Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    SF, I agree with you that there a lot of social problems (and mental health problems) that contribute to these tragedies.  I think the reason, though, that people jump to gun control is twofold:

    • First, solving all the social problems is a huge undertaking--and while we definitely need to work (and work harder) on those problems, we aren't going to make progress quickly.
    • Second, gun control is something we could do relatively quickly if we put our minds to it--and it's something that would likely have some success at least based on experience in other countries.  Maybe it doesn't get all the way to the root of the problem--it doesn't eradicate mental illness or depravity in society--but it does at least reduce the number of deadly weapons available to the mentally ill and depraved. You'll still have the problem people, but if the problem people aren't armed for combat, they won't kill as many other people. That would be progress.  And it's relatively easy to do, as long as the American people have the will to do it. 
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     About 100,000 people are shot every year in the US.  More than 30,000 die.  A lot of that has to do with far too easy access to high-capacity weapons designed primarily for killing people.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What, are these killers bad shots? The majority need a high ammo capcity to murder someone?

    I would think the VAST MAJORITY of gun related killings involve a single fatality. And I also would think the vast majority of fatalities thus rendered were accomplished with less than 7 shots.

    So again, you are proven to be completely full of crapola.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, if you prevent a danger from being removed and people die as a result of that danger persisting, you are indeed responsible in part for the fatalities that occur.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So, IT'S YOU who is responsible for all those drunk driving deaths!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to vertigho's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gotta love the Repubs and Tea Party'ers fighting with every ounce of energy to deny personal freedoms to gay and lesbian couples, and attempting to tell women what they can/can't do with their bodies

    [/QUOTE]

    Women can do whatever the hell they want with their bodies. They just shouldn't murder the other person stuck inside it.

    A gay man is free to marry any of-age non-related woman that consents to marry him - exactly the same right as a heterosexual man has.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to vertigho's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The life of a human being is sacred, unless we're talking about the death penalty... right?

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said the life of a human being was sacred. I only say innocent persons shouldn't be murdered.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to seymonster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    serious question... do you think it is within your rights to own a nuclear warhead?

    [/QUOTE]


    As long as it's under a kiloton, sure.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    No, what I was rephrasing was a further explanation of my point.  You can read the rephrased statement above. 

    And yes, I do believe that those who continue to resist reasonable gun control are responsible in part for the fatalities that follow. Particularly in a democracy, you are responsible for the policies you advocate. If those policies lead, directly or indirectly, to the massacre of 20 first-graders, then you are responsible for the consequences of those policies.  This doesn't mean you should go to jail.  What it does mean, though, is you should be man enough to take responsibility for the failed policies and work to change them. 

    And one more point, then I'm done too, because I don't want to get into a fight about this and the purpose of this site isn't to discuss gun control or politics.  But your choice has bearing on my own safety and on the safety and sanity of the society we all live in. So yes, it is my right to stand up and defend what's important to me even if it limits your choices. 

      

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what Adolf Hitler thought too.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    No, what I was rephrasing was a further explanation of my point.  You can read the rephrased statement above. 

    And yes, I do believe that those who continue to resist reasonable gun control are responsible in part for the fatalities that follow. Particularly in a democracy, you are responsible for the policies you advocate. If those policies lead, directly or indirectly, to the massacre of 20 first-graders, then you are responsible for the consequences of those policies.  This doesn't mean you should go to jail.  What it does mean, though, is you should be man enough to take responsibility for the failed policies and work to change them. 

    And one more point, then I'm done too, because I don't want to get into a fight about this and the purpose of this site isn't to discuss gun control or politics.  But your choice has bearing on my own safety and on the safety and sanity of the society we all live in. So yes, it is my right to stand up and defend what's important to me even if it limits your choices. 

      

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what Adolf Hitler thought too.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's what our founding fathers thought. That's why they created a democratic government which gives the people and their representatives the power to pass laws to promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    If someone wants a weapon bad enough and they can't get it legally, they can obtain one on the black market. There isn't really anything anyone can do except maybe stop producing these weapons and we all know that's not going to happen.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slakrking. Show slakrking's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    you can carry this to other extremes,

    People drink, they drive they kill people ...

    I choose not to drink, should I because I don't drink have the right to deny you that right? Outside of war and disease, I feel alcohol and drugs are the cause of more deaths than guns, I could be wrong.

    You can't legislate an individual into complying with accepted behavior, if someone wants to commit a crime, they will, the gun is the means, not the cause.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     good points.. i will go one step further.. when we talk foreign psycho mass killers (terrorists), we soon get down to the obvious common denominator by getting down rightfully to muslims and middle east.. y is it with this we ignore that its yung white ANGRY MALES! I DONT SEE "SIK" NON-WHITES DOING ANY OF THIS DOMESTICALLY.. OF THE 12 domestic psycho MASS KILLERS THIS year, 10 were white.. going bback to the last 30 years, 98% are white.. start there. i think its nurture and culture that leads to celebration of extreme rugged and dogged invidualism above anything. no other race in US is obsessed with doomsday survivalism and paranoid of their own governments and president. GOP spends the entire election hating on government and maxing out the paranoid then wonder y these crazies feel impowered to start acting on it. LONERS are almost limited to right wing whites. its virtually impossible for a young man like that to be isolated in any other culture in this country!

    [/QUOTE]

     

    That would be interesting if it were only true.

    From:http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder

    "Myth: Serial killers are all white males.

    Contrary to popular belief, serial killers span all racial groups. There are white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian serial killers. The racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population."

     

    Here's another: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    Some stats: 44 of 62 mass shooting events since 1982 were carried out by white males (70%).  All but one of the shooters was male.  FYI: White men are about 78% of the male population of the US.

    75% of the guns were acquired illegaly.  72% were semi-automatic handguns or "assault rifles."

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to slakrking's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    you can carry this to other extremes,

    People drink, they drive they kill people ...

    I choose not to drink, should I because I don't drink have the right to deny you that right? Outside of war and disease, I feel alcohol and drugs are the cause of more deaths than guns, I could be wrong.

    You can't legislate an individual into complying with accepted behavior, if someone wants to commit a crime, they will, the gun is the means, not the cause.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drunk driving is illegal and over the past two decades much has been done to reduce the incidence of drunk driving.  The efforts have worked.  Yes, drunk driving continues, but it's less of a problem than it was.  This attitude that "bad people will do bad things and there's nothing that can be done about it" is just wrong. Yeah, killers will try to kill.  Reducing their access to arms, however, makes it harder for them to succeed.  Sure, some will succeed despite the restrictions.  But mass killings like we saw in Newtown would be much more unlikely if boys with emotional problems didn't have easy access to high-capacity weapons and the ammunition required to use them.  

    This on changes to the rate of drunk driving from an insurance industry source . . . .

     

    Alcohol-impaired driving has become less prevalent but remains a major problem. In 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) undertook a national roadside breath survey in which data were collected during weekend nights. Patterned after 1996, 1986 and 1973 surveys, the 2007 survey found that 2.2 percent of drivers had BACs at or above 0.08 percent. This compares with 4.3 percent in 1996, 5.4 percent in 1986 and 7.5 percent in 1973. 7 According to NHTSA, the percentage of drivers with any detectable alcohol in their systems declined almost as much from 1973 to 2007 as the percentage of drivers with BACs at or above 0.08 percent.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Each year.

    About 12,352 people die from homicides involving guns (Forbes)

    About 10,228  people die from drunk driving (MADD, 2010)

    About 443,000 people die from cigarettes (Center for Disease Control)

    Don't hide behind the consitution as an artificial facade as to the real reasons for your position on guns.

    There are already gun control laws established by each State. Most already do background checks for criminal history, mental illness, drug use, fingerprinting, pictures, ect. Those proposing "change" really have brought nothing new to the table, nor is there any evidence that those suggested "changes" stop incidents like that of CT.

    Gun control is very much like the topic of abortions.  My guess is that it's about 50-50 split between pro-choice and pro-life. So, since there is no clear cut majority for what folks are proposing - then, in the spirit of democracy - the choice should be left up to the individual.

    Just based on the above statistics, maybe the gun control advocates should ban cigarrettes.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    At some point I'm sure guns probably will become illegal.  Just like we've found ways to impede our first ammendment we will chip away at the second.   

    I wonder if every society throughout history actually lobbied the government to have their own rights removed.  So, instead of having a .0002% chance of getting shot you will only have a .0001% chance of being shot.  I've always felt there is some inherent risk in freedom.  Freedom is after all, the opposite of rules and order.  We could run the country like a kindergarten and remove all sharp objects and all live to be a hundred years old.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and public safety? 

    Seems to me you could pretty much pack your bags and head in any direction and find the government you crave that will coddly your desire for safety.  If that's what you desire than I say go ahead and leave, but I'd prefer to keep this country the way it is even if there is some miniscule of percent higher chance I could get hurt.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to Inokea4coolaid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Each year.

    About 12,352 people die from homicides involving guns (Forbes)

    About 10,228  people die from drunk driving (MADD, 2010)

    About 443,000 people die from cigarettes (Center for Disease Control)

    Don't hide behind the consitution as an artificial facade as to the real reasons for your position on guns.

    There are already gun control laws established by each State. Most already do background checks for criminal history, mental illness, drug use, fingerprinting, pictures, ect. Those proposing "change" really have brought nothing new to the table, nor is there any evidence that those suggested "changes" stop incidents like that of CT.

    Gun control is very much like the topic of abortions.  My guess is that it's about 50-50 split between pro-choice and pro-life. So, since there is no clear cut majority for what folks are proposing - then, in the spirit of democracy - the choice should be left up to the individual.

    Just based on the above statistics, maybe the gun control advocates should ban cigarrettes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's been a lot of work to get cigarettes banned--or at least severely restricted.  It has helped too.

    If you want ideas about what might work with gun control, look at other countries. The so-called gun control laws in the US are generally toothless.  Other countries have much, much tougher laws.  As a gun owner who moved from the US to Canada, I know firsthand the difference. It's easy to own and use a hunting rifle in Canada.  It's a heck of a lot harder to own and use a pistol. There's also a signficantly lower rate of gun fatalities here.   

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At some point I'm sure guns probably will become illegal.  Just like we've found ways to impede our first ammendment we will chip away at the second.   

    I wonder if every society throughout history actually lobbied the government to have their own rights removed.  So, instead of having a .0002% chance of getting shot you will only have a .0001% chance of being shot.  I've always felt there is some inherent risk in freedom.  Freedom is after all, the opposite of rules and order.  We could run the country like a kindergarten and remove all sharp objects and all live to be a hundred years old.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and public safety? 

    Seems to me you could pretty much pack your bags and head in any direction and find the government you crave that will coddly your desire for safety.  If that's what you desire than I say go ahead and leave, but I'd prefer to keep this country the way it is even if there is some miniscule of percent higher chance I could get hurt.

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    There's been a lot of work to get cigarettes banned--or at least severely restricted.  It has helped too.

    If you want ideas about what might work with gun control, look at other countries. The so-called gun control laws in the US are generally toothless.  Other countries have much, much tougher laws.  As a gun owner who moved from the US to Canada, I know firsthand the difference. It's easy to own and use a hunting rifle in Canada.  It's a heck of a lot harder to own and use a pistol. There's also a signficantly lower rate of gun fatalities here.   

     [/QUOTE]

    Hogwash.  What specific cigarrette restrictions are you specifically citing that has helped? Where is your source of data?

    You are being disingenous.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-guns-_b_1700218.html

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

     


    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well.  Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state. 

    Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom.  This is a fairly well understood concept.  Anarchy would be complete freedom. It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety.  You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc.  It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you. 

    The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens.  Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.

    You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours.  I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    these guys are like overgrown kids who want to live out on the prarie in 1856 and see their dreams of rustlin cows and gunning down the marshall's posse fulfilled

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At some point I'm sure guns probably will become illegal.  Just like we've found ways to impede our first ammendment we will chip away at the second.   

    I wonder if every society throughout history actually lobbied the government to have their own rights removed.  So, instead of having a .0002% chance of getting shot you will only have a .0001% chance of being shot.  I've always felt there is some inherent risk in freedom.  Freedom is after all, the opposite of rules and order.  We could run the country like a kindergarten and remove all sharp objects and all live to be a hundred years old.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and public safety? 

    Seems to me you could pretty much pack your bags and head in any direction and find the government you crave that will coddly your desire for safety.  If that's what you desire than I say go ahead and leave, but I'd prefer to keep this country the way it is even if there is some miniscule of percent higher chance I could get hurt.

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?

    The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly.  Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will.  Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others.  This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    John Locke's own words.

    "For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom."

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LittleTimmy31's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If someone wants a weapon bad enough and they can't get it legally, they can obtain one on the black market. There isn't really anything anyone can do except maybe stop producing these weapons and we all know that's not going to happen.

    [/QUOTE]


    yep yep yep, they can do it in other nations as well.. how come they dont have such psycho-masss killings?

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, they do...any country having to do with Al Quida or the Taliban

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share