With all Due Respect ...

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Casportsfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cap your obviously more informed on football than gun rights, so stick to football! Guns dont kill people any more than cars kill people (when driven by a drunk) or forks make people fat. Evil people kill people. P.S. I dont expect my answer to be very popular in the liberals lair of "The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" but its one gun owners opinion. P.P.S no assault weapons were used in Connecticut, 2 handguns a 9mm and a glock 40.

    [/QUOTE]

    And why does any person need a glock anyway???  To go hunting Deer??  Yes guns don't kill people.  People WITH guns kill people.  Explain how this guy was going to kill 27 people with a FN knife or a pipe.  It's not a liberal thing.  It's kind of a common sense thing.  Love to hear your answer to that question.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, a Glock is a brand of gun, like Remington or Colt or whatever. Second, Ted Kosinsky used pipe bombs. Timothy McVey used fertilzer and ammonia and etc. If there is an evil of that kind in someone's heart, they'll find a way to kill. Pipe bombs are already totally illegal, did that stop Kosinsky? Should we eliminate all fertilzer and ammonia because someone killed 200+ people with it? Furthermore, how are you going to eliminate ALL access to ALL guns? Stricter gun laws? Wait, take guns away from EVERYONE. Is that it? Trouble with that is, only law abiding citizens would be affected by a new LAW taking guns away. Criminals don't get their guns through legal means, and if a legal gun ended up in his hands it was only because it was laying there, and not because he couldn't get one illegally if he had his heart set on killing 27 people. All he had to do was go on the street with a couple hundred bucks and he'd have everything he needs. If an animal like this kid is willing to kill 20+ kindergartners and his own parents two weeks before Christmas, I'm also convinced that he still wouldn't DARE violate a new gun law to get an illegal weapon-oh no-he'd be much to scared to be that politically incorrect, I'm sure of it. What people don't get is that it's the HEARTS of human beings that are screwed up. Until people's HEARTS change, the killing will go on, regardless of what weapons are available, and what laws are passed by society. We were killing each other long before guns, and doing it by the millions. So no, guns don't kill people, wicked people with evil hearts do. It's called S-I-N, that nasty three letter word psychiatrists tell us doesn't exist. That's what's known as a spiriutal problem, and that only God can fix. The catch is, he won't fix it unless the person himself wants it fixed--that's what's called "freel will"--with all it's unfortunate side effects. Since we live in a world that says God doesn't exist, we are obliged to live under the consequences of that caprice and all IT'S unfortunate side effects. What you asked here isn't all that hard to answer in my opinion.  

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    It's a silly/specious argument anyway.

    Bombs and most bomb materials are regulated and monitored. People who order quantitites of these things are tracked by the FBI.

    I's color by numbers, but people don't want to pick up the crayons. The U.S. has a major murder problem, on par with 3rd world countries, and the sole difference between the U.S. and other 1st world countries without those issues is that here I can get a semi-automiatc weapon now, no questions asked. 

    Bombs being the topic ... the anti-gun control position is akin to saying ... Nuclear materials don't kill people ... people do, and evil is timeless too ... so why regulate it at all? Regulate evil.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would disagree that the "sole difference" between the U.S. and other developed countries with lower murder rates is the availability of semi-automatic weapons.  There are enormous demographic differences between this country and say Canada and European countries which have largely homgenous populations, very restrictive immigration policies and don't have an open border with a third world country or tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

    That said, if you want to limit who can get what weapons, that's fine.  My view is it's too late for that. There are literally millions of those weapons out there and it's not practical to think you can confiscate them.  And if the law abiding folks turn theirs in, then what do you have?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well presented points Muzz.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. CT has pretty stiff gun control. In MA it is law that guns must be locked "in a secure container". That's just to defeat kids. An adult isn't going to be stopped by a gun lock or container. A safe maybe, but those aren't cheap.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    I'm prepared to accept the postion of those in favor of a ban on all firearms, provided of course that a singular exemption exists for Smith and Wesson that resides with me in my home.  Until then, butt out.  Enough said.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

    [/QUOTE]


    To start, 12 gauge pumps don't shoot bullets . . . .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh yes they do.

     

    A 3" shotgun 00 buck cartridge fires 15 .33 caliber BULLETS. A pump shotgun can fire 7 of those in a matter of seconds without reload. That's 105 high caliber projectiles. If you want more lead in the air go down to .24 caliber #4, which is still lethal at close range and you are talking about around 244 projectiles of lethality scattering around the room. Two cut off pumps can easily be hidden under a coat and that gives you nearly 500 "bullets" emitted in around 15-20 seconds.

    Do you want to ban hunting too?

    I frankly doubt you even know the purpose of full metal jacket yet you are an expert on what guns should be restricted. But don't feel bad. The vast majority of gun control advocates are pretty much gun ignorant.

    I'm not trying to pound on you, I'm just pointing out how "gun control" isn't the panacea some think it is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Okay, if you want to call buckshot bullets, sure.  But combat shotguns should be banned, too.  You don't need those for hunting.  In fact, most jurisdictions don't allow more than 3 shots in a shotgun magazine for hunting.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Time to get the old and ignorant out of Washington and off the Pats board, to boot. Either be a part of the future, or get out of the way.

    Babe is like Adolf Hitler in late April of 1945. "Nah, the Russians aren't nearby!  Those are fireworks!  Who cares?  We're fine!"

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry junior, your liberal agenda to undermine state's rights in favor of central control of everything isn't going to happen.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. CT has pretty stiff gun control. In MA it is law that guns must be locked "in a secure container". That's just to defeat kids. An adult isn't going to be stopped by a gun lock or container. A safe maybe, but those aren't cheap.

    [/QUOTE]

    CT and MA have strict gun control only by US standards.  In much of the rest of the civilized world, it's unlikely that Ms. Lanza would have had two 9 mm high-capacity pistols and a Bushmaster rifle lying around.  

     

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. CT has pretty stiff gun control. In MA it is law that guns must be locked "in a secure container". That's just to defeat kids. An adult isn't going to be stopped by a gun lock or container. A safe maybe, but those aren't cheap.

    [/QUOTE]

    CT and MA have strict gun control only by US standards.  In much of the rest of the civilized world, it's unlikely that Ms. Lanza would have had two 9 mm high-capacity pistols and a Bushmaster rifle lying around.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And as I have proven, having those firearms not there wouldn't prohibit the carnage this nut case kid perped.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

    [/QUOTE]


    To start, 12 gauge pumps don't shoot bullets . . . .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh yes they do.

     

    A 3" shotgun 00 buck cartridge fires 15 .33 caliber BULLETS. A pump shotgun can fire 7 of those in a matter of seconds without reload. That's 105 high caliber projectiles. If you want more lead in the air go down to .24 caliber #4, which is still lethal at close range and you are talking about around 244 projectiles of lethality scattering around the room. Two cut off pumps can easily be hidden under a coat and that gives you nearly 500 "bullets" emitted in around 15-20 seconds.

    Do you want to ban hunting too?

    I frankly doubt you even know the purpose of full metal jacket yet you are an expert on what guns should be restricted. But don't feel bad. The vast majority of gun control advocates are pretty much gun ignorant.

    I'm not trying to pound on you, I'm just pointing out how "gun control" isn't the panacea some think it is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Okay, if you want to call buckshot bullets, sure.  But combat shotguns should be banned, too.  You don't need those for hunting.  In fact, most jurisdictions don't allow more than 3 shots in a shotgun magazine for hunting.

    [/QUOTE]


    What's your plan, to confiscate the millions of shotguns across the US along with the rest?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'll take this a step further.  I am more than happy to have a conversation about some of these video games.  Apparently the kid was a gamer, and if he had a history of mental illness, I wonder if these games contributed to his warped mind. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm more interested in how we can change the status quo which allows entitled athletes to sexually assault a woman and not only get off scott free, but even allows certain disturbed individuals to characterize it as simply a college prank.

    [/QUOTE]
    Wow - way to drop back down in the muck.  Kids are dead. 

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. CT has pretty stiff gun control. In MA it is law that guns must be locked "in a secure container". That's just to defeat kids. An adult isn't going to be stopped by a gun lock or container. A safe maybe, but those aren't cheap.

    [/QUOTE]

    CT and MA have strict gun control only by US standards.  In much of the rest of the civilized world, it's unlikely that Ms. Lanza would have had two 9 mm high-capacity pistols and a Bushmaster rifle lying around.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And as I have proven, having those firearms not there wouldn't prohibit the carnage this nut case kid perped.

    [/QUOTE]

    You haven't proven that.  If the kid didn't have guns, he would have had a heck of lot tougher time killing anyone.  Yeah, maybe he could have built a bomb.  But bombers are much rarer than shooters, so the likelihood that he would have done so is considerably less.  Guns make it easy.  Take your head out of the sand. 

     

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

    [/QUOTE]


    To start, 12 gauge pumps don't shoot bullets . . . .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh yes they do.

     

    A 3" shotgun 00 buck cartridge fires 15 .33 caliber BULLETS. A pump shotgun can fire 7 of those in a matter of seconds without reload. That's 105 high caliber projectiles. If you want more lead in the air go down to .24 caliber #4, which is still lethal at close range and you are talking about around 244 projectiles of lethality scattering around the room. Two cut off pumps can easily be hidden under a coat and that gives you nearly 500 "bullets" emitted in around 15-20 seconds.

    Do you want to ban hunting too?

    I frankly doubt you even know the purpose of full metal jacket yet you are an expert on what guns should be restricted. But don't feel bad. The vast majority of gun control advocates are pretty much gun ignorant.

    I'm not trying to pound on you, I'm just pointing out how "gun control" isn't the panacea some think it is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Okay, if you want to call buckshot bullets, sure.  But combat shotguns should be banned, too.  You don't need those for hunting.  In fact, most jurisdictions don't allow more than 3 shots in a shotgun magazine for hunting.

    [/QUOTE]


    What's your plan, to confiscate the millions of shotguns across the US along with the rest?

    [/QUOTE]

    Just make large capacity magazines illegal. If you've got one, you've got to turn it in.  If you don't turn it in and get caught with it, you go to jail for a long time.  It's not that hard.  

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    WHat are the real issues here? It is not only about a crazed shooter but about the fact that this has become a common thing. It is not only about the 2nd amendment because there are other rights we have as well and sometimes two rights can conflict. It is not about liberal or conservative - that is just plain brain dead thinking. THere are legitimate issues to be addressed - to be discussed and argued and resolved. Amicably. By adults as adults.

    One thing I would ask of anyone... of everyone... is that they listen to each other with some degree of intelligence and respect and that they consider this question first "WHAT IS THE COMMON VALUE UNDERLYING THE OTHER GUYS PERSPECTIVE"? Generally the reality is that the best arguements on all sides have a basis with some meaningful validity. The trick is in justly weighing the values or principles that might be in conflict.

    Here are some thoughts:

    1. You cant stop people who want to kill from killing others

    This is not a truly meaningful point to consider. NO ONE is pretending that all this will simply stop. But we do try to reduce the possibilties. Look at all the effort we put into trying to protect against terrorists when we travel. Look at the already existing concept that there should be background checks before a person can buy a gun. - Although an amazing 29% of gun owners dont even want to have a check for potential terrorists before they can buy a gun.

    The point I am making is that we do not expect that by passing any law we have stopped all illegal behavior. And no one thinks any law will stop all violent behavior. But the point is we do, as a nation, already believe that we can take actions to reduce crime, reduce violent acts, reduce the potential scope of violent behavior.

    2. Guns dont kill people, people do:

    The point being made is actually beside the important point the statement means to answer. The question is just how deadly a weapon should anyone be allowed to own and carry arround? An automatic weapon that can take out 20, 30, 40 people in a minute? A bomb? How big a bomb? Biological weapons? A semi? A hand gun? A knife? I am not going to answer the question for all of us here - that is for all of us to decide... but the issue is not all or nothing.

    The question we need to answer as a country is what is the limit on deadliness of weapon that individuals should be allowed to own, to carry, etc. and why do we put that particular limit?

    3. If others at a shooting were armed it is either less likely that the shooting would have even happened or fewer innocent people would have been killed or injured:

    The point being made assumes a number of things that are just not likely to be true. First of all, that others carrying weapons is not necessarily a deterent especially to someone who is going postal (maybe we should change the term to going American). Second, well trained police and soldiers are not characters in a movie and their rate of hitting their target is not like it is in the movies. So what of the general population? And what of the fact that in a life and death scenario non-professionals (even if trained) are even less likely to be accurate? That innocent people - including targeting the wrong person - become more and more a real likelihood. There is also the greater possibility of cross fires making the scene more deadly to innocent people. 

    4. Vigilante keepers of the peace:

    We have a police force for a reason. ANd we pay them and train them for a reason. Most reasonable people do not want non professionals to be the guardians of their safety. And I sure do not want people who may have had a drink, or are prone to road rage, or who might ahve just had a fight with their wife, or are angry because of some issue going on in their lives to be ready and willing and able to draw at the first possibility of an opportunity to show the world how much of a man, or hero, or just a good shot they (think) they are.

    And on top of that it is all too frequent that people mistake what is happening. Heck, there was just another shooting by a man of an (innocent) African American teenager. And once again it was the man with the gun who was taking the law into his hands and committing murder. So is it going to be OK for someone to draw a gun and shoot and kill a person and then we find out that they went too far because they made a mistake?

    5. If you are what is commonly refered to as "Pro Life" should you be summarily executed if you draw and shoot an innocent person? Or at least put in jail for life because you are clearly too dangerous to be let on the streets where you might mistakenly kill another innocent person. And if someone hears shots and comes running with their gun and sees a person with a gun and they shoot... shooting an earlier would be vigilante.

    6. The difficult questions often need to be asked when two or more rights are in conflict. There is a right to free speach but there are legitimate legal limits on that right. In this case there is also a right for all of us and our families to be able to walk the streets and go to work and school, etc without fear of every other person because everyone has a gun. Generally speaking vigilantes do not make us safer. Shoots outs in a school do not make our children safer. You rright to carry a deadly weapon should have some sort of limits so that you do not infringe on the right of others to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    7. There is a difference between having a weapon in your home to protect you in your home verse carrying a weapon whereever you go.

    8. There is a difference between owning a weapon that you have as a means of being part of a well regulated militia and carrying that weapon around in public as a means of being a self deputized police officer.

    9. I hear a lot of name calling. I hear a lot of dismissive comments. I hear remarks that address the wrong question . I hear a lot of anger. What seems to be abscent are calm, thoughtful discussions. If those who can't even be civil and thoughtful in a discussion what will that imply about their ability to act in a public and likely confused situation? 

    10. Is anyone suggesting that the kids in the elementary school be armed???? No? Because they are not mature enough to be able to? And so too for some older folks.

     

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Availability of guns isn't the sole difference between the US and other 1st world countries. The differences are legion. We have 12 million illegal immigrants for just one example.

    [/QUOTE]


    Was Adam Lanza an illegal immigrant? Was Holmes? Was Laughner?  Was Page? Was Roberts? Was Engledinger? Was Haughton?  These are just some of the mass killings since Holmes shot up the theatre in July . . . 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, that misses the point.  Which is that you can't compare the U.S. to places like the Netherlands when it comes to law and order and the conditions that lead to criminal behavior.

    Anyway, I thought we were talking about gun crimes in general not just mass killings like these? These killings represent a tiny fraction of the homicides in the nation, unfortunately.  Probably the common factor among all of these episodes is some degree of insanity. Maybe we should just test for sanity and quarantine the insane.  They do that sort of thing in China after all, and their murder rate is lower.  If we're going to emulate other countries, that makes as much sense as anything.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I hear a lot of name calling. I hear a lot of dismissive comments. I hear remarks that address the wrong question (such as HOW deadly a weapon is reasonable to cary in public). I hear a lot of anger. What seems to be abscent are calm, thoughtful discussions. If those who can't even be civil and thoughtful in a discussion what will that imply about their ability to act in a public situation? Might they even read into a situation when in fact there is nothing much happening? That is actually a likely event as we are seeing with the vigilante excuses for murder that are becoming also more common.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Maybe some here just resent a Toronto guy telling us what to do?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    We really should just let all elementary school kids pack Glocks.

    Yes, that would solve the problem.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Availability of guns isn't the sole difference between the US and other 1st world countries. The differences are legion. We have 12 million illegal immigrants for just one example.

    [/QUOTE]


    Was Adam Lanza an illegal immigrant? Was Holmes? Was Laughner?  Was Page? Was Roberts? Was Engledinger? Was Haughton?  These are just some of the mass killings since Holmes shot up the theatre in July . . . 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, that misses the point.  Which is that you can't compare the U.S. to places like the Netherlands when it comes to law and order and the conditions that lead to criminal behavior.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Yeah, Americans refuse to allow gun control.  

     

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    If we cannot even have adult conversations then perhaps that is an argument for no weapons.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Are you really saying weapons should be confiscated because of name calling on an internet board?

    That alone should sound an alarm to yourself about where your head is at regarding sensibility and this issue.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninpa420. Show patsfaninpa420's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html

     

    Here's any everyday citizen  that recently become involved  through actions instead of words and stopped a mass shooting from happening.  This was recent and I don't remember this information making headlines.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'll take this a step further.  I am more than happy to have a conversation about some of these video games.  Apparently the kid was a gamer, and if he had a history of mental illness, I wonder if these games contributed to his warped mind. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm more interested in how we can change the status quo which allows entitled athletes to sexually assault a woman and not only get off scott free, but even allows certain disturbed individuals to characterize it as simply a college prank.

    [/QUOTE]

    i guess you are not interested in talking about how to keep this kind of shooting from happening again.

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just make large capacity magazines illegal. If you've got one, you've got to turn it in.  If you don't turn it in and get caught with it, you go to jail for a long time.  It's not that hard.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Statements like this are why you gun control folks get fought tooth and nail for every inch. And rightly so.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to dustcover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More than 3000 people died in this Countries largest mass murder on 9/11/01...

    Taken down by evil and box cutters.

    You can ban guns if you wish...but you will never ban evil.

    People who use the death of children to push their anti-gun agendas are truely pieces of S,,T

     

    Nothing more...nothing less

    [/QUOTE]

    And more than 30,000 die every year thanks to gun violence.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Some 11,000 die yearly from drunk driving. Should we re-institute prohibition? Because when we had that before, nobody could get a drink, right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Or perhaps ban automobiles.

    [/QUOTE]

    bs argument. and you know that. 

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

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'll take this a step further.  I am more than happy to have a conversation about some of these video games.  Apparently the kid was a gamer, and if he had a history of mental illness, I wonder if these games contributed to his warped mind. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm more interested in how we can change the status quo which allows entitled athletes to sexually assault a woman and not only get off scott free, but even allows certain disturbed individuals to characterize it as simply a college prank.

    [/QUOTE]

    i guess you are not interested in talking about how to keep this kind of shooting from happening again.

    [/QUOTE]


    That doesn't seem likely, since I've posted about a dozen times here on the recent tradgedy and its causes.

    I just get a little indignant when I see somebody complaining about games causing mass murder when they are morally bankrupt regarding the atrocities of their sports hero.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share