9 year old girl shot yesterday...

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:

It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.

LOL - why what do people in Cuba and Venezuela think??

I am trying to understand how you got any of that from any posts, never mind Dunkman's. The last throw of the dice from the logically starved accusar perhaps? Relax fella, just because I and Dunkman believe that our governments are not out to destroy us doesnt't make us part of some 50's commie plot to take over the world.

Everyone knows the Scotts and the Irish took over the world along time ago anyway - probably a reason for all the irrational debates of late

MG79478 wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.

The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?

Well it's really a moot question. The crime is independant from the tool used to commit the crime.

I'm not against background checks. No one should ever be in a hurry to buy a gun (Homer: But I'm angry now!). But would any amount of checking ever have figured out that this guy was a problem? And if he didn't get it legally, he would have gotten it illegally. If he couldn't get it illegally, he would have found other means to accomplish his goal.

The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.

I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.

The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.

How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?

Moonpig wrote:

The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.

I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.

MG79478 wrote:

The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them.

Have they all come out and said this?

Or is this just speculation too?

MG79478 wrote:

The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them. There is something wrong with them if they are worried about what killed their loved ones and how he go it, and not who. It’s very simple, the tool used does not matter. You can’t ignore this simple fact just because it does not fit your agenda.

How is it speculation that he would have seeked other means? Do you think that he would have given up if he legally could not purchase a gun? That is speculation on your part. Do you honestly think someone capable of such an act would stop just because he couldn't purchase a gun legally?

Moonpig wrote:

The only point here is that he did get it legally, this whole - if he couldnt get a gun he'd have used a teddy bear, is pure speculation - he acquired a gun legally because of Arizona's law, and I'm sure there are 6 peoples families who may disagree about the "moot" question.

I asked a direct question, let's not speculate - facts are - kid bought a gun, was deemed of sound mind and to be responsible enough to purchase and carry a firearm. So if we believe that the kid was a nut, then we have to question how he was allowed to purchase the weapon - hence question the regulations that exist that saw fit to grant him the weapon, it's simple really.

I don't agree with you on the believe that the family doesn't care what killed their love ones. I can't say for certain as no-one can but i have known families that have dealt with loss and many of them start to look at the bigger issues around their lose and begin to fight against it.

MG79478 wrote:

UpSideDown wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

The families don't care that a gun killed their loved ones. They care that their loved ones were killed. The tool used to do it does not matter to them.

Have they all come out and said this?

Or is this just speculation too?

Have they come out and said that their chief concern is what killed their loved ones, or is that just speculation?

It's just common sense. If you know someone that is killed by a drunk driver, would you get mad at the car? Or the car industry? Or the car dealership? Or the person behind the wheel.

I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.

fife wrote:

I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.

Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!

Moonpig wrote:

I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question

I just don't see the point to your question. The man did it, not the gun.

How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?

MG79478 wrote:

fife wrote:

I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.

Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!

Moonpig wrote:

I dont know if he would have stopped - it's speculation - all I know is what did happen, and that the laws allowed him to purchase a gun. I'm asking you: given that the law was clearly wrong in that it allowed him purchase a gun, what do you propose we do? Forget everything else, about parents, just answer that question

I just don't see the point to your question. The man did it, not the gun.

How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?

I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point

MG79478 wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

I'm talking about a clearly mentally unstable man who purchased a legal firearm, then shot a number of people killing 6 of them. If a loon can purchase a gun legally then should that not mean we go back and re define what the term legally means when purchasing a firearm - please stick to the point

Are you just going to keep dodging all day?

The man could have used a car to run the people over, or built a pipe bomb. So maybe we should just background check everyone really well, and lock people up who might possibly do anything wrong? Or maybe we should use all available means to stop this stuff, like say Bush's wire taps?

I'm dodging nothing - he didnt use a car, or a bomb - funny examples to use actually given all the regualtion and strict laws, anywho - I am stating what actually happened. Only one dodging is yourself.

MG79478 wrote:

fife wrote:

I would get mad at the bigger issues which is drinking while driving. that where MADD came from. mothers were sick of losing children to drinking and driving that they began to fight to make punishments harder for peopel who did drink and drive.

Exactly, mothers against DRUNK DRIVERS. They are mad at the person, not the tool!

How do you propose we keep people who would potentially drink and drive off the road? Maybe institute a 6 month background check process complete with psych evaluation? Is that going to change anything? Would it be perfect? Would it stop all drinking and driving? Or should we just ban cars?

actually its mother against drunk driving not drunk drivers. Those mother have also gone against alcohol. they have tried to limit the amount of alcohol a person can have when they are driving. They realize that the "tool" which is the alcohol is a weapon just like people realize that guns are a weapon. I just don't know how you can separate a tool and a person. if the person doesn't have access to that tool they can't use it.