agree.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
  or for my ego or for recreation.

   What is this ego thing ? You aren't one of those "a gun is a substitute penis" are you ?   LOL !

 

Since I have met people where that was the case, for some, yes, it is a substitute penis in the same way owning a Humvee is. 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:
  I do think we need to have a conversation about the 2nd and about our culture and the consequences of our current culture, laws, and policies.

   I agree with you in principal.   I fear that we will only get useless prohibitions that will be stepped up incrementally and will only affect those gun owners who had no intention of committing criminal acts. Like me.

  Have you noticed that most, if not all, of these shootings have occurred in "gun free zones" ?  

 

And six year olds having guns would have made all so much safer, how?  Oh, sorry, you are not talking about children taking guns to school, are you?  The point of no guns at school was an attempt to have a clear rule about children not bringing their parents' guns to school.  While I am sure that there are children who know how to safely handle the weapons, and are able to defend themselves and others, but I am reasonably certain there are many who are neither.

Gabby's was not in a gun free zone.  Mass shootings take place where there were lots of people.  It wasn't that there were no guns, it was that there were lots of people in groups to be shot.  The most bang for the buck - as it were.  Shootings where only one or two are killed - as in domestic violence situations - are not in gun free zones.  Accidental shootings are not in gun free zones. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3828
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
When the number

When the number of Americans killed by gun violence exceeds the number of unarmed people killed by genocides in other countries, I'll support gun control.

But also think about all the benefits from deaths by gun fire(or any other means). The victims of gun violence no longer have any carbon footprint, nor will their non-existent offspring. They don't need any more food and natural resources meaning someone else can use these resources to survive. They will no longer compete for places in universities or jobs meaning lower unemployment. Such is life in a competitive world.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Of course not -

cj wrote:

 

Of course not - WHICH IS MY POINT.  Forgive the yelling, but I am thinking I am talking to a brick wall.

 

   Go ahead and yell.  I suppose that is better than "spouting off".

 

 

 

cj wrote:
They didn't have weapons like that, so they would not have a clue as to the consequences of the 2nd in today's culture.  If we all had crystal balls, we would all make different choices.

 

 

 No one ( unless they are a complete idiot ) has to see into the future to understand that there will be technical progress regarding weaponry.  One only has to look to THE PAST.  History is a reliable source, by the way.

 

cj wrote:
People owned the same weapons as the military because there were no weapons that were developed specifically for the military at that time.

     And yet these same weapons were used to wage an armed revolution.  These civilian owned weapons maintained parity with what was being used against them.

 

cj wrote:
Of course.

 

 

 

  okay.

  

  

 

cj wrote:
Not using your brain is spouting off.  Hanging on to your beliefs without reasoned thought is spouting off.  Not agreeing with me is immaterial.

 

  Yet "reasoned thought " depends upon my agreeing with your viewpoint.  What's the difference ? 

 

 

 

cj wrote:
I was not saying anything about your affiliation with said organization, I was saying there is no reliable, consistently gathered data because of said organization.  If we had better data, we could make better decisions.  Agree?

 

          Where do anti-gun groups get their statistics then ? Are they just guessing ?

 

 

 

cj wrote:
No. I don't care what the fuck weapon we are talking about.

 

  Apparently you do care about the weapon as you completely steered away from attacking  the lever action rifle even though it was used in a school shooting as well.  I'm sure it was a big comfort to the survivors to know it was only a lever action that killed their classmates.

 

cj wrote:
whatever type of magazine I happen to believe that limited magazines will at least minimize any damage.  Which should be a no brainer.

 

 

A no brainer ?  What if they bring more than one gun ?  No stopping to reload.

 

cj wrote:
If you have to stop and reload, you can be taken down by someone unarmed.

 

  Tell that to the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting.    Headline of New York Times article dated 4-17-2007 "Drum Beat of Shots, Broken by Pauses to Reload"

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17scene.html?pagewanted=all&r=0

 

  According to a thread on the Democratic Underground the guy changed magazines 10 times.  No one did anything during those pauses.

 

  

 

 

 

cj wrote:
I am not defenseless and I do not believe a weapon provides defense. 

 

   A weapon does not provide defense ?    .... whatever you use to defend yourself becomes a weapon.

 

 

 

cj wrote:
Since I have met people where that was the case, for some, yes, it is a substitute penis in the same way owning a Humvee is.

 

         Thank you Dr. Freud.  That was just classic.

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3828
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  No

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 No one ( unless they are a complete idiot ) has to see into the future to understand that there will be technical progress regarding weaponry.  One only has to look to THE PAST.  History is a reliable source, by the way.

Yes, Of all potential weapons the federal government should be worring about, guns should be about 1001.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Meanwhile in the land of

Meanwhile in the land of reality beyond the delusions of gun nuts.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/blair-county-gunman-kills-three-people-667321/

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  cj, I found this report

  cj, I found this report on gun stats.  It's from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

 

  http://www.guardian.co.uk./news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list.  

 

  The above link will take you directly to the article. Just follow the links on the site.  It contains gun homicide rates from around the world as well as a breakdown among the states in the US.  ( Sorry, just go to www.guardian.co.uk and click the header titled "Data" and simply follow the links. )

 

       Among the US states California has the highest gun homicide rate ( as well as some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation. Can you say "irony" ? ) and Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica are the world leaders in firearms death.

 

   The FBI also documents data for the US in their Uniform Crime Reports.  The info is out there, one only needs to access it.

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Your fucking high as a kite

Your fucking high as a kite to think that the 2nd Amendment should stay as it is and allow people to have full or semi automatic weapons, with huge stock piles of ammo. Some of these assholes have more weaponry than the armory at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina. It's fucking bullshit.

Give them one revolver and one bolt action with enough ammo to defend their house and do some hunting. And like in the military, the must account for all the ammo the check out.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3828
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Meanwhile in

Brian37 wrote:

Meanwhile in the land of reality beyond the delusions of gun nuts.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/blair-county-gunman-kills-three-people-667321/

Meanwhile in the land of reality beyond the delusions of 2nd Amendment haters.

http://warheaddd.edublogs.org/2012/06/05/genocide-statistics/

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3828
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37

 

What genocidal dictator did not advocate strict gun control?


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I am not

cj wrote:

I am not defenseless and I do not believe a weapon provides defense.

While I think good judgement is the best form of defense, a weapon will most certainly enhance your ability to defend yourself.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

According to a thread on the Democratic Underground the guy changed magazines 10 times.  No one did anything during those pauses.

They were probably too scared...most people don't have combat training/experience...

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Your

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Your fucking high as a kite to think that the 2nd Amendment should stay as it is...

 

  Sorry digital, not only am I high as a kite I've even been accused of spouting off.   Gosh, I hope I don't get put on a government watch list.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Give

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Give them one revolver and one bolt action with enough ammo to defend their house and do some hunting. And like in the military, the must account for all the ammo the check out.

 

But a person can kill quite a few people with a revolver and one bolt action rifle.

Granted, while it may take a few minutes to re-load a revolver, what would you do to someone that brings along both a rifle and a revolver ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Give them one revolver and one bolt action with enough ammo to defend their house and do some hunting. And like in the military, the must account for all the ammo the check out.

But a person can kill quite a few people with a revolver and one bolt action rifle.

Granted, while it may take a few minutes to re-load a revolver, what would you do to someone that brings along both a rifle and a revolver ?

My point is that these people who have more guns than what are needed. They have guns that are more powerful than what is needed.

A single bolt action and a six round revolver is a shit load better than these automatic weapons with giant clips. Having been in the USMC and having experience of firing weapons from a cap & ball pistol to a Mark19, the easy of firing a weapon and the ease of reloading does make a difference in skill level.

If the douche bag who shot up the elementary school had one bolt action rifle and one service revolver then you can bet that less people would have died, maybe even none.

I don't put the blame on guns. I put the blame on the mother and the father. The mother because she didn't do enough and the father because he washed his hands of his son. I also blame the system because there is no check and balance for sick people like this; and I believe there needs to be a system in place.

I do not believe we need cops staying at every school. That's a bullshit claim by the NRA.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069537-nra-blames-media-music-and-more-for-culture-of-violence?lite&gt1=43001

The problem is the education of people who own guns. It's the tracking of mentally disturbed people. It's that the NRA has manipulated the system to allow people to have massive arsenals which they do not need.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I do

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I do not believe we need cops staying at every school. That's a bullshit claim by the NRA.

 

 

  

  And democrat Bill Clinton supported the same idea in 2000.   http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

                 Has he owned up to that, lately ?

    

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Vermont has almost the

Vermont has almost the lowest gun violence per capita. They allow concealed carry of a firearm with out a permit.... how's that for some gun  control?????


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
 Look at mexico. Guns are

 Look at mexico. Guns are straight illegal. Criminals are better armed than even the police. If we outlaw any gun besides a revolver and bolt action, I will still be able to go buy a semi auto off the street for 300$$$ More laws are not the answer I'm afraid. 

 

The only thing that will happen if we make more laws is that a person doing the shooting will be breaking more laws... I don't think criminals really care about what is legal or what isn't. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Having

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Having been in the USMC and having experience of firing weapons from a cap & ball pistol to a Mark19, the easy of firing a weapon and the ease of reloading does make a difference in skill level.

 

  Really, who gives a damn if you were in the Marines ?  Does that make you an expert on Constitutional law ?   I've shot civilian owned HK MP5SD, a 100 round belt from a German MG34, Ruger 556K,  Colt M4 carbine.  So what ?  Should I agree with you because you were in the Marines ? Get over your self.

 

  I bet you're really good at following orders though.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
And then, there are facts

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-nra-press-conference-185542748.html

for those who won't bother or can't follow the link,

Quote:

Here's what we found on some of key statements.

"Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years!"

It's true that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported an increase in violent crime in 2011 (from record lows the year before), but that increase was attributed almost entirely to a rise in simple assaults: which specifically means no weapon was used. But according the FBI, "all four of the violent crime offense categories — murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010." Different areas of the country have seen different experiences, but on the whole, the most violent offense continue to decline.

RELATED: The NRA vs. Really Old Video Games: Important Updates for Wayne LaPierre

It's also true that federal prosecutions of gun crimes are down after a big uptick during the middle of the Bush administration. However, since it would make sense of a decline in prosecutions to also match a decline in violent crimes to prosecute, we'll let experts argue over whether fewer charges are brought because they aren't needed or we aren't trying.

"How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"

To our knowledge, no one — not even the NRA — has proposed a national database of the mentally ill. Since similar databases of sex offenders have done little to protect children from sex crimes, that seems unlikely to help. Also, few organizations have done more than the NRA to block the registration of anything, as they work vigorously to defeat gun registration databases wherever they find them.

RELATED: The NRA's Social Media Silence Isn't Working

Most recently, they have called for the repeal of Michigan's state-wide pistol registry, a law that State Police credit for solving a recent shooting spree that targeted drives on the busy I-96 corridor. However, they do maintain a National Registry of Places to Shoot.

"Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!"

It is an oft-repeated talking point that there are 20,000 federal, state, and local gun control laws currently on the books. A 2003 study from the Brooking Institution challenged that unsourced statistic, which has apparently been floating around since the 1960s. They pegged the number of statewide gun control laws at about 300 [PDF], adding that "even a very liberal interpretation of what should count as a separate law would leave the total well short of 20,000."

"But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget."

This is also true, but also quite bold of LaPierre to bring up, since he began his speech by attacking "gun-free school zones" and ignored the record of the NRA efforts on community policing. In the 1994 crime bill that included the original assault weapons ban, Bill Clinton included a new program called "Community Oriented Policing Services" that meant to add 100,000 new police officers to our streets (which LaPierre is essentially now proposing by putting cops in every school.) The NRA opposed that bill in 1994 and later mocked the COPS program for failing to meet its promise. Now he's complaining about the loss of "Secure Our Schools" grants. They were administered by COPS.

We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Mother Jones has made a persuasive case that arming civilians does little to stop mass shooters, and even cops can't stop every shooting. Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit.

RELATED: The Inevitable, Bloomberg-Backed Celebrity Gun-Control PSA Is Here

Those are the facts, as best we could amass them quickly. Whether some talking points came from Facebook, well, that's another story.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As I understand it, the

As I understand it, the 'right' was designed to make it impossible for the government to rule the populace by force. Well guess what: You could have mint condition factory and/or custom models of any and every weapon ever conceived by man, and your government could still kill you, all your friends, and indeed everyone in your state with a couple phone calls, and none of that weaponry will give you any chance to resist at all.

The 'right' to bear arms is antiquated foolishness without a shred of logic to stand on. And every year we watch another few hundred kids get buried over a delusion as ridiculous as theism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:As I understand

Vastet wrote:

As I understand it, the 'right' was designed to make it impossible for the government to rule the populace by force.

It was supposed to make those in power think twice before abusing it.

 

Vastet wrote:

and none of that weaponry will give you any chance to resist at all

Only if nuclear missiles don't count as weapons.

 

Vastet wrote:

The 'right' to bear arms is antiquated foolishness without a shred of logic to stand on.

Except that people like to be able to defend themselves if attacked...

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"It was supposed to make

"It was supposed to make those in power think twice before abusing it."

Semantics.

"Only if nuclear missiles don't count as weapons."

A nuke would simply hasten your demise. There are tens of thousands of well trained individuals, any of whom could take out 5 average citizens without any trouble or even being seen in less than 10 seconds, who work in teams to coordinate efforts to put you 6 feet under, in as many pieces as they like, who will follow orders to do so.

"Except that people like to be able to defend themselves if attacked..."

Since when is suicide a legitimate defence strategy?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

Semantics.

'Impossible' and 'difficult' do not mean the same thing.

 

Vastet wrote:

A nuke would simply hasten your demise.

It would also make attacking you very risky--this is the whole principle behind the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine.

 

Vastet wrote:

There are tens of thousands of well trained individuals, any of whom could take out 5 average citizens without any trouble or even being seen in less than 10 seconds, who work in teams to coordinate efforts to put you 6 feet under, in as many pieces as they like, who will follow orders to do so.

Wow, you make the military sound evil...

 

Vastet wrote:

Since when is suicide a legitimate defence strategy?

Since people have valued things over their own lives.  Do you rely solely on your government to protect you?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I do not believe we need cops staying at every school. That's a bullshit claim by the NRA.

 

 And democrat Bill Clinton supported the same idea in 2000.   http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

                 Has he owned up to that, lately ?

 

HUH? And what the fucking does Bill Clinton have to do with this? It would be like saying Bill O'Reilly is calling for a ban on guns while previously saying "Guns should not be banned". Who cares?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Your fucking high as a kite to think that the 2nd Amendment should stay as it is...

 

  Sorry digital, not only am I high as a kite I've even been accused of spouting off.   Gosh, I hope I don't get put on a government watch list.

I'll add you to my list to give to the government when Obama puts a rag on his head and claims to be a muslim.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Mintyfell wrote:Vermont has

Mintyfell wrote:

Vermont has almost the lowest gun violence per capita. They allow concealed carry of a firearm with out a permit.... how's that for some gun  control?????

Vermont is a highly rated state for schools and their citizens are more educated. Their lower gun violence isn't because of their gun control laws, it's because the citizens are actually better than the other states.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Mintyfell wrote: Look at

Mintyfell wrote:

 Look at mexico. Guns are straight illegal. Criminals are better armed than even the police. If we outlaw any gun besides a revolver and bolt action, I will still be able to go buy a semi auto off the street for 300$$$ More laws are not the answer I'm afraid. 

 

The only thing that will happen if we make more laws is that a person doing the shooting will be breaking more laws... I don't think criminals really care about what is legal or what isn't. 

LOL You are comparing Mexico to the States? LOL.

Why not compare the US to the China? Or Japan? Chile?

All of which have strict gun control laws.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Having been in the USMC and having experience of firing weapons from a cap & ball pistol to a Mark19, the easy of firing a weapon and the ease of reloading does make a difference in skill level.

 

  Really, who gives a damn if you were in the Marines ?  Does that make you an expert on Constitutional law ?   I've shot civilian owned HK MP5SD, a 100 round belt from a German MG34, Ruger 556K,  Colt M4 carbine.  So what ?  Should I agree with you because you were in the Marines ? Get over your self.

 

  I bet you're really good at following orders though.

<face palm> Fail.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:"But do know this

cj wrote:
"But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget."

This is also true, but also quite bold of LaPierre to bring up, since he began his speech by attacking "gun-free school zones" and ignored the record of the NRA efforts on community policing. In the 1994 crime bill that included the original assault weapons ban, Bill Clinton included a new program called "Community Oriented Policing Services" that meant to add 100,000 new police officers to our streets (which LaPierre is essentially now proposing by putting cops in every school.) The NRA opposed that bill in 1994 and later mocked the COPS program for failing to meet its promise. Now he's complaining about the loss of "Secure Our Schools" grants. They were administered by COPS.

We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Mother Jones has made a persuasive case that arming civilians does little to stop mass shooters, and even cops can't stop every shooting. Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit.

When I was in high school we had over 500 kids in our senior class; almost 3000 kids in our school. We had two sheriffs in our school full time. They could be seen in the mornings and the afternoons, when school started and ended. After that, they were non-existent.

I'm curious what he thinks would have happened with a "officer" on duty? Where does he think the fucking money is coming from? Doesn't he read the news about the financial cliff? or is he one of these disconnected rich fucks who think that every one is well off in today's economy?

What a out of touch douche bag.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:HUH?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

HUH? And what the fucking does Bill Clinton have to do with this?

 

   I don't know, something about him being President of the United States at the time he proposed it ? 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

HUH? And what the fucking does Bill Clinton have to do with this?

 

   I don't know, something about him being President of the United States at the time he proposed it ? 

I mean now? Why bring it up?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

                 Because the NRA and Bill Clinton are in agreement. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:
'Impossible' and 'difficult' do not mean the same thing.

Semantics. There is no way to force human behaviour. No policy can guarantee a revolution or lack thereof. You getting stuck on a single misused word that obviously cannot fit my comment is amusing.

blacklight915 wrote:
t would also make attacking you very risky--

No, it would make it necessary. Absolutely necessary. The fact you have a nuke in the first place is a far more dangerous situation then sending a squad of expendable soldiers to take you out in the middle of the night.

blacklight915 wrote:
Wow, you make the military sound evil...

Evil is subjective.

blacklight915 wrote:
Since people have valued things over their own lives.  Do you rely solely on your government to protect you?

Not soley, but mostly. Nearly everyone in the 1st world does. From food to energy to communications and rescue services, we ALL depend on our governments to keep us safe.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You getting

Vastet wrote:

You getting stuck on a single misused word that obviously cannot fit my comment is amusing.

You used the word in your original comment. Are you saying you should have used a different word?

 

Vastet wrote:

No, it would make it necessary. Absolutely necessary. The fact you have a nuke in the first place is a far more dangerous situation then sending a squad of expendable soldiers to take you out in the middle of the night.

Yea, owning a nuke makes you dangerous--the governments of several countries own lots of nukes, and the people running those governments don't feel the need to attack each other.

 

Vastet wrote:

Evil is subjective.

Do you actually think being willing to kill people on command is a good thing?

 

Vastet wrote:

Not soley, but mostly. Nearly everyone in the 1st world does. From food to energy to communications and rescue services, we ALL depend on our governments to keep us safe.

And who or what keeps us safe from our governments?  Do we just beg our governments not to hurt us?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

                 Because the NRA and Bill Clinton are in agreement. 

Did you even read the article?


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Mintyfell wrote:

 Look at mexico. Guns are straight illegal. Criminals are better armed than even the police. If we outlaw any gun besides a revolver and bolt action, I will still be able to go buy a semi auto off the street for 300$$$ More laws are not the answer I'm afraid. 

 

The only thing that will happen if we make more laws is that a person doing the shooting will be breaking more laws... I don't think criminals really care about what is legal or what isn't. 

LOL You are comparing Mexico to the States? LOL.

Why not compare the US to the China? Or Japan? Chile?

All of which have strict gun control laws.

 

OK... that doesn't change the fact that I can go buy any kind of gun that my little heart desires off the freaking street. Completely illegally. As I said before, more laws? Who cares, that is not going to stop a maniac from getting guns and using them.


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Mintyfell wrote:

Vermont has almost the lowest gun violence per capita. They allow concealed carry of a firearm with out a permit.... how's that for some gun  control?????

Vermont is a highly rated state for schools and their citizens are more educated. Their lower gun violence isn't because of their gun control laws, it's because the citizens are actually better than the other states.

 

Duh it's not BECAUSE of their gun control laws. They have low gun violence IN SPITE of their loose gun laws. Obviously the laws don't have anything to do with gun violence here in the US. 

I agree 100% that education, or lack thereof, is a huge factor in gun violence. Personally I think that our school system needs reform. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj

cj wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-nra-press-conference-185542748.html

for those who won't bother or can't follow the link,

Quote:

Here's what we found on some of key statements.

"Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years!"

It's true that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported an increase in violent crime in 2011 (from record lows the year before), but that increase was attributed almost entirely to a rise in simple assaults: which specifically means no weapon was used. But according the FBI, "all four of the violent crime offense categories — murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010." Different areas of the country have seen different experiences, but on the whole, the most violent offense continue to decline.

RELATED: The NRA vs. Really Old Video Games: Important Updates for Wayne LaPierre

It's also true that federal prosecutions of gun crimes are down after a big uptick during the middle of the Bush administration. However, since it would make sense of a decline in prosecutions to also match a decline in violent crimes to prosecute, we'll let experts argue over whether fewer charges are brought because they aren't needed or we aren't trying.

"How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"

To our knowledge, no one — not even the NRA — has proposed a national database of the mentally ill. Since similar databases of sex offenders have done little to protect children from sex crimes, that seems unlikely to help. Also, few organizations have done more than the NRA to block the registration of anything, as they work vigorously to defeat gun registration databases wherever they find them.

RELATED: The NRA's Social Media Silence Isn't Working

Most recently, they have called for the repeal of Michigan's state-wide pistol registry, a law that State Police credit for solving a recent shooting spree that targeted drives on the busy I-96 corridor. However, they do maintain a National Registry of Places to Shoot.

"Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!"

It is an oft-repeated talking point that there are 20,000 federal, state, and local gun control laws currently on the books. A 2003 study from the Brooking Institution challenged that unsourced statistic, which has apparently been floating around since the 1960s. They pegged the number of statewide gun control laws at about 300 [PDF], adding that "even a very liberal interpretation of what should count as a separate law would leave the total well short of 20,000."

"But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget."

This is also true, but also quite bold of LaPierre to bring up, since he began his speech by attacking "gun-free school zones" and ignored the record of the NRA efforts on community policing. In the 1994 crime bill that included the original assault weapons ban, Bill Clinton included a new program called "Community Oriented Policing Services" that meant to add 100,000 new police officers to our streets (which LaPierre is essentially now proposing by putting cops in every school.) The NRA opposed that bill in 1994 and later mocked the COPS program for failing to meet its promise. Now he's complaining about the loss of "Secure Our Schools" grants. They were administered by COPS.

We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Mother Jones has made a persuasive case that arming civilians does little to stop mass shooters, and even cops can't stop every shooting. Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit.

RELATED: The Inevitable, Bloomberg-Backed Celebrity Gun-Control PSA Is Here

Those are the facts, as best we could amass them quickly. Whether some talking points came from Facebook, well, that's another story.

 

The facts are that shootings like this are extremely rare and that the vast majority of gun violence occurs due to gang related activities. The fact is that the most likely person to kill you is your spouse, your siblings, your kids or your parents unless you are one of those people who participate in gang activity. If you are worried about avoiding being murdered the best thing you can do to protect yourself is avoid your family, don't join a gang and avoid the big cities with high crime rates (like Chicago).

The fact is that if a gun is used to commit murder it is almost always a handgun. "Assault rifles" (actually all rifles together) kill fewer people in our country every year than "hands, fists or feet". The second most used gun for murders are shotguns which still falls below "hands, fists or feet".  

Handguns also hold the distinction of being the most commonly used weapon for self defense, perhaps one of the reasons that crime of all types has been declining in correlation with states allowing concealed carry.

The fact is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who have gotten their guns illegally and have not bothered or do not qualify for a permit. Someone with a concealed carry permit is statistically less likely to commit a violent crime. Even with all the additional laws they risk violating (such as walking into a gun free zone while carrying) concealed carry license holders have a lower crime rate than a random sampling of citizens, including violent crimes in states where they track such things.    

The fact is that crime rates have been dropping across the board despite significant relaxing of gun control laws, the exact opposite of what was predicted by gun control groups and precisely what was predicted by the pro gun groups. And the fact is that the only gun control laws that might have prevented this specific event would have been an absolute ban on all guns assuming that Lanza's mother was a law abiding person and wouldn't have purchased one illegally and that Lanza would not have been smart enough to find another way to kill all those people or to obtain a weapon illegally. I'm pretty sure that someone who has decided to commit mass murder isn't worried about breaking a few more laws...  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

 

Edit: 

And the fact is that if we want to decrease violence, including gun violence, we need to seriously address the problem we have with drug gangs, an issue that is virtually ignored by our politicians. Focus on the people who regularly break all laws rather than making law abiding citizens like me and Prozac into criminals. The fact is that David Gregory broke more laws than I did this week (while arguing that the law he was breaking should be a national law...)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 digitalbeachbum wrote:The

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The problem is the education of people who own guns. It's the tracking of mentally disturbed people. It's that the NRA has manipulated the system to allow people to have massive arsenals which they do not need.

Do you consider one rifle and two pistols to be a "massive arsenal"? I don't think that even qualifies as an arsenal. 

 

BTW, I have been out of the loop, have they determined if he used only the pistols or if he also used the Bushmaster? Have they determined yet how he might have stolen the guns? (were they in a safe or just laying around?) I tried to search but the news media seems as incompetent as they were before the end of the world.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You used the word in your

"You used the word in your original comment. Are you saying you should have used a different word?"

Strange as it may seem, I do make mistakes. Sticking out tongue

"Yea, owning a nuke makes you dangerous--the governments of several countries own lots of nukes, and the people running those governments don't feel the need to attack each other."

We aren't discussing government ownership of nukes, we're discussing personal ownership of nukes.

"Do you actually think being willing to kill people on command is a good thing?"

It can be. It's subjective. Would you rather have Iraq's military, which effectively surrendered without firing a shot?

"And who or what keeps us safe from our governments?  Do we just beg our governments not to hurt us?"

Nonsensical. The only way to overthrow a government is to have the military on your side, or at least be neutral. Citizens owning weapons cannot accomplish anything. The military owns more, and is better trained, and works very well together.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Mintyfell

Mintyfell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Mintyfell wrote:

 Look at mexico. Guns are straight illegal. Criminals are better armed than even the police. If we outlaw any gun besides a revolver and bolt action, I will still be able to go buy a semi auto off the street for 300$$$ More laws are not the answer I'm afraid. 

 

The only thing that will happen if we make more laws is that a person doing the shooting will be breaking more laws... I don't think criminals really care about what is legal or what isn't. 

LOL You are comparing Mexico to the States? LOL.

Why not compare the US to the China? Or Japan? Chile?

All of which have strict gun control laws.

 

OK... that doesn't change the fact that I can go buy any kind of gun that my little heart desires off the freaking street. Completely illegally. As I said before, more laws? Who cares, that is not going to stop a maniac from getting guns and using them.

More laws?

The laws they had have been dropped!!! The Brady bill is gone along with other laws. The NRA and the lobbyists involved are the problem. We do not have enough laws protecting the public or the "good" gun owners from having a peaceful life. Too many guns and assholes with guns on the streets.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Mintyfell

Mintyfell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Mintyfell wrote:

Vermont has almost the lowest gun violence per capita. They allow concealed carry of a firearm with out a permit.... how's that for some gun  control?????

Vermont is a highly rated state for schools and their citizens are more educated. Their lower gun violence isn't because of their gun control laws, it's because the citizens are actually better than the other states.

 

Duh it's not BECAUSE of their gun control laws. They have low gun violence IN SPITE of their loose gun laws. Obviously the laws don't have anything to do with gun violence here in the US. 

I agree 100% that education, or lack thereof, is a huge factor in gun violence. Personally I think that our school system needs reform. 

They are an exception. It's like France having limited gun control laws but they have a higher education than americans.

I agree with the reform of the school system. It's so fucked up that I fear for my children.