OK, I'll play your game.
I am not paying a game. I am just trying to enjoy a simple conversation.
"So tell me how more restrictions would have prevented anything. The Newtown shooting the man killed his own mother to gain access to weapons. Boston bombing there wasn't even a gun involved."
If there were a law requiring gun owners to store their weapons securely, it wouldn't be so easy for a nutjob to get their murderous hands on one. Sure, it might not prevent EVERY shooting - but it would likely prevent SOME shootings.
So make a persons self-defense tool hard to get at for themselves is a bad idea for many reasons. I will leave you with this.
http://therightscoop.com/15-year-old...fathers-ar-15/
Your idea of secure would have left these children defenseless. I am not okay with that.
"Yet in Paris where there is extremely strict gun control you have had mass shootings. cops being shot down dead in the streets whole people video tape it.
you claim gun control works but everything says there is no proof one way or another because comparing crime stats between countries is extremely difficult."
Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them to listen to the American public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons. The idea behind the ban was to eventually, over time, dry up the supply of these weapons (via breakage, wear and tear, etc.). I am against gun bans per se - but this measure would not ban any weapons. It would simply prevent the manufacture of thousands more guns. (There are already more than 300 million guns in America - approximately enough to arm every citizen.) Source:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/st...t-weapons-ban/
Well clearly he wasn't a second amendment supporter. Plus assault weapons have been extremely regulated for many years. Almost a 100 years ago full auto firearms were set to be super regulated.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
I will get further into these so called really bad guns further down.
"not to mention even our own country doesn't take stats on how many times a firearm is used for self-defense. so honestly I'm not really sure where your hostility comes from."
I'm not sure why you presume that there is any hostility in my post - mainly because there isn't any.
lets just move on.
"is it because it's me saying these things? or is that you allow your emotions to control your thought process?"
Ah, the old "you're an emotional basket case" ploy. I'm not falling for that one - especially when YOU are the one who has consistently shown that you must have the last word on everything, and you tirelessly repeat yourself ad nauseum.
Still moving on.
"you seem to have an huge issue with the second amendment and this strikes me as odd as you once swore an oath to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Ah - the old "attack the guy's patriotism and use his military service against him" ploy. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, that includes the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. In my opinion - the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is NOT well-regulated because there is zero accountability for people who are careless with their weapons and let children and mentally unstable teenage spree killers get their dick skinners on guns.
But that is just an opening line. I have posted before what the full second amendment is but you clearly want to ignore what even our own courts have upheld. Sure it opens with a well regulated militia but it ends with "THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS". Not for home defense. Not for hunting. Not for collecting. The entire purpose of the people being able to arm themselves is to fend off the government. Can you sit here and honestly claim that never in our future will the people face a time that we have to form fighters to fight off our government?
Can you sit here and claim that our civilized society will hold true until the end of time? Can you sit here and honestly tell me that in the next 2000 years our soil will never see war? We are a very young country in the grand scheme of things. While I can agree with you that we have the most powerful military the world has ever seen other countries have held the same title and fallen.
These ideas about regulation fixing todays problems don't address problems that as history has shown will come about.
"so good sir I would truly like to hear how newtown could have been prevented. or even Boston. or columbine. or the Aurora shooting. or Oregon. or ww2. or even the civil war."
Newtown - The parents of that kid should have committed his ass to a state mental institution AND they should have bought a gun safe, locked up their weapons, and hid the key where the little asshole couldn't get his hands on those guns - even by killing his own mom.
Because a safe would have done what? He killed his mother. There is no stopping that kind of crazy. He would just broke into the safe. Or made a bomb. Or done some other form of attack. Unless you are prepared to lock every single person up for the rest of their lives in a little rubber room and be taken care of by robots the idea of locking someone up is a stretch.
Boston - The gun used by the marathon bombers had been stolen. It should have been kept in secure storage (or in a holster on someone's hip or shoulder). That way, it could have never been stolen and used to kill cops.
Okay but what about the bombing? should we ban pressure cookers? Do you really think a safe cant be broken into? How many crimes were committed before the shooting took place? Why would more laws have stopped them?
Columbine -
Robyn Anderson, a friend of the two students responsible for the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, assisted them in buying three of the four weapons used in the massacre from different sellers at the Tanner gun show outside of Denver. Since then, a new law has been passed that carries a penalty of 10 years in prison for people who serve as a proxy to buy guns for someone else who is ineligible to purchase a weapon for themselves. Hopefully, that will help prevent morons from buying guns for kids. Also, before Columbine schools did a horrible job of securing entrances so dumbass spree killers couldn't just waltz in. Finally, it would have helped a lot if the parents of those spoiled rich kids would have kept tabs on what those bastards were up to.
Yes new laws have been passed and yet.... It hasn't stopped anything and clearly our schools have not beefed up security because are still walking in and shooting up kids. But you are very correct in saying that it would have helped if the parents had been paying better attention to what their kids are doing.
Love is a hard emotion to overcome. I have never met one of these killers before but all of them seem to come from families that have some form of support. mothers, fathers and eve siblings. I don't know what drives a person to do these things but it seems to come down to fame. Just my guess.
Aurora - James Holmes' psychiatrist should have reported him to authorities when he indicated that he had rage issues. Also, Holmes' family should have had a clue about what was going on in their kid's pea brain. And I suppose the theater could have had better physical security (but that costs money, and hindsight is 20/20).
Well if you are going to manage a gun free zone I do believe that it is up to you to have the security in place to properly manage that. That shooting should be the clearest of examples that the criminal was able to walk in and do as he pleased because there was no one to stop him.
Oregon - The shooter got his guns legally. Other than that, the media never reported much information about him, so there's no way to know how or if laws could have possibly prevented his spree.
I like the way the media did that one. I was able to read more articles about people who tried to stop him than about what was going on with him. But again clearly there was not enough security in place to prevent this attack. You want to hold accountability to gun owners? Well hold these gun free zones to the same. You want to take away a persons god given right to be able to defend themselves then it is up to the establishment to secure it.
WW2 and the Civil War - These were wars. In war, people are supposed to shoot each other and die in the loudest, most grotesque military manner possible. But even in war there are rules of engagement, and strict laws against killing non-combatants.
Yeah I was being a smartass with the war stuff. lol. But I see you left out 911.
"but okay for the sake of a debate you claimed that other countries that have these strict gun controls don't have these problems. Mexico? Russia? Brazil? actually the number of countries with extremely tight gun control seem to have huge problems with violence and even shootings."
Actually - I never mentioned any other countries. But it is true that America has the most frequent spree killings on the planet. (We're #1! 'Merica! Yee haw!)
Originally Posted by
Zanatos
If stricter gun ownership laws are ineffective - how come they work in every other nation on the planet? (Look at the statistics for yourself. I won't bother posting any because every time I do, opponents say that my sources are biased/false/skewed/etc.)
"but again how can you really take a stat from England and compare it to us? and if you are going to use England why not also include Switzerland?
how about the idea that comparing our country with with the much smaller European countries has so many holes in it any logical person would not its not plausible."
Again, I'm not comparing other countries to us. You are. And the only reason that you are is to try and DISPROVE something that America has not never attempted and probably never will - severely limiting private citizens' right to own guns. No other nation has ever or will ever have 300 million weapons in circulation and have to deal with the problem like America is currently having to deal with it. America has so many guns - there is no way the government could ever take them from us, even if it wanted to. This is why the slippery slope argument about the government trying to disarm all Americans is nonsense.
Originally Posted by
Zanatos
If stricter gun ownership laws are ineffective - how come they work in every other nation on the planet? (Look at the statistics for yourself. I won't bother posting any because every time I do, opponents say that my sources are biased/false/skewed/etc.)
So America has no gun laws? Background checks have been in place sense the 1800's? We have a ton of laws in this country that if laws were proven to work there should never be a murder to begin with. Because you know murder being illegal. You see this fight against more legislation because the honest man is tired of being restricted.
These laws have done nothing to prevent crimes. So why should I give in anymore to a system that clearly doesn't work?
"england is about the size of a small state here in the US. do we get to pick what state is the safest and compare? or do we just lump everything together? and if that is the case do we get to include eastern European countries?"
Why are you all hung up on this comparison thing? What does it prove to compare or contrast America to other nations when we are not doing the same things that those other nations are doing? Comparisons on gun legislation are irrelevant - because there IS no comparison.
I am not hung up on anything. You said in your own words that it works in every other country on the planet. I know that you didn't mean every but I am just addressing your own statements.
"but honestly man no amount of legislation will prevent crazy. I have repeatedly said that beefing up security in our schools and these so called gun freezones."
I agree. There are always going to be nutjobs out there, and criminals are always going to have guns. I also agree that beefing up security at schools is a good idea. And I think "gun free zones" are silly unless people are going through metal detectors and pat downs before they enter those zones. Putting up signs doesn't do any good. That being said - I also believe that we cant simply throw up our hands and say, "It's hopeless. There is no sense in changing anything because it probably won't do any good." Nope - that is B.S. We need to change and do something about these spree killings. We can't all just sit on our asses and accept dead kids as a cost of living in America and having Constitutional freedoms.
I agree with some of this. but I completely disagree with the last sentence. Without those freedoms we are not free and we will lose a hell of a lot more kids trying to get it back than the few shootings we have now. The entire point of the second amendment is to secure the rest of the constitution. Because clearly our government has shown it doesn't care about it. unless you support freedom of speech zones. or spying on citizens with no warrants. or even worse.
The second amendment is our failsafe to protect us. Not the military. Not the national guard. Not even law enforcement.
"so why is this not an option? why must controlling the honest person be our only means to deal with evil? why can we not actually focus on the evil at hand and try to understand it?"
How do we know who is honest and who we can trust? How can anyone "weed out" the bad guys and just make laws that affect them? I believe we are focusing on evil and trying to understand it and figure out ways to deal with it. I am so sick of hearing the old cliche, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is why background checks and waiting periods affect people - not guns, and safety training and requiring gun owners to secure their property affects people - not guns.
Because the average gun owner is the honest man. Who can be trusted? That's a great point! Who do I have to trust with my security? The cops? I could go to countless examples of that being false including a supreme court ruling. We have already made laws to weed out the bad guys. Killing people is illegal.
I like how you blame a tool in an act and not the person. That always make me smile. So what about people who use knives? Knives kill a lot of people. Want to know why people don't have to "secure their firearms" ?
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
"why am I the one acting childish when debating something like this? I have done nothing but try to be reasonable and give a fair debate. even when told I don't care about dead kids."
I never said you were childish. I said you devolve into insults and name calling. You also tend to try and bait people. You are a true master of cliches, non sequiturs, false assumptions, straw man arguments, and the "does not follow" fallacy. I bet you did very well in debate class.
I have done nothing of that in this thread. I have never not even once called someone as you said before a liberal. You are confusing me with someone else. cough monkey cough.
"so sir I ask you. who is acting childesh? the one claiming no one cares about kids or the one who is claiming we need better security for our kids?"
Ah, the old "I know you are, but what am I" ploy. Good one.
"PS.. interesting who is name calling and turning this personal. let it go buddy. I've been chill for months."
I never called you any names or made it personal. This is the Internet. If you take anything personally - that's on you. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all appreciated you taking a break from dominating every thread. That has been refreshing - and as you can see, the forum has survived.
But you clearly cant let the past go. And no I didn't dominate every thread. maybe it seemed that way to you but I have left entire sections of this forum alone. basic areas I post are in here and gen. But yes clearly the forum is very lively these days. lol
Reply With Quote
