But he did get it legally - what does that suggest about the current legislation on purchasing a firearm?
Got it legally yes.
No previous mentally ill issues or criminal record that would keep him from getting it legally as far as I know.
I don't know AZ laws but usually there is a waiting period etc.
The laws in place keep the insane and temporarily insane from getting a gun.
You can not change the laws to an if situation
that would be absurd.
and again if he couldn't get it legally he would have found another way. His mission was in place whatever the means. This is going to happen no matter the law.
So based on what occured, you see nothing wrong with the current legislation within Arizona on the purchasing of firearms. That a person of this calibre can walk in and buy a Gloch?
I can't argue as to whether or not this would have happened with a stricter law, fact is it happened with lax gun laws. I mean come on, you seriously washing your hands of this on the basis that it would have happened anyway? What if I said that a tougher law might have seen this guy helped at an earlier stage and that eventually he would go on to win the Nobel peace prize?
I am sure you would ask how the hell i could come to that conclusion having based my opinion on nothing but speculation, but there in lies the problem I have with your inference
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
How do you define who is a responsible drive? How do you guarantee that only those people can have cars? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer you can't try, but only with more stringent driver liscense laws, and thats my point. You could do this with a many number of items, There are a million things out there that can kill people. Who do you deem is responsible to only have these things?
Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.
That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.
You know if some can't get a gun then it will be a bomb or a car driven into a crowd of people. If someone wants to kill because they hate there is no stopping them.
Taking guns away from peaceful law abiding people is not the answer to hate.
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
WOW I did not know someone could be this stupid an illogical...
I'm going to beat Kat to the punch here. There's no need for insults - just because we have differing opinions doesn't mean we can't respect other people's. Keep it clean - let's not get another thread locked, just because people can't have an intelligent debate without getting personal
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).
The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).
There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.
But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???
There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.
"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.
America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).
The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).
There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.
But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???
There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.
are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).
The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).
There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.
But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???
There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.
OK side note - who is the you guys that you keep referring to? My group?? who are they?
Just because people have been killing eachother since the beginning of time a) doesnt make it right and b)doesn't mean we should be making it so easy for them
You still haven't answered my question on Canada - they have criminals too, how do they get by day to day without the need to arm the populace?
America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).
The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).
There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.
But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???
There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.
I can't speak for others here but i do know that its people that shoot guns and hurt people that why we put them in prison and not just the gun. but you must see that guns make it easier for people to kill others. it's not separated. its a relationship.
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
Thank you
Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
No previous mentally ill issues or criminal record that would keep him from getting it legally as far as I know.
Im pretty sure he was kicked out of school or something for mental issues for a span of time.
that must not count :?
thats been pretty much most of our points through this whole thread... you can have your 'right' to have a gun if you want... i think a lot of us are saying, lets make it really really difficult BUT fair for decent law-abiding people to own one... and at that I'm going further and saying that if someone is on the street carrying a gun then it carries a minimum 50 year sentence... no question... even if you were holding it for your buddy while he tied his lace... also if the guns are registered i'd have a gun control officer who would have the authority to check your storage facility in your home and if he/she found you to be breaking the law in regards to storing of the gun then the licence to have it would be revoked... nearly 1000 kids per year die as a result of finding their parents gun in a drawer or wherever and then shooting either themselves or a sibling.
again... not remove the 'right'... remove the chance of someone a bit loopy to own and keep one.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.
That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.
Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions. Guns don't load themselves, or pull their own trigger. Should we have regulation on who can walk up or down stairs because some people choose to run down them, fall, and could potentionall die??? The point is everything can potentiall kill anybody. Space heaters are terrible way for heating your house and cause electrical fires all the time. Here in cincinnati a family died due to this. SHould we regulate who is responsible enough to buy a space heater??? She would employ a gov. worker to watch the family the whole time to make sure they use the space heater correctly. You are advocating for the Gov. to regulate everthing because any carelesss act can kills us... You can't stop death, murders, ect.. as long as there are messed up people in this world. Let me guess we should regulate birhts and only law abiding citizens should only give birth, that why it will cut down on crimes. A car can be used just like a gun can. A car used responsibly is a non issues. A gun owner who is responsible is also a non issue. Now do accidents happen, yes they do, with cars and gun. Guns are used to hunt for food, protection... in case you didn't know.
Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws? All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
so what? if you really really want one you'll jump through the hoops to get one...
because of terrorists flying into the twin towers its now really really difficult to gain entry to the US... but millions do because they want to... if a guy wants a gun so bad and he has to sit some tests, fill in some details, etc then he will.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.
Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.
As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
bottom line, Heidi, is that you feel you are safer with a gun in your house as you feel the risk of an intruder exceeds that of an accident. I feel the opposite. there are no stats or facts that will turn either of us the other way.
peace.
Sounds good Paul. I agree with you too… we’re not going to all agree, but I just feel something needs to be done. There are more and more mass shootings lately by crazy folks.
Your just mad that you can't stand up for yourself becase you afraid it might turn into something physical. I think the definition of that is a Pussy Bitch.
But its attitudes like this ^^^ that make me wonder who is fit to own a weapon. Seriously dude, this is a passionate subject, and many people are voicing opinions, but you bring this to an all-time-low with your condescending shittalk. You seriously sound like you need anger management classes. I don’t even know Haffa, but we are all PJ fans here. Show a little respect.
"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.
Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.
As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.
Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.
That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.
Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions. Guns don't load themselves, or pull their own trigger. Should we have regulation on who can walk up or down stairs because some people choose to run down them, fall, and could potentionall die??? The point is everything can potentiall kill anybody. Space heaters are terrible way for heating your house and cause electrical fires all the time. Here in cincinnati a family died due to this. SHould we regulate who is responsible enough to buy a space heater??? She would employ a gov. worker to watch the family the whole time to make sure they use the space heater correctly. You are advocating for the Gov. to regulate everthing because any carelesss act can kills us... You can't stop death, murders, ect.. as long as there are messed up people in this world. Let me guess we should regulate birhts and only law abiding citizens should only give birth, that why it will cut down on crimes. A car can be used just like a gun can. A car used responsibly is a non issues. A gun owner who is responsible is also a non issue. Now do accidents happen, yes they do, with cars and gun. Guns are used to hunt for food, protection... in case you didn't know.
Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.
For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I said homicide rate. Rates are proportionate, so the actual size of the population is irrelevant. (Though I was referring to Ireland's homicide rate)
But for the record, in Ireland the gun murder rate is 0.32 per 100,000. The US rate is 4.75 per 100,000
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
bottom line, Heidi, is that you feel you are safer with a gun in your house as you feel the risk of an intruder exceeds that of an accident. I feel the opposite. there are no stats or facts that will turn either of us the other way.
peace.
Sounds good Paul. I agree with you too… we’re not going to all agree, but I just feel something needs to be done. There are more and more mass shootings lately by crazy folks.
Your just mad that you can't stand up for yourself becase you afraid it might turn into something physical. I think the definition of that is a Pussy Bitch.
But its attitudes like this ^^^ that make me wonder who is fit to own a weapon. Seriously dude, this is a passionate subject, and many people are voicing opinions, but you bring this to an all-time-low with your condescending shittalk. You seriously sound like you need anger management classes. I don’t even know Haffa, but we are all PJ fans here. Show a little respect.
Why don't you quit cherry picking quotes and show what haffa said... Some of you people are truly clowns here and it is extremely frustraiting... Johnny If you are going to post that post then post what haffa said and my entire response post, and address what you don't agree with. If you can't stand up for yourself that you are a pussy bitch, is that wrong???
Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions.
I am honestly somewhat in agreeance with you here, but there are many things that the govt regulates because some people cant hanlde responsibly.
Also, many of us have been saying all along that raising good points and awareness might help rpevent horrible trajedies in the future without compromising the 'resposible' owners too much.
I just feel that even the 'responsible' owners should be willing to look at stricter laws if it means saving lives. And by that, I mean that maybe (these are just random ideas) they should look longer at peoples records before they can purchase one. Also, this might be very futuristic, but we have amazing minds in science and technology that might be able to create a weapon that only fires from a certain user.
My favorite idea is the OnStar tracking system on handguns -- or possibly a lock that disables a gun every few months that has to be brought to a licensed dealer to reactivate it. it sounds crazy, but it could be done one day in the future.
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
Thank you
Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??
Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.
For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.
Way to just side step and not address your illogical postion on regulation because some object can cause harm. By the way some people do live out in the wildreness and need protection from ANIMALS, not human beings. So nice try. You are right they are designed for protection.
"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.
Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.
As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.
I don't remember it? Thought I covered my opinion and the questions.
And here in lies the problem
You want to ban guns...I thought that was the case.
No middle of the road, no tougher laws, total banishment to our basic right. A ban that would not allow those who wish to own a gun safely to do so. Rational, careful, peaceful people.
To me that is craziness.
A small light shines between us though we are both against capital punishment
So i was trying to find out the stats on how many guns used in crimes were stolen from homes but i saw this interesting article that i thought people might find interesting. now the article is from 2009 so it's a bit old but i am going to assume that this remains true. If i am wrong please forgive.
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
Thank you
Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??
Well I did answer as far as the little I know of the laws they are not and hopefully never will be there to cover an ifsituation. As far as they stand now I'm assuming there is background checks and waiting periods.
And tougher gun laws will not stop criminals or crazies from getting guns or carrying out terrible acts of violence.
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
Thank you
I would think the following:
1) Accessability, both legal & illegal
2) Effectiveness / versatility / ease of use
3) Intimacy level desired
I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?
Thank you
Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??
So you believe that the backround checks and waiting period served its purpose here? I am shocked and amazed that your insistance to be right is over riding your logic - to say "you know what, perhaps, based on this case, more stringent laws should be applied to ensure it doesnt happen again" would not mean you lost the debate, it would make you human for godsake.
I'm sick of this, I actually feel quite disgusted by some of you, as a species we are fucked if this is what we spend our efforts trying to defend, fucking appalling.
Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.
For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.
Way to just side step and not address your illogical postion on regulation because some object can cause harm. By the way some people do live out in the wildreness and need protection from ANIMALS, not human beings. So nice try. You are right they are designed for protection.
How illogical? I'd already addressed that so not sidestepping anything. If you want to know my answer go back and read it.
Yes, some people do live in the wilderness - that is true. But is that what you've been talking about through the rest of this thread?! Becuase it sounded to me that there has been an awful lot more talk about criminals than about bears... You're really reaching, at this point.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Comments
So based on what occured, you see nothing wrong with the current legislation within Arizona on the purchasing of firearms. That a person of this calibre can walk in and buy a Gloch?
I can't argue as to whether or not this would have happened with a stricter law, fact is it happened with lax gun laws. I mean come on, you seriously washing your hands of this on the basis that it would have happened anyway? What if I said that a tougher law might have seen this guy helped at an earlier stage and that eventually he would go on to win the Nobel peace prize?
I am sure you would ask how the hell i could come to that conclusion having based my opinion on nothing but speculation, but there in lies the problem I have with your inference
Thank you
Im pretty sure he was kicked out of school or something for mental issues for a span of time.
That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.
I'm going to beat Kat to the punch here. There's no need for insults - just because we have differing opinions doesn't mean we can't respect other people's. Keep it clean - let's not get another thread locked, just because people can't have an intelligent debate without getting personal
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.
are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?
OK side note - who is the you guys that you keep referring to? My group?? who are they?
Just because people have been killing eachother since the beginning of time a) doesnt make it right and b)doesn't mean we should be making it so easy for them
You still haven't answered my question on Canada - they have criminals too, how do they get by day to day without the need to arm the populace?
I can't speak for others here but i do know that its people that shoot guns and hurt people that why we put them in prison and not just the gun. but you must see that guns make it easier for people to kill others. it's not separated. its a relationship.
Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.
thats been pretty much most of our points through this whole thread... you can have your 'right' to have a gun if you want... i think a lot of us are saying, lets make it really really difficult BUT fair for decent law-abiding people to own one... and at that I'm going further and saying that if someone is on the street carrying a gun then it carries a minimum 50 year sentence... no question... even if you were holding it for your buddy while he tied his lace... also if the guns are registered i'd have a gun control officer who would have the authority to check your storage facility in your home and if he/she found you to be breaking the law in regards to storing of the gun then the licence to have it would be revoked... nearly 1000 kids per year die as a result of finding their parents gun in a drawer or wherever and then shooting either themselves or a sibling.
again... not remove the 'right'... remove the chance of someone a bit loopy to own and keep one.
so what? if you really really want one you'll jump through the hoops to get one...
because of terrorists flying into the twin towers its now really really difficult to gain entry to the US... but millions do because they want to... if a guy wants a gun so bad and he has to sit some tests, fill in some details, etc then he will.
Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.
As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Sounds good Paul. I agree with you too… we’re not going to all agree, but I just feel something needs to be done. There are more and more mass shootings lately by crazy folks.
But its attitudes like this ^^^ that make me wonder who is fit to own a weapon. Seriously dude, this is a passionate subject, and many people are voicing opinions, but you bring this to an all-time-low with your condescending shittalk. You seriously sound like you need anger management classes. I don’t even know Haffa, but we are all PJ fans here. Show a little respect.
Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.
For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I said homicide rate. Rates are proportionate, so the actual size of the population is irrelevant. (Though I was referring to Ireland's homicide rate)
But for the record, in Ireland the gun murder rate is 0.32 per 100,000. The US rate is 4.75 per 100,000
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I am honestly somewhat in agreeance with you here, but there are many things that the govt regulates because some people cant hanlde responsibly.
Also, many of us have been saying all along that raising good points and awareness might help rpevent horrible trajedies in the future without compromising the 'resposible' owners too much.
I just feel that even the 'responsible' owners should be willing to look at stricter laws if it means saving lives. And by that, I mean that maybe (these are just random ideas) they should look longer at peoples records before they can purchase one. Also, this might be very futuristic, but we have amazing minds in science and technology that might be able to create a weapon that only fires from a certain user.
My favorite idea is the OnStar tracking system on handguns -- or possibly a lock that disables a gun every few months that has to be brought to a licensed dealer to reactivate it. it sounds crazy, but it could be done one day in the future.
The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??
And here in lies the problem
You want to ban guns...I thought that was the case.
No middle of the road, no tougher laws, total banishment to our basic right. A ban that would not allow those who wish to own a gun safely to do so. Rational, careful, peaceful people.
To me that is craziness.
A small light shines between us though
we are both against capital punishment
Glock...Austria
Sig Sauer...Swiss
H&K...Germany
Beretta...Italy
Taurus...Brazil
Fuckin stupid Americans....
hehehehehehehe
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/280-mill ... on-the-way
And tougher gun laws will not stop criminals or crazies from getting guns or carrying out terrible acts of violence.
I would think the following:
1) Accessability, both legal & illegal
2) Effectiveness / versatility / ease of use
3) Intimacy level desired
So you believe that the backround checks and waiting period served its purpose here? I am shocked and amazed that your insistance to be right is over riding your logic - to say "you know what, perhaps, based on this case, more stringent laws should be applied to ensure it doesnt happen again" would not mean you lost the debate, it would make you human for godsake.
I'm sick of this, I actually feel quite disgusted by some of you, as a species we are fucked if this is what we spend our efforts trying to defend, fucking appalling.
How illogical? I'd already addressed that so not sidestepping anything. If you want to know my answer go back and read it.
Yes, some people do live in the wilderness - that is true. But is that what you've been talking about through the rest of this thread?! Becuase it sounded to me that there has been an awful lot more talk about criminals than about bears... You're really reaching, at this point.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2