Connecticut School Shooting (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

Gun banning isn't the issue. All that does is make the black market flood with gun purchases. Also, criminals will know they can do a home invasion, knowing the owner doesn't have a gun.

What really needs to happen is studying the common occurrence with all that were involved. Find ways to see warning signs. Schools will need a armed guard on staff. Whatever. Taking guns away won't help at all. Sorry I just disagree

 

[RR7]

You'll put what another way? Your poor support for your argument?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"I want gun owners to admit that guns amplify the ability of people to kill."

That's batshit crazy ... from a linguistic perspective (will you admit that?), but then, I have a gun and a CC too. "Gun as kill amplifier" ... that's an odd metaphor ... I'm guessing it fits in with an equally odd argument against gun control. LOL.

"I want them to recognize this shit and deal with it."

Or else what ... you'll shoot them?

Look, you've nothing to worry about, if I am at the mall and a perp starts shooting, I can legally take him down if I feel my life is in danger or that of another, like you, maybe.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

My position is there are 80,000,000 gun owners in the country and a very small fraction of 1% of them are used in harmful ways.

The anti-gun position seems to be "a guy lost control of his car and hit 20 people so let's get rid of all the cars."

"Let's drive to work in our AK-47"
Oh, that's right. Unlike cars, which we have BECAUSE THEY'RE USEFUL, guns are designed specifically to kill people. Your analogy is particularly cretinous because if the shooter hadn't "controlled" his gun and used it well, the kids would be alive.

Do you really REALLY think that more innocent people would die if guns were totally illegal?

No, you don't. Because that would be insane.

 

[Denny Crane]

You'll put what another way? Your poor support for your argument?

My awesome support for my argument. We'll just have to disagree, but the supreme court agrees with me that the Bill of Rights guarantees people the right to own guns.

 

[Draco]

12,000 murders in the USA last year, 8000 by gun.
33,000 motor vehicle deaths.
151,268 all external causes of mortality.

To put things in perspective.

Do you have to pass a test and get a license to drive a vehicle?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

OK, I'll put it a different way.

Criminologists who study crime and gun violence do not favor banning gun ownership. The opposite is true.

Like this life-long democrat:

http://rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp

You know... as high-stakes as it is, fighting back against a bully is most effective as a concept (the "ignore it" strategy was always bullshit in my mind anyway; I got better results after fighting bullies). But putting guns in the hands of the very people I disdain as stupider than me seems so distasteful.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you have to pass a test and get a license to drive a vehicle?

Ah. I don't argue against licensing guns or gun owners. Just against banning gun ownership.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Look, you've nothing to worry about, if I am at the mall and a perp starts shooting, I can legally take him down if I feel my life is in danger or that of another, like you, maybe.

Oh, thank Christ for that! My life will be protected by some gun-packing nutball who thinks he's Dirty Harry. Hallelujah.

 

[Denny Crane]

EDIT to my post above - I also favor severe penalties (prison) for using a gun in any situation the person is committing a crime. ANY crime.

 

[RR7]

My awesome support for my argument. We'll just have to disagree, but the supreme court agrees with me that the Bill of Rights guarantees people the right to own guns.

your support is a dozen people, then how much the percentage of crime is, and then an article by some guy showing his belief. That's always how you tend to argue on here, though, so I shouldn't expect anything else. Here's a poor statement, here's a poor unrelated stat. Here's something else unrelated. Here's an article. And then agree to disagree

 

[BlazerCaravan]

"I want them to recognize this shit and deal with it."

Or else what ... you'll shoot them?.

No, or else you'll be legislated. That was kind of my (poorly worded, incredibly angry) point. Most people see no point to guns at all. If this shit keeps coming up, the "statistical anomaly" argument will be less and less effective until eventually your right to own a gun will be removed. Secure your shit, lock your triggers, and educate your friends, for fuck's sake. That way when one of your nutjob friends tries to steal your AR-15, they won't succeed.

 

[RoyToy]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

Whoa

 

[Denny Crane]

your support is a dozen people, then how much the percentage of crime is, and then an article by some guy showing his belief. That's always how you tend to argue on here, though, so I shouldn't expect anything else. Here's a poor statement, here's a poor unrelated stat. Here's something else unrelated. Here's an article. And then agree to disagree

My argument is consistent and simple. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. Pardon the metaphor.

Your argument is that you have the right to trample on the rights of 80,000,000 law abiding people for no good reason. NO GOOD REASON.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

My awesome support for my argument. We'll just have to disagree, but the supreme court agrees with me that the Bill of Rights guarantees people the right to own guns.

Suppose they invented a gun that fired a tiny nuclear bomb. Do you think that would be covered by the Second Amendment? Why or why not? (This is a serious question: remember, when the second amendment was written, all they had was muskets. If the school shooter had a musket, the death toll would probably have been under five.)

 

[RoyToy]

Denny has gone off the deep end

 

[Rastapopoulos]

My argument is consistent and simple. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. Pardon the metaphor.

Your argument is that you have the right to trample on the rights of 80,000,000 law abiding people for no good reason. NO GOOD REASON.

Do you feel that your rights are being trampled on because you're not allowed to own a Nuclear Weapon? Can you believe that the rights of 300 MILLION people to own a nuclear weapon are being trampled on? Where's the outrage!!!!???

I mean seriously: wouldn't this be a fucking civil society if everyone had nukes? I know _I_ wouldn't cut someone off in traffic...

 

[Denny Crane]

Suppose they invented a gun that fired a tiny nuclear bomb. Do you think that would be covered by the Second Amendment? Why or why not? (This is a serious question: remember, when the second amendment was written, all they had was muskets. If the school shooter had a musket, the death toll would probably have been under five.)

Remember, when the 2nd amendment was written that it was fine for people to own firearms and perhaps even more powerful weapons (canons?).

If there's a really strong state interest in preventing the private ownership of classes of weapons, then the Supreme Court will allow it (and does).

As much as today was a terrible tragedy, the weapons used were not of the mass destruction variety. The State (fed, state govt.) has no compelling interest to deny people the right to own such weapons.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

The State (fed, state govt.) has no compelling interest to deny people the right to own such weapons.

Eventually, this will not be true, because of events like today.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"Anyone that thinks gun laws don't need to be looked at is an idiot"

I've already looked at them. Your quoted pronouncement is the very kind of thing I look for when identifying idiots.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

again...

rasta, what do you propose we do about it?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

All 3 weapons involved were purchased and registered by the mother.

-CNN

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Remember, when the 2nd amendment was written that it was fine for people to own firearms and perhaps even more powerful weapons (canons?).

You mean I have a second amendment right to own a cannon? Where are the licensed cannon dealers? I demand
(a) the right to concealed carry a cannon
(b) a fucking huge coat big enough to conceal a cannon.

Shit, the NRA has really dropped the (cannon) ball on this one!

If there's a really strong state interest in preventing the private ownership of classes of weapons, then the Supreme Court will allow it (and does).

Because the Supreme Court is always in the right, right? Boy, when it overrules itself your head must explode.

As much as today was a terrible tragedy, the weapons used were not of the mass destruction variety.

Because 20 dead kids doesn't count as "mass destruction". I guess it's "acceptable collateral damage for the greater glory of gun ownership".

The State (fed, state govt.) has no compelling interest to deny people the right to own such weapons.

Maybe it's just me but a whole lot of dead kids kinda seems like "compelling interest."

 

[BlazerCaravan]

again...

rasta, what do you propose we do about it?

Why does he have to come up with a solution right this minute? Any hastily-arrived at, one-line solution will be ripped apart precisely because you rushed him... or is that your plan?

 

[RoyToy]

 

[BlazerCaravan]

All 3 weapons involved were purchased and registered by the mother.

-CNN

Trigger locks, gun safes, education, recognizing your son is troubled (meaning don't give him the keys and combos!). If you can't do these simple fucking things, your hobby should be legislated.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

again...

rasta, what do you propose we do about it?

Look at what Canada does. They have a lot of guns and comparable culture and demographics. Follow their lead.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Why does he have to come up with a solution right this minute? Any hastily-arrived at, one-line solution will be ripped apart precisely because you rushed him... or is that your plan?

no motives

just wondering if he has any bright ideas, at this point im all ears

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Trigger locks, gun safes, education, recognizing your son is troubled.

Exactly!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

"Anyone that thinks gun laws don't need to be looked at is an idiot"

I've already looked at them. Your quoted pronouncement is the very kind of thing I look for when identifying idiots.

They didn't say YOU should look at them. Sometimes it isn't about you. Besides, haven't you got malls to patrol to protect the unarmed?