Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another shooting... I now supprt gun control!

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:34:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another shooting!

All these shooters are legally able to buy guns even with background checks... Maybe 3 day wait times woudl help as it would delay him and he would forget!! Maybe we have two background checks!

Gun free zones generally prevent mass shootings... Not to mention almost every mass shootings happen in gun free zones like schools... The Aurora shooting was a gun free zone, maybe it made him think twice! Maybe he didn't see the big sign... We need Billboards saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED"... Maybe?

Hm... I like this type of gun control better guys:
http://www.google.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:49:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always enjoy thinking of a fun little story:

There were a group of guys who just robbed a bank and were fleeing the scene. The cops were right on their tail, so they pile into their getaway car and take off away from the crime scene, the cops in hot pursuit. All of the other robbers, except for the driver, were screaming and panicking, yelling at the driver to go left, take a right, swerve over that way. All the while the driver was following defensive driving practices, staying comfortibly around the speed limit and signaling his moves. One of the robbers says "What are you doing! Step on it, the cops are gaining on us!". To this, the driver calmly replies "Are you kidding? We already broke one law today, do you wanna break another? I'm not gonna speed with the cops just right there!". These criminals were eventually caught and arrested.

The point of this story is simple: criminals are already breaking laws by shooting up places or just being a general public menace. By simply banning guns, you don't take guns away from them, since they don't care about breaking laws: they're already planning to, so what's one more? The only people it takes guns away from are the people who are following the law, and that's the last thing we want to do if people are going to start shooting up places. Sure, restricting gun access may make it harder for the average laundromat thief to get a gun, but it'd still be easy for any criminal who wanted a gun to get it from another one of their criminal friends. Gun control only hurts the innocent.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 11:49:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I always enjoy thinking of a fun little story:

There were a group of guys who just robbed a bank and were fleeing the scene. The cops were right on their tail, so they pile into their getaway car and take off away from the crime scene, the cops in hot pursuit. All of the other robbers, except for the driver, were screaming and panicking, yelling at the driver to go left, take a right, swerve over that way. All the while the driver was following defensive driving practices, staying comfortibly around the speed limit and signaling his moves. One of the robbers says "What are you doing! Step on it, the cops are gaining on us!". To this, the driver calmly replies "Are you kidding? We already broke one law today, do you wanna break another? I'm not gonna speed with the cops just right there!". These criminals were eventually caught and arrested.

The point of this story is simple: criminals are already breaking laws by shooting up places or just being a general public menace. By simply banning guns, you don't take guns away from them, since they don't care about breaking laws: they're already planning to, so what's one more? The only people it takes guns away from are the people who are following the law, and that's the last thing we want to do if people are going to start shooting up places. Sure, restricting gun access may make it harder for the average laundromat thief to get a gun, but it'd still be easy for any criminal who wanted a gun to get it from another one of their criminal friends. Gun control only hurts the innocent.

Not only is this true by logic, it is also true and backed by statistics (Lott 2010, Mauser 2007, etc etc.)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:04:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 11:53:30 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/6/2012 11:49:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I always enjoy thinking of a fun little story:

There were a group of guys who just robbed a bank and were fleeing the scene. The cops were right on their tail, so they pile into their getaway car and take off away from the crime scene, the cops in hot pursuit. All of the other robbers, except for the driver, were screaming and panicking, yelling at the driver to go left, take a right, swerve over that way. All the while the driver was following defensive driving practices, staying comfortibly around the speed limit and signaling his moves. One of the robbers says "What are you doing! Step on it, the cops are gaining on us!". To this, the driver calmly replies "Are you kidding? We already broke one law today, do you wanna break another? I'm not gonna speed with the cops just right there!". These criminals were eventually caught and arrested.

The point of this story is simple: criminals are already breaking laws by shooting up places or just being a general public menace. By simply banning guns, you don't take guns away from them, since they don't care about breaking laws: they're already planning to, so what's one more? The only people it takes guns away from are the people who are following the law, and that's the last thing we want to do if people are going to start shooting up places. Sure, restricting gun access may make it harder for the average laundromat thief to get a gun, but it'd still be easy for any criminal who wanted a gun to get it from another one of their criminal friends. Gun control only hurts the innocent.

Not only is this true by logic, it is also true and backed by statistics (Lott 2010, Mauser 2007, etc etc.)

Lott 2003, Lott 1998, Lott 2000, Lott 2010, Kleck & Gertz 1995, Mauser 2004, Mauser 2003, Snyder 1997, Mustard 2001, Plassman et al., 2001, Moorhouse 2006.

I lest out 17 studies btw.

That confirms your statement.

The above is a reading list I now mandate. :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:12:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:05:47 AM, Maikuru wrote:
You guys got room for a third in this circle jerk?

I have never understood the implication of this outside homosexual intercourse...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:15:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:04:40 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/6/2012 11:53:30 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/6/2012 11:49:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I always enjoy thinking of a fun little story:

There were a group of guys who just robbed a bank and were fleeing the scene. The cops were right on their tail, so they pile into their getaway car and take off away from the crime scene, the cops in hot pursuit. All of the other robbers, except for the driver, were screaming and panicking, yelling at the driver to go left, take a right, swerve over that way. All the while the driver was following defensive driving practices, staying comfortibly around the speed limit and signaling his moves. One of the robbers says "What are you doing! Step on it, the cops are gaining on us!". To this, the driver calmly replies "Are you kidding? We already broke one law today, do you wanna break another? I'm not gonna speed with the cops just right there!". These criminals were eventually caught and arrested.

The point of this story is simple: criminals are already breaking laws by shooting up places or just being a general public menace. By simply banning guns, you don't take guns away from them, since they don't care about breaking laws: they're already planning to, so what's one more? The only people it takes guns away from are the people who are following the law, and that's the last thing we want to do if people are going to start shooting up places. Sure, restricting gun access may make it harder for the average laundromat thief to get a gun, but it'd still be easy for any criminal who wanted a gun to get it from another one of their criminal friends. Gun control only hurts the innocent.

Not only is this true by logic, it is also true and backed by statistics (Lott 2010, Mauser 2007, etc etc.)

Lott 2003, Lott 1998, Lott 2000, Lott 2010, Kleck & Gertz 1995, Mauser 2004, Mauser 2003, Snyder 1997, Mustard 2001, Plassman et al., 2001, Moorhouse 2006.

I lest out 17 studies btw.

That confirms your statement.

The above is a reading list I now mandate. :P

So now I guess the only question is why you are in favor of what you just said didn't work.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:19:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:12:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:05:47 AM, Maikuru wrote:
You guys got room for a third in this circle jerk?

I have never understood the implication of this outside homosexual intercourse...

http://cdn2.mamapop.com...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:33:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:15:14 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:04:40 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/6/2012 11:53:30 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/6/2012 11:49:15 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I always enjoy thinking of a fun little story:

There were a group of guys who just robbed a bank and were fleeing the scene. The cops were right on their tail, so they pile into their getaway car and take off away from the crime scene, the cops in hot pursuit. All of the other robbers, except for the driver, were screaming and panicking, yelling at the driver to go left, take a right, swerve over that way. All the while the driver was following defensive driving practices, staying comfortibly around the speed limit and signaling his moves. One of the robbers says "What are you doing! Step on it, the cops are gaining on us!". To this, the driver calmly replies "Are you kidding? We already broke one law today, do you wanna break another? I'm not gonna speed with the cops just right there!". These criminals were eventually caught and arrested.

The point of this story is simple: criminals are already breaking laws by shooting up places or just being a general public menace. By simply banning guns, you don't take guns away from them, since they don't care about breaking laws: they're already planning to, so what's one more? The only people it takes guns away from are the people who are following the law, and that's the last thing we want to do if people are going to start shooting up places. Sure, restricting gun access may make it harder for the average laundromat thief to get a gun, but it'd still be easy for any criminal who wanted a gun to get it from another one of their criminal friends. Gun control only hurts the innocent.

Not only is this true by logic, it is also true and backed by statistics (Lott 2010, Mauser 2007, etc etc.)

Lott 2003, Lott 1998, Lott 2000, Lott 2010, Kleck & Gertz 1995, Mauser 2004, Mauser 2003, Snyder 1997, Mustard 2001, Plassman et al., 2001, Moorhouse 2006.

I lest out 17 studies btw.

That confirms your statement.

The above is a reading list I now mandate. :P

So now I guess the only question is why you are in favor of what you just said didn't work.

Click the link at the bottom of the OP
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:34:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:25:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Equip everyone with non-lethal weapons.
That is how you reduce gun violence.

Ok give a flower to criminal...

He still uses gun
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:39:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:39:08 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I don't know why people are so stupid...

Just take away guns from all the criminals!!!

Srsly

And taking them away from law abiding citizens is a good start!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:41:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:39:57 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:39:08 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I don't know why people are so stupid...

Just take away guns from all the criminals!!!

Srsly

And taking them away from law abiding citizens is a good start!

NO! goober!

Just take them away from the bad guys. Good guys can keep em.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 9:56:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not true that gun laws prevent people from getting guns. The mass shooting last year in Norway occurred despite extremely strict gun laws. The IRA fought a war despite strict gun laws. Guns laws work in proportion to the numbers of people who don't want guns in the first place. In Switzerland and Israel, due to Army reserve requirements, a large percentage of the households have fully-automatic weapons; it does not create a problem.

Fully-automatic weapons are completely banned in the U.S. Assault rifles are only sold modified to semi-automatic operation. Nearly all guns are semiautomatic, meaning the next round is put in the chamber automatically. As sold, an assault weapon is a small caliber semi-automatic. A deer rifle is a large caliber semi-automatic. The idea of an assault rifle in combat is to encourage the enemy to stay down so that their position can be overrun.

I think that more could be done to make and use a list of nutcases. The guy who did the movie massacre was identified as a nutcase by a shrink, who reported it to the college administration. Since the guy left the college, the administration did nothing. The requirements should be stiffened to require reporting to the government. Gun sales are prohibited to felons and there should be a combined list that must be checked before a sale. Heavy drug and alcohol users should be disqualified as well.

Yeah, there has to be a process of appeal to get off the list, but now people who pose a serious danger are usually given a free pass.

If ex-military were given concealed-carry permits, would the U.S. be safer? The military are well-trained and well-screened, so I think we would be much safer. The movie massacre killer guy would have had to start ducking in about two seconds. In fact, suppose ex-military were pad a small stipend to take occasional refresher training and carry concealed weapons. I think safety would further improve.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:58:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 9:56:21 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's not true that gun laws prevent people from getting guns. The mass shooting last year in Norway occurred despite extremely strict gun laws. The IRA fought a war despite strict gun laws. Guns laws work in proportion to the numbers of people who don't want guns in the first place. In Switzerland and Israel, due to Army reserve requirements, a large percentage of the households have fully-automatic weapons; it does not create a problem.

Fully-automatic weapons are completely banned in the U.S. Assault rifles are only sold modified to semi-automatic operation. Nearly all guns are semiautomatic, meaning the next round is put in the chamber automatically. As sold, an assault weapon is a small caliber semi-automatic. A deer rifle is a large caliber semi-automatic. The idea of an assault rifle in combat is to encourage the enemy to stay down so that their position can be overrun.

I think that more could be done to make and use a list of nutcases. The guy who did the movie massacre was identified as a nutcase by a shrink, who reported it to the college administration. Since the guy left the college, the administration did nothing. The requirements should be stiffened to require reporting to the government. Gun sales are prohibited to felons and there should be a combined list that must be checked before a sale. Heavy drug and alcohol users should be disqualified as well.

Yeah, there has to be a process of appeal to get off the list, but now people who pose a serious danger are usually given a free pass.

If ex-military were given concealed-carry permits, would the U.S. be safer? The military are well-trained and well-screened, so I think we would be much safer. The movie massacre killer guy would have had to start ducking in about two seconds. In fact, suppose ex-military were pad a small stipend to take occasional refresher training and carry concealed weapons. I think safety would further improve.

Seems unlikely, given the mental health problems that are incurred via military service. Eg: Wade Michael Page.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 11:09:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 9:56:21 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's not true that gun laws prevent people from getting guns. The mass shooting last year in Norway occurred despite extremely strict gun laws. The IRA fought a war despite strict gun laws. Guns laws work in proportion to the numbers of people who don't want guns in the first place. In Switzerland and Israel, due to Army reserve requirements, a large percentage of the households have fully-automatic weapons; it does not create a problem.

Fully-automatic weapons are completely banned in the U.S. Assault rifles are only sold modified to semi-automatic operation. Nearly all guns are semiautomatic, meaning the next round is put in the chamber automatically. As sold, an assault weapon is a small caliber semi-automatic. A deer rifle is a large caliber semi-automatic. The idea of an assault rifle in combat is to encourage the enemy to stay down so that their position can be overrun.

I think that more could be done to make and use a list of nutcases. The guy who did the movie massacre was identified as a nutcase by a shrink, who reported it to the college administration. Since the guy left the college, the administration did nothing. The requirements should be stiffened to require reporting to the government. Gun sales are prohibited to felons and there should be a combined list that must be checked before a sale. Heavy drug and alcohol users should be disqualified as well.

Yeah, there has to be a process of appeal to get off the list, but now people who pose a serious danger are usually given a free pass.

If ex-military were given concealed-carry permits, would the U.S. be safer? The military are well-trained and well-screened, so I think we would be much safer. The movie massacre killer guy would have had to start ducking in about two seconds. In fact, suppose ex-military were pad a small stipend to take occasional refresher training and carry concealed weapons. I think safety would further improve.

I fully agree. Having a mandatory safety course is also a good idea.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 11:13:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 11:09:57 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/7/2012 9:56:21 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's not true that gun laws prevent people from getting guns. The mass shooting last year in Norway occurred despite extremely strict gun laws. The IRA fought a war despite strict gun laws. Guns laws work in proportion to the numbers of people who don't want guns in the first place. In Switzerland and Israel, due to Army reserve requirements, a large percentage of the households have fully-automatic weapons; it does not create a problem.

Fully-automatic weapons are completely banned in the U.S. Assault rifles are only sold modified to semi-automatic operation. Nearly all guns are semiautomatic, meaning the next round is put in the chamber automatically. As sold, an assault weapon is a small caliber semi-automatic. A deer rifle is a large caliber semi-automatic. The idea of an assault rifle in combat is to encourage the enemy to stay down so that their position can be overrun.

I think that more could be done to make and use a list of nutcases. The guy who did the movie massacre was identified as a nutcase by a shrink, who reported it to the college administration. Since the guy left the college, the administration did nothing. The requirements should be stiffened to require reporting to the government. Gun sales are prohibited to felons and there should be a combined list that must be checked before a sale. Heavy drug and alcohol users should be disqualified as well.

Yeah, there has to be a process of appeal to get off the list, but now people who pose a serious danger are usually given a free pass.

If ex-military were given concealed-carry permits, would the U.S. be safer? The military are well-trained and well-screened, so I think we would be much safer. The movie massacre killer guy would have had to start ducking in about two seconds. In fact, suppose ex-military were pad a small stipend to take occasional refresher training and carry concealed weapons. I think safety would further improve.

I fully agree. Having a mandatory safety course is also a good idea.

I'm a gun-rights guy.

I love to watch people O.o when I say that I don't mind having safety courses and practical testing requirements to purchase/carry.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 4:34:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:34:37 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:25:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Equip everyone with non-lethal weapons.
That is how you reduce gun violence.

Ok give a flower to criminal...

He still uses gun

I presume he means handing out tasers or something?

Gun free zones do work mind.

It's called "frisk EVERYONE before they go in. And make it free of all weapons, not just guns."

That's why you don't hear about mosh pit shootings and the like.

Of course, you don't want to live in a world where most places are like that, and neither do I.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:58:19 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/7/2012 9:56:21 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's not true that gun laws prevent people from getting guns. The mass shooting last year in Norway occurred despite extremely strict gun laws. The IRA fought a war despite strict gun laws. Guns laws work in proportion to the numbers of people who don't want guns in the first place. In Switzerland and Israel, due to Army reserve requirements, a large percentage of the households have fully-automatic weapons; it does not create a problem.

Fully-automatic weapons are completely banned in the U.S. Assault rifles are only sold modified to semi-automatic operation. Nearly all guns are semiautomatic, meaning the next round is put in the chamber automatically. As sold, an assault weapon is a small caliber semi-automatic. A deer rifle is a large caliber semi-automatic. The idea of an assault rifle in combat is to encourage the enemy to stay down so that their position can be overrun.

I think that more could be done to make and use a list of nutcases. The guy who did the movie massacre was identified as a nutcase by a shrink, who reported it to the college administration. Since the guy left the college, the administration did nothing. The requirements should be stiffened to require reporting to the government. Gun sales are prohibited to felons and there should be a combined list that must be checked before a sale. Heavy drug and alcohol users should be disqualified as well.

Yeah, there has to be a process of appeal to get off the list, but now people who pose a serious danger are usually given a free pass.

If ex-military were given concealed-carry permits, would the U.S. be safer? The military are well-trained and well-screened, so I think we would be much safer. The movie massacre killer guy would have had to start ducking in about two seconds. In fact, suppose ex-military were pad a small stipend to take occasional refresher training and carry concealed weapons. I think safety would further improve.

Seems unlikely, given the mental health problems that are incurred via military service. Eg: Wade Michael Page.

Ya and Fort Hood, I don't think being in the military by definition makes you a more sane or responsible gun owner.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The data is that military people are more mentally stable then the general population. But more important is that the military is capable of doing screening. The Fort Hood guy was identified as being a Muslim fanatic; the problem was that rules of political correctness prevented any action from being taken. The skinhead responsible for the Sikh temple shootings was identified by the military as a problem and refused re-enlistment. The military gets to track people for years, so the problem is not identifying nutcases, it is being allowed to act upon the information.

That problem afflicts society as a whole, where political correctness prevents action against mentally-ill fanatics. That has to change. Certainly moving nutcases from small caliber to large caliber weapons isn't going to do it.

So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

Was a shooting like this ever stopped by some one who shot back?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure have the right to bear arms, but I think the issue isn't revoking a right, it's the limitation of that right.
I'm pretty sure the forefathers who enabled those rights to bear arms didn't have ak-47's or M-16's in mind when they mad them
Thank you for voting!
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:01:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Sure have the right to bear arms, but I think the issue isn't revoking a right, it's the limitation of that right.
I'm pretty sure the forefathers who enabled those rights to bear arms didn't have ak-47's or M-16's in mind when they mad them

How many shootings have involved ak-47s and m-16s? The only one I can think of was the hollywood bank robbery over a decade ago.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:09:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The data is that military people are more mentally stable then the general population. But more important is that the military is capable of doing screening. The Fort Hood guy was identified as being a Muslim fanatic; the problem was that rules of political correctness prevented any action from being taken. The skinhead responsible for the Sikh temple shootings was identified by the military as a problem and refused re-enlistment. The military gets to track people for years, so the problem is not identifying nutcases, it is being allowed to act upon the information.

That problem afflicts society as a whole, where political correctness prevents action against mentally-ill fanatics. That has to change. Certainly moving nutcases from small caliber to large caliber weapons isn't going to do it.

So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

What Data? Isn't the suicide rate for military vets extremely high? I'm all for concealed carry but I don't think a member of the military should have any kind of rights above and beyond that of his civilian counterpart.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:20:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 5:50:17 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

Was a shooting like this ever stopped by some one who shot back?

Lots of shootings are stopped, they just arent widely reported by the media.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:06:31 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/7/2012 6:01:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Sure have the right to bear arms, but I think the issue isn't revoking a right, it's the limitation of that right.
I'm pretty sure the forefathers who enabled those rights to bear arms didn't have ak-47's or M-16's in mind when they mad them

How many shootings have involved ak-47s and m-16s? The only one I can think of was the hollywood bank robbery over a decade ago.

colombine
Batman movie shooting in colorado

all highpowered weapons
Thank you for voting!
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:20:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:50:17 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

Was a shooting like this ever stopped by some one who shot back?

Lots of shootings are stopped, they just arent widely reported by the media.

Could you give me an example? Shootouts are just not the thing I look for when I read American newspapers.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:29:18 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 6:20:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:50:17 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

Was a shooting like this ever stopped by some one who shot back?

Lots of shootings are stopped, they just arent widely reported by the media.

Could you give me an example? Shootouts are just not the thing I look for when I read American newspapers.

Not right now, I only have one hand free so typing is slow.

Do a google search for 'CCW saves lives'. There is a forum(now empty) about those kinds of stories. Find that forum in the wayback machine and you can find hundreds of examples.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:46:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:34:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/7/2012 6:29:18 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 6:20:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:50:17 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/7/2012 5:41:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So consider my question. Would you feel safer being certain that no one in a target crowd is able to shoot back?

Was a shooting like this ever stopped by some one who shot back?

Lots of shootings are stopped, they just arent widely reported by the media.

Could you give me an example? Shootouts are just not the thing I look for when I read American newspapers.

Not right now, I only have one hand free so typing is slow.

Do a google search for 'CCW saves lives'. There is a forum(now empty) about those kinds of stories. Find that forum in the wayback machine and you can find hundreds of examples.

Thanks. I will try and do the google thing.