Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Snakeduck wrote:

pandora wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?


"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.

I would rather see gun laws we have enforced and have stricter penalties for criminals and
work on getting illegal guns off the streets. This works.

See, you do support gun control. Excellent.

Well done Can you deduce an answer to my question while you're at it?

pandora wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

See, you do support gun control. Excellent.

I support the right to bear arms
I succumb to the right to abortion

See I do support the laws we have and protect the right to both

So, laws have never needed to be updated, modernized? In that case, I better not catch you voting or owning land, missy. Also, I think some black folks might be glad that not everyone thinks like you...

I'll try one more time.

The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?

Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):

1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.

Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.

Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'll try one more time.

The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?

Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):

1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.

Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.

Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?

More strict laws about getting permits.
Otherwise, that was the best post I've seen in this thread for at least 30 pages.
Note: If it hadn't been as easy for Holmes to get the ammo and weapons, it would have taken him longer, and by then that psychiatrist would have received that letter or whatever it was he sent to her, and she would have alerted authorities, and he never would have been able to go on a shooting rampage in the first place. Yay.

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Being unprepared can be equal to being weak.

I think that pretty much summed it up which I have said before in a couple of other posts.

what a ridiculous statement.

and you have said so little in so many pages it's mind boggling.

another way to say hindsight is 20/20 and most regret something

Do you know something of that yourself? Perhaps...

well what does that say about you spending soooo much time reading and then always replying
that is even more mind boggling wouldn't you say?

do I know something of what? what the hell are you talking about? I spend so much time reading trying to understand your point of view, because I can't for the life of me understand your line of thinking.

I can at least understand the pro-second amendment side. But many of them have a rational way of expressing it.

Kind of like how scientists study monkeys. Even though a monkey keeps doing the same damn thing over and over, and all the while the monkey is thinking "they must really think I'm superior spending all this time looking at me". The scientists keep trying. is it futile? Maybe.

this sure as hell has been.

norm wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?

YES! you'd finally have a fighting chance against the mountain goats!

and these guys:

comebackgirl wrote:

d'awww!

sidenote - I've made a wager with myself as to what page this'll have made it to come morning.

comebackgirl wrote:

hedonist wrote:

d'awww!

sidenote - I've made a wager with myself as to what page this'll have made it to come morning.

At least 131. I'm banking on 140 by the end of the day tomorrow.

:shh:

I don't wanna jinx it

comebackgirl wrote:

norm wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?

YES! you'd finally have a fighting chance against the mountain goats!

and these guys:

How could you! :evil: Note: page 128 for me this morning!

Add to TBU list... strict and thorough background checks, mandatory licensing. Make all sellers 'licensed' - having to go through the same procedure for selling firearms. No more 'no questions asked' when purchasing firearms at gun shows, via the internet, etc. Just close the loophole.

But hey... if it's cars that some understand, let's talk cars/guns then.... :roll:

It has been shown that there are much more controls in obtaining a license to drive a car than there are in being able to obtain a gun. Why not just simply apply the rules for potential car drivers to potential gun users... Via a 'licensed broker' only, thorough checks (giving all details, including social security number, proof of identity/residency, etc.), apply/get goods in person (not via internet), written test (making sure one understands the 'laws' of ownership, how to store arms, etc.), practical test (making sure one can effectively use a gun), revoking of said licence if conditions no longer met... For starters. Then, keeping with the driving 'theme' - as there are different types of licenses depending on the vehicle you wish to drive and the use of this vehicle, let's do the same for guns. 'Basic' licence for guns in the home used for 'protection', another one for those wanting more than that (comparable to non commercial class a or b licenses) and then for those who think they need assault rifles, etc. another step comparable to the commercial driver license which requires a medical.

I don't hear anyone crying blue murder about these these checks, tests, 'restrictions' for the car. No one saying it is taking away their freedom, etc.; and it doesn't seem to stop 'responsible' car owners/drivers from getting what they want so what would be the problem with applying the same stringent rules to gun ownership? How about that? Sensible enough? Laws/restrictions already accepted by 'all' so no issues, right?