Gun Control

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Where, when, and by whom is the line drawn when deciding which should be regulated and which should not?

I really don't fucking know, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that there needs to be a line drawn, somewhere, somehow...

What law or laws that have yet to be enacted do you believe would have prevented this?

All I know is that we, as a society, simply cannot continue to stand around and do nothing at all while innocents are being massacred. IMHO, this incident will cause a "tipping point" in public opinion, and there will be changes to gun laws as a result.

You can't treat this as a 'gun' problem when it is actually a 'people' problem.

Since "guns don't kill people, people kill people," we need laws that make it more difficult (for people who are inclined to kill people) to obtain the kind of weapons which make it easier to kill people.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Since "guns don't kill people, people kill people," we need laws that make it more difficult (for people who are inclined to kill people) to obtain the kind of weapons which make it easier to kill people.

I'm listening.
What are these laws you propose, how will they be implemented and enforced, how are they different from current laws, and how will we differentiate before the fact between those who are inclined to kill people and those who are not?
How will these laws be implemented and enforced while still allowing law-abiding citizens to keep their guns?
Everyone calls for "more laws", but nobody seems to be able to explain how these laws should be written.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Did I blame the tools or was I simply trying to figure out how to keep such tools out of the hands of unstable mass murders (as I've said a hundred times before)? Why is that not a discussion worth having?

See above.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Where, when, and by whom is the line drawn when deciding which should be regulated and which should not?

Don't know.

And that's the problem.
Nobody knows, but, on the other hand, everyone is absolutely certain that more restrictive gun laws will solve the problem.

Posts : 9728

[quote="Heretic"]

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Where, when, and by whom is the line drawn when deciding which should be regulated and which should not?

Don't know. But that's the discussion I've been trying to have for what... 9+ pages? This summed up my thoughts quite nicely. I've supported my arguments with some of the actual research on the topic, rather than your useless platitudes, Constitution worship, and Texas Ranger fantasies. It's not the completely alien topic you're making it out to be, either:

Great post,Heretic. Thanks for the chuckle.

IMO,A total ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns with mandatory surrender and buyback of those weapons that are already out there,along with a limit on magazines to 10 rounds would be a good start.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: And that's the problem.

Never claimed to have the answers, but there are legitimate places to start, assuming, of course, that a dozen or so dead kids isn't an acceptable price to pay for your gun collection and target shootin'.

But again, it has to happen in an honest and open debate - an accurate look at the facts and the statistics involved and an indepth analysis of current and proposed policy.

happy jack wrote:: Nobody knows, but, on the other hand, everyone is absolutely certain that more restrictive gun laws will solve the problem.

That's a simple question of logic, isn't it? Seems to work with the other weapons I mentioned earlier. Fewer available guns translates to less guns sold to, stolen, or borrowed by criminals. Even Cordell Walker would be hard pressed to kill 500 people with only 3 handguns and 42 bullets.

But this is gun reform, not forced national disarmament. This is simply recognizing that the system is broken and trying to find ways to prevent such awful tragedies from occurring and ultimately save lives. And there could very well be more effective means to do so than more restrictive gun laws. Better and more accessible mental healthcare is an obvious starter, as would fixing inequality. There's adequate avenues for research and policy discussion, most of which have gone unnoticed by conservatives who tend to go all apoplectic and start frothing at the mouth when anyone mentions the topic around them. But much like the public policy debate on global warming, we're never going to get anywhere on realistic solutions until we can all agree there's actually a problem, and that means recognizing that guns simply don't make us safer.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: .... we're never going to get anywhere on realistic solutions until we can all agree there's actually a problem, and that means recognizing that guns simply don't make us safer.

For the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that guns do not make us safer. But if you’re trying to be realistic, you must acknowledge that guns are not going away, and that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens would not have prevented this most recent shooting.
How many guns are out there is far less consequential than who has them.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: IMO,A total ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns with mandatory surrender and buyback of those weapons that are already out there ....

Great solution - comrade.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: .... assuming, of course, that a dozen or so dead kids isn't an acceptable price to pay for your gun collection and target shootin'.

You do realize, don't you, precisely how much my guns or hobbies have to do with the deaths of these children?
Absolutely zero.
And it takes a quite magnificent asshole to suggest that the price paid by these children had anything whatsoever to do with me.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: IMO,A total ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns with mandatory surrender and buyback of those weapons that are already out there ....

[b]Great solution - comrade.

What's wrong with that idea? Those weapons have no place in a civilized society other than in the hands of law enforcement. Now what's your idea,Rambo?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: .... assuming, of course, that a dozen or so dead kids isn't an acceptable price to pay for your gun collection and target shootin'.

[b]You do realize, don't you, precisely how much my guns or hobbies have to do with the deaths of these children?
Absolutely zero.
And it takes a quite magnificent asshole to suggest that the price paid by these children had anything whatsoever to do with me.

Yeah,well you do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers,don't you? You also are never at a loss to parrot NRA talking points which advocate the sales and manufacture of those killing machines. So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: IMO,A total ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns with mandatory surrender and buyback of those weapons that are already out there ....

[b]Great solution - comrade.

What's wrong with that idea? Those weapons have no place in a civilized society other than in the hands of law enforcement. Now what's your idea,Rambo?

I, like all others on this board, do not have a solution. And that is why I, unlike all the others on this board, am not proposing ridiculous and useless knee-jerk remedies.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Fuck you.
And I mean that most sincerely.

Posts : 6988

Would someone please inform these idiots that assault weapons are already illegal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html

Dianne Feinstein To Introduce Assault Weapons Ban On First Day Of Congress

Posted: 12/16/2012 10:58 am EST | Updated: 12/16/2012 1:29 pm EST

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Since "guns don't kill people, people kill people," we need laws that make it more difficult (for people who are inclined to kill people) to obtain the kind of weapons which make it easier to kill people.

I'm listening.
What are these laws you propose, how will they be implemented and enforced, how are they different from current laws, and how will we differentiate before the fact between those who are inclined to kill people and those who are not?
How will these laws be implemented and enforced while still allowing law-abiding citizens to keep their guns?
Everyone calls for "more laws", but nobody seems to be able to explain how these laws should be written.

As I said...

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Where, when, and by whom is the line drawn when deciding which should be regulated and which should not?

I really don't fucking know, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that there needs to be a line drawn, somewhere, somehow...

I certainly don't have all the answers. But it's time to have a rational discussion about the topic. If I understand his comments correctly, Heretic is saying much the same thing.

I find it troubling that this country leads the world in gun violence and from what I've read, the vast majority of guns involved in that violence were obtained legally.

I'm not saying that we should outlaw guns. I'm simply pointing out that, at least IMHO, this slaughter is the "last straw." It's clear that our current policies aren't working, and we need policies that do.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I'm not saying that we should outlaw guns. I'm simply pointing out that, at least IMHO, this slaughter is the "last straw." It's clear that our current policies aren't working, and we need policies that do.

I agree. But those policies need to be policies that actually accomplish something other than making people feel good about themselves at the expense of responsible and law-abiding gun owners.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: IMO,A total ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns with mandatory surrender and buyback of those weapons that are already out there ....

[b]Great solution - comrade.

What's wrong with that idea? Those weapons have no place in a civilized society other than in the hands of law enforcement. Now what's your idea,Rambo?

I, like all others on this board, do not have a solution. And that is why I, unlike all the others on this board, am not proposing ridiculous and useless knee-jerk remedies.

My solution is feasible and has been known to work,dumbass. Since you admit you have no ideas maybe you should leave the discussion to the adults here,instead of regurgitating the tired old NRA talking points.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: So,yeah,you do play a small part.

[b]Fuck you.
And I mean that most sincerely.

My statement hit a little to close to home,huh? Unfortunately,your bullshit outrage doesn't change the fact that everything I said was true,does it?

Artie60438 wrote:: You do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers,don't you? You also are never at a loss to parrot NRA talking points which advocate the sales and manufacture of those killing machines. So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: So,yeah,you do play a small part.

[b]Fuck you.
And I mean that most sincerely.

My statement hit a little to close to home,huh? Unfortunately,your bullshit outrage doesn't change the fact that everything I said was true,does it?

Artie60438 wrote:: You do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers,don't you? You also are never at a loss to parrot NRA talking points which advocate the sales and manufacture of those killing machines. So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Yes, I do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers. What I do not support, however, is using them for that purpose.
So, no, I play not even a small part.
And again, the sentiment stands.
Most sincerely.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: So,yeah,you do play a small part.

[b]Fuck you.
And I mean that most sincerely.

My statement hit a little to close to home,huh? Unfortunately,your bullshit outrage doesn't change the fact that everything I said was true,does it?

Artie60438 wrote:: You do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers,don't you? You also are never at a loss to parrot NRA talking points which advocate the sales and manufacture of those killing machines. So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Yes, I do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers. What I do not support, however, is using them for that purpose.

If those guns and the high capacity clips that are used with them,which you also support,were not available the odds are that some of those children and teachers might still be alive today. Instead,you proudly support the manufacture and distribution of products designed to efficiently maximize the killing of innocent citizens.

Quote :: So, no, I play not even a small part.

You can keep trying to fool yourself into believing that but you and the rest of the gun nuts that think the same way are, most definitely,a part of the problem.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: My solution is feasible and has been known to work,dumbass.

Has it?
Please explain.

Posts : 6988

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-guncontrol-idUSBRE8BF0DH20121216

Democrats vow to push for gun control measures in Congress

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST
(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new legislation this week. Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and several others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.
"I think we could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done," Senator Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Any effort to restrict access to high-powered weapons is likely to face fierce opposition from many Republicans in Congress who say restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution's right to bear arms.
Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.
Opinion polls have found Americans to be divided on the issue even after other high-profile shooting incidents.
U.S. lawmakers have not approved a major new gun law since 1994.
Feinstein said her planned legislation would outlaw the high-capacity magazines and military-style assault rifles that have factored in many recent mass shootings, including Friday's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. People who own such weapons now would not be required to give them up, Feinstein said.

"I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!" - Dianne 'Otter' Feinstein

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: If those guns and the high capacity clips that are used with them,which you also support,were not available the odds are that some of those children and teachers might still be alive today.

Highly, highly, highly, highly doubtful.
How much resistance would a terrified and unarmed teacher and terrified 6 and 7 year-olds have been able to muster against a crazy and determined adult using even 10 round clips, which can be dumped and reinserted within seconds (a point we’ve gone over earlier in this thread, by the way, and nothing has changed since.)?
They would all have been just as dead.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: So,yeah,you do play a small part.

[b]Fuck you.
And I mean that most sincerely.

My statement hit a little to close to home,huh? Unfortunately,your bullshit outrage doesn't change the fact that everything I said was true,does it?

Artie60438 wrote:: You do support the manufacture and sales of the guns that killed those children and teachers,don't you? You also are never at a loss to parrot NRA talking points which advocate the sales and manufacture of those killing machines. So,yeah,you do play a small part.

Actually, nothing hit close to home, mainly because absolutely nothing you said was true (which is not a real big surprise).
You know, when I first read this post, I was literally dumbfounded that there exists in this world someone with such a large steaming pile of shit for brains that he would, even for a moment, entertain the notion that the mere opinion of someone who posts on a Northwest Indiana message board played even a small part in the Connecticut shooting.
But then I stopped and realized with whom I was dealing, and it all made perfect sense. Laughing

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: My solution is feasible and has been known to work,dumbass.

[b]Has it?
Please explain.

Do your own research,Gomer

» Gun Control
» Why is the Gun Control thread locked?
» White House Control of the Internet
» Time for Hammond Animal Control to be Euthanized