So I gather you must not be a good guy since you apparently don't own or carry a gun. Therefore this very same crime could happen to you. Also just because one has a gun doesn't automatically means things are going to turn out the way you've stated..it is not as easy as you think.
Yet when it's suggested to have more checks on internet purchases you appear not care for simple checks and balances of waiting period, registration and background checks. You appear to say that will take away guns from innocent victims.
So it appears you're saying everybody who is a good guy make it easier for them to get guns because the bad guys no matter who they may potentially be can always get their guns. OKay
Peace
By your definition I am not a good guy ,my definition I am because I am law abiding,
I would think that would be easily understood.
I'm just not a responsible gun owner yet.
Not sure about your conclusion you have drawn in your next paragraphs...
It is extremely easy for criminals to get guns. Much easier than the law abiding
responsible who buy legally, who fill out applications, background checks,
and often wait, then take safety training.
This the criteria they meet by laws in place and out of their own sense of responsibility.
More laws governing them are not needed. Enforce the laws we have and get rid of the criminals with much stiffer penalties,
and an effort against illegal arms. Put the action where it is needed against the criminals.
Checks and balances on the internet rely on the individual making the purchase,
or their parents.
Criminals go to the street .... to compare the two is ridiculous.
Some people are just stronger than others, braver, it is in their make up to take control
of situations, to be prepared, trained. We see these folks, we are thankful when they are there,
with a gun or without.
In the world of sheep these stand out. They will protect their neighbors and even
a stranger when needed, risking their own lives because they know this is the
right thing to do.
Others know they must be able to protect themselves and their loved ones if the
need arises. They are aware of the very personal dangers or circumstances they live in
and are prepared as they see fit.
Then there are some who are unprepared, untrained and weak ...
with a gun or without,they will be a victim when the time comes,
a victim of their own stupidity or of someone else's.
I must have misunderstood your words here.
Do you see a contradiction here...
the fact you would compare the two statements is foolishness.
Obviously a trained first responder police officer has a plan... yes?
go back and read the explanation I have given for my words...
it is about being prepared, trained ,responsible, have a plan whether you own a gun or not...
oh and lock the doors too
how many times does one need to explain before some get it? The same few refuse to understand and twist words
but the fact they make light of this man dying...
a hero, speaks volumes of them.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
I posted somewhere in this long ass thread that mental disorders are rarely checked and in most states don't disqualify people anyway.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
then you are treating everyone with depression as a second class citizen, as in, no longer able to obtain arms which is their given right under the second amendment, a right some of you hold so dear.
I thought the second amendment shouldn't be altered? but now it can for mental illness? what about society's illness?
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Checks and balances on the internet rely on the individual making the purchase,
or their parents.
.
relying on parental controls/responsibility, ESPECIALLY in the US, instead of simply changing some laws that don't affect law abiding citizens is utter foolishness.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
do you know what percentage of people with mental disorders are actually diagnosed? it's incredibly low, because people don't want to be stigmatized. at to that some rights might be taken away as an American, that number would drop to near zero.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I think he's saying that by locking your doors you can't claim you are not living in fear, otherwise, why would you lock them?
the difference being, DS, is that locking your doors has no potential to harm anyone. Oh, and stop using the car anology. you are free to use it again if someone drives their vehicle into a shopping mall with the express intent of mowing people down 60 times in one year.
Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm. These are very tragic stories...and I feel for those involved, I do, but I'm still waiting for the stories about legal fireamrs that didn't cause any harm yesterday. Also, why is no one in arms that 6 people were killed yesterday in a DWI accident in Albany?
it doesn't make logical sense. you don't need to use a gun in every day life. it has no purpose other than to kill things. we use cars to get around. we use toasters to toast our bread, knives are used to slice food. accidents happen in every day life with appliances, I get what are you trying to say. but really it takes it a few steps too far when you are comparing something that is not used with intent to kill.
a gun has no purpose other than to kill. do you use a rifle to chop wood? how about to make scrambled eggs? tell me ONE THING where a gun is used in everyday life for the average urban citizen (I'm not talking about farmers and killing pests-I have no issue with hunting).
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but I'm still waiting for the stories about legal fireamrs that didn't cause any harm yesterday.
and so when someone's baby dies by being trapped and smothered in an ill-conceived cushion in a crib, do we just say "hey, look at all the kids that DIDN'T die". No, we learn from the experience and decide maybe that cushion isn't safe for kids. And we remove it.
do you think it's logical to remove cars from society? how would that affect the economy, not to mention society as a whole? how does that compare to how society would benefit or not from stricter gun laws?
how can you possible claim the comparison is logical?
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
then you are treating everyone with depression as a second class citizen, as in, no longer able to obtain arms which is their given right under the second amendment, a right some of you hold so dear.
I thought the second amendment shouldn't be altered? but now it can for mental illness? what about society's illness?
With this one yesterday and the guy in Seatlle the family had concerns about the mental health of the shooter. The family of the guy in Seattle tried to get his guns taken away. It seems like if a guys parents say you're a threat to others the cops should be able to do something.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The A&M shooters mom said he was ill and it's sad his illness led to this. Yet he still had no problem getting guns. Yeah, those laws are plenty strong. Now he and two others are dead over a eviction notice.
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.
I agree. That's why some sort of owner registry is needed. If a guy like Holmes is stockpiling weapons it should raise red flags. If a neo-nazi like the guy in Wisconsin starts buying new guns and ammo it should raise a red flag.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
It is extremely easy for criminals to get guns. Much easier than the law abiding
responsible who buy legally, who fill out applications, background checks,
and often wait, then take safety training..
Ummmm... except when the law abiding citizen buys off the internet or any other unlicensed dealer - no applications, no background checks, no wait. Same as a criminal wanting to get one if he/she wanted. When will you understand that? Safety training is not law, is it?
Checks and balances on the internet rely on the individual making the purchase,
or their parents..
How silly. No........ Checks do not rely on the individual making the purchase :? . What is this person going to do? Look at himself/herself in the mirror and say: 'yep, I think I'm OK to have a gun'? That is the job of the licensed dealer to get the info, send it off wherever it needs to go and wait for the results. If one employs someone and requires references, will one say 'OK potential employee, I will rely on you to give me references. Type one up and hand it in.'
the question with that is where do you draw the line? Do mild depressive disorders and ADHD count, or just psychotic disorders? Would Axis II disorders, like antisocial personality disorder(similar to what we consider sociopaths) count? Sociopath and psychopath aren't DSM-IV diagnoses, so what do we do with people who fall in that category? Mental health isn't static, so someone being considered a danger to self or others is fleeting. Do we only apply this to people seeking inpatient care? The VA Tech shooter was able to legally obtain a gun because he was mandated to outpatient care, not inpatient.
I agree. That's why some sort of owner registry is needed. If a guy like Holmes is stockpiling weapons it should raise red flags. If a neo-nazi like the guy in Wisconsin starts buying new guns and ammo it should raise a red flag.
Exactly. With a registry those alarm bells would go off, similar to the registries in development to prevent prescription drug use. Background checks are needed, but as we've seen in some recent cases people with no histories would still slip through the cracks.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Exactly. With a registry those alarm bells would go off, similar to the registries in development to prevent prescription drug use. Background checks are needed, but as we've seen in some recent cases people with no histories would still slip through the cracks.
we had a registry here in canada ... it cost a lot of money to start it up ... but now that it's running efficiently and smoothly and the police forces all use it ... our right wing gov't scrapped it ... :fp:
Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm.
Oh, thank god! You can stop using that ridiculous analogy now, since you said it yourself...To obtain a drivers license, one must make an appointment and pass a written test and driving test. To purchase a firearm, you can do so online or at a gun show with no questions asked. A Drivers License is harder to get than a gun. Your automobile analogy is further banned from this conversation. Thank you.
Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm.
Oh, thank god! You can stop using that ridiculous analogy now, since you said it yourself...To obtain a drivers license, one must make an appointment and pass a written test and driving test. To purchase a firearm, you can do so online or at a gun show with no questions asked. A Drivers License is harder to get than a gun. Your automobile analogy is further banned from this conversation. Thank you.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?
I thought so...
have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?
I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....
at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.
we had a registry here in canada ... it cost a lot of money to start it up ... but now that it's running efficiently and smoothly and the police forces all use it ... our right wing gov't scrapped it ... :fp:
Why? and why did your country allow that with their votes? if that is the case...
I think he's saying that by locking your doors you can't claim you are not living in fear, otherwise, why would you lock them?
the difference being, DS, is that locking your doors has no potential to harm anyone. Oh, and stop using the car anology. you are free to use it again if someone drives their vehicle into a shopping mall with the express intent of mowing people down 60 times in one year.
Sorry. Won't stop using the car analogy until it stops making logical sense. Or until it becomes harder to obtain a driver's license and vehicle than it does a firearm. These are very tragic stories...and I feel for those involved, I do, but I'm still waiting for the stories about legal fireamrs that didn't cause any harm yesterday. Also, why is no one in arms that 6 people were killed yesterday in a DWI accident in Albany?
Oh tthhhaaaat's why you keep presenting it! You haven't realized it doesn't make any logical sense. Now you know- the amount of everyday car usage obliterates the amount of gun usage and comparatively speaking (even though it is very difficult to compare a transportation mode with a killing weapon), the percentages reveal automobiles to be infinitely safer.
If you had presented an analogy where you spoke of how dangerous pavement is and how many falls we have each year on pavement that result in death or injury... you might have had a better chance of convincing someone that guns aren't as dangerous as everyday items.
You have a gun problem in your country, sir. You have an idiot problem too. It is hard to establish which people are the idiots at face value (at the point of purchase). The answer isn't more accessible guns. The answer is careful screening and limiting the types of weapons people can have. That might mean that a good person doesn't get a handgun to spin on his finger while shooting pop cans, but it does mean people can go watch Batman with some safeguards in place.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?
I thought so...
have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?
I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....
at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.
I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls, What don't you get about that?
People are responsible and when will you understand far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?
so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.
To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls, What don't you get about that?
People are responsible and when will you understand far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?
so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.
To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...
james holmes was a law abiding citizen UNTIL he commited the crime.. so maybe just maybe strict new gun laws would have prevented him from buying up so much ammo and dangerous weapons.. thats all we have been saying. otherwise 'law abiding citizens' are free to buy as much weapons and ammo as humanely possible until they feel like not being law abiding anymore.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls, What don't you get about that?
You dont know that Holmes would've still pursued an AR-15 if they were illegal. He may have settled for the handguns. Less powerful weapons with less ammo could mean less injuries...How is that so hard to consider?
In the Giffords shooting in AZ, magazine limits were increased a few years before...he shot like 14 people, killing 6. He was finally stopped when he ran out of rounds (33). Had this gun been limited to 10-12 rounds, perhaps less people die. He was NOT A CRIMINAL before he became a criminal. Again, we're not just talking about street hug criminals here.
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
.
So why have any laws at all?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
I would think that would be easily understood.
I'm just not a responsible gun owner yet.
Not sure about your conclusion you have drawn in your next paragraphs...
It is extremely easy for criminals to get guns. Much easier than the law abiding
responsible who buy legally, who fill out applications, background checks,
and often wait, then take safety training.
This the criteria they meet by laws in place and out of their own sense of responsibility.
More laws governing them are not needed.
Enforce the laws we have and get rid of the criminals with much stiffer penalties,
and an effort against illegal arms.
Put the action where it is needed against the criminals.
Checks and balances on the internet rely on the individual making the purchase,
or their parents.
Criminals go to the street .... to compare the two is ridiculous.
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
the fix for that seems ez enuff, mental sidorders should be reported to the state/fed's to add to the list of people that are not allowed to buy guns...or do they do that already ?
can you imagine the amount of people that would not be allowed to buy guns ??? wow ! seems it might help.
Godfather.
I posted somewhere in this long ass thread that mental disorders are rarely checked and in most states don't disqualify people anyway.
then you are treating everyone with depression as a second class citizen, as in, no longer able to obtain arms which is their given right under the second amendment, a right some of you hold so dear.
I thought the second amendment shouldn't be altered? but now it can for mental illness? what about society's illness?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
relying on parental controls/responsibility, ESPECIALLY in the US, instead of simply changing some laws that don't affect law abiding citizens is utter foolishness.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
do you know what percentage of people with mental disorders are actually diagnosed? it's incredibly low, because people don't want to be stigmatized. at to that some rights might be taken away as an American, that number would drop to near zero.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it doesn't make logical sense. you don't need to use a gun in every day life. it has no purpose other than to kill things. we use cars to get around. we use toasters to toast our bread, knives are used to slice food. accidents happen in every day life with appliances, I get what are you trying to say. but really it takes it a few steps too far when you are comparing something that is not used with intent to kill.
a gun has no purpose other than to kill. do you use a rifle to chop wood? how about to make scrambled eggs? tell me ONE THING where a gun is used in everyday life for the average urban citizen (I'm not talking about farmers and killing pests-I have no issue with hunting).
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and so when someone's baby dies by being trapped and smothered in an ill-conceived cushion in a crib, do we just say "hey, look at all the kids that DIDN'T die". No, we learn from the experience and decide maybe that cushion isn't safe for kids. And we remove it.
do you think it's logical to remove cars from society? how would that affect the economy, not to mention society as a whole? how does that compare to how society would benefit or not from stricter gun laws?
how can you possible claim the comparison is logical?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
With this one yesterday and the guy in Seatlle the family had concerns about the mental health of the shooter. The family of the guy in Seattle tried to get his guns taken away. It seems like if a guys parents say you're a threat to others the cops should be able to do something.
I agree. That's why some sort of owner registry is needed. If a guy like Holmes is stockpiling weapons it should raise red flags. If a neo-nazi like the guy in Wisconsin starts buying new guns and ammo it should raise a red flag.
Ummmm... except when the law abiding citizen buys off the internet or any other unlicensed dealer - no applications, no background checks, no wait. Same as a criminal wanting to get one if he/she wanted. When will you understand that? Safety training is not law, is it?
How silly. No........ Checks do not rely on the individual making the purchase :? . What is this person going to do? Look at himself/herself in the mirror and say: 'yep, I think I'm OK to have a gun'? That is the job of the licensed dealer to get the info, send it off wherever it needs to go and wait for the results. If one employs someone and requires references, will one say 'OK potential employee, I will rely on you to give me references. Type one up and hand it in.'
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
we had a registry here in canada ... it cost a lot of money to start it up ... but now that it's running efficiently and smoothly and the police forces all use it ... our right wing gov't scrapped it ... :fp:
Oh, thank god! You can stop using that ridiculous analogy now, since you said it yourself...To obtain a drivers license, one must make an appointment and pass a written test and driving test. To purchase a firearm, you can do so online or at a gun show with no questions asked. A Drivers License is harder to get than a gun. Your automobile analogy is further banned from this conversation. Thank you.
(although, in these times? pfffft! 67 channels is child's play)
Anyway, this thread kinda reminds me of that
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?
I thought so...
have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?
I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....
at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.
Why? and why did your country allow that with their votes? if that is the case...
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Oh tthhhaaaat's why you keep presenting it! You haven't realized it doesn't make any logical sense. Now you know- the amount of everyday car usage obliterates the amount of gun usage and comparatively speaking (even though it is very difficult to compare a transportation mode with a killing weapon), the percentages reveal automobiles to be infinitely safer.
If you had presented an analogy where you spoke of how dangerous pavement is and how many falls we have each year on pavement that result in death or injury... you might have had a better chance of convincing someone that guns aren't as dangerous as everyday items.
You have a gun problem in your country, sir. You have an idiot problem too. It is hard to establish which people are the idiots at face value (at the point of purchase). The answer isn't more accessible guns. The answer is careful screening and limiting the types of weapons people can have. That might mean that a good person doesn't get a handgun to spin on his finger while shooting pop cans, but it does mean people can go watch Batman with some safeguards in place.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
What don't you get about that?
People are responsible and when will you understand
far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?
so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.
To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...
james holmes was a law abiding citizen UNTIL he commited the crime.. so maybe just maybe strict new gun laws would have prevented him from buying up so much ammo and dangerous weapons.. thats all we have been saying. otherwise 'law abiding citizens' are free to buy as much weapons and ammo as humanely possible until they feel like not being law abiding anymore.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
You dont know that Holmes would've still pursued an AR-15 if they were illegal. He may have settled for the handguns. Less powerful weapons with less ammo could mean less injuries...How is that so hard to consider?
In the Giffords shooting in AZ, magazine limits were increased a few years before...he shot like 14 people, killing 6. He was finally stopped when he ran out of rounds (33). Had this gun been limited to 10-12 rounds, perhaps less people die. He was NOT A CRIMINAL before he became a criminal. Again, we're not just talking about street hug criminals here.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"