The 'Mass-Shooting In The US' thread

Started by Father Demon, February 14, 2008, 05:58:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ice grillin you

Quote from: Zanshin on July 24, 2008, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 24, 2008, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 24, 2008, 09:13:56 AM
Making guns impossible for law-abiding citizens to get means that only three types of entities would have firepower:

Police (Feds on down)
Military
Criminals

I'm all for reasonable controls, but those that think you can take guns out of circulation to prevent crime are laughable.

im not even talking about banning guns or gun control for that matter...this country is so farged up in that area and the nra is so powerful that i dont even pretend that theres any chance of real gun control ever happening...its not even an important issue for me

but the fact is more guns = more people get killed by guns

Sarcasm aside, I wonder if less guns would equate to fewer killings.  Obviously, less guns should mean less shooting deaths...but it wouldn't necessarily mean fewer killings.  Would be an interesting study.


check out the countries that have no guns or real and honest gun control

i cant really think of a more user friendly effective and easily accessable killing machine than a hand gun...lets say guns disappeared tomorrow...what equivalent method would replace the gun that would keep killing at their current numbers?
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Diomedes

Quote from: rjs246 on July 24, 2008, 09:27:49 AM
Why would you want to make otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals? Sounds exactly like the marijuana argument to me...

They hand their guns over and they aren't criminals.  They don't, and they are.  25 years later, we don't have the wild wild west anymore.

I'm not advocating this.  But the argument that guns will always be available is not as lock tight as you think.  If we decided that we didn't want this crap anymore, and were willing to pay the price to purge the nation of guns, it could be done.  It would take damn near forever, but it could happen.  And along the way, it would make crime fighting a lot more simple..you have a gun and you're not a cop, you're a bad guy.
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

rjs246

In other words you're advocating talking about making otherwise lawful citizens into criminals because there are psychos out there who choose to kill people. Nothing like catering all of our laws to the lowest common denominator to improve the country.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Diomedes

Quote from: Diomedes on July 24, 2008, 09:32:05 AM
I'm not advocating this. 

They wouldn't be law abiding if the law said no more guns and they kept them, now would they?
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

ice grillin you

they wouldnt be lawful if they were breaking the law
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

rjs246

OK, little miss semantics. You're talking about changing the law to make hundreds of thousands of CURRENTLY law abiding citizens into criminals if they don't give up one of their constitutionally protected rights.

SIGN ME UP!
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Diomedes

Now who's arguing semantics?

The idea is that it is possible for the nation to decide we'd rather not have millions of guns floating through our society.  It's not farging likely, but if the nation decided, it the political will existed, to reject the idea that anyone and everyone can have guns, then the seemingly permanent reality could in fact be changed.

Once upon a time we had slaves.  A seemingly permanent social value changed. We don't anymore. 
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

rjs246

I don't believe that the Bill of Rights outlined owning another human being as an inalienable right, but whatever. Guns don't kill people, life kills people.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Diomedes

No, it was such fundamental assumption at the time that the bill of rights didn't bother to address it at all.  Of course you could own slaves.
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

General_Failure

Okay, we ban guns. I'm willing to bet that crazy people who want to go on killing sprees will look for guns to do it with regardless. And find them. Then shoot people.

The man. The myth. The legend.

Diomedes

Didn't Australia ban guns after a school shooting or some such?  And now they have drastically fewer shootings?  Or some such?
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

General_Failure

#56
Now they use a combination of boomerangs and drop bears. And the people who still want to own guns have them, they just don't tell everyone.

Also, it's only automatics and semi-automatics that have been outlawed.

Another edit. The one major shooting Australia had was carried out with petrol bomb cocktail and a crossbow. - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962883322.html

The man. The myth. The legend.

PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: General_Failure on July 24, 2008, 11:10:52 AM
Another edit. The one major shooting Australia had was carried out with petrol bomb cocktail and a crossbow. - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962883322.html

That's bad-ass.

General_Failure

Amazingly enough, it wasn't blamed on video games.

The man. The myth. The legend.

PoopyfaceMcGee

That's because no one's ever made a video game that awesome.