Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2016, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Huntsville
6,009 posts, read 6,610,050 times
Reputation: 7036

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Can you put a pressure cooker under your coat and bring it in a night club?
No, but you can strategically place one around the building to cause mass damage, and then another outside that could be set to go off as people try to exit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Can you kill 50 people with a box cutter?
Absolutely. It worked on 9/11 when the terrorists seized those planes. It could also work if they took over a transit bus, a train, or some other form of mass transit.




Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Can you kill as many people with a pipe bomb as you can a AK-47 with 20 extra magazines?
Again, the answer is yes. If enough of them are strategically placed, you could actually do more damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Guns are the weapon of choice for mass murders and having common sense gun laws (is common sense.)

Because they are easier. The problem is when you ban guns from legal gun owners, the only people who have guns are the criminals. You pretty much give them a free-for-all on who they can target next. An armed society is a polite society. You're a lot less likely to attack someone who you know could very well fight back.


The answer is not to focus on "assault rifles" (which people misconstrue most weapons as by looks and not function) and banning guns from law-abiding citizens. All you are doing is taking away a person's ability to defend themselves. Even if they were all taken away, a criminal who wants to kill is going to kill. You'd have to ban sticks, rocks, metal, plastic, and anything else that a clever criminal could fashion into a weapon. The answer is to address why the killings are taking place and confront that.

Last edited by Nlambert; 06-14-2016 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2016, 11:49 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,636,100 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post
No, but you can strategically place one around the building to cause mass damage, and then another outside that could be set to go off as people try to exit.
And if people start to put pressure cooker bombs outside of crowded exits then we will have to pass laws for security guards to look for them.

Quote:
Absolutely. It worked on 9/11 when the terrorists seized those planes. It could also work if they took over a transit bus, a train, or some other form of mass transit.
And box cutters and small knives are no longer allowed on airplanes and airport security has greatly increased. But after the mentally ill and terrorists use guns to kill people republicans refuse to pass extra security measures.

Quote:
Because they are easier. The problem is when you ban guns from legal gun owners, the only people who have guns are the criminals. You pretty much give them a free-for-all on who they can target next. An armed society is a polite society. You're a lot less likely to attack someone who you know could very well fight back.
No one is talking about banning guns from responsible gun owners, rather democrats are talking about banning gun sales to suspected terrorists (but the republicans oppose such laws.)

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC
NRA blocks law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns - NY Daily News

Last edited by chad3; 06-14-2016 at 12:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Huntsville
6,009 posts, read 6,610,050 times
Reputation: 7036
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
And if people start to put pressure cooker bombs outside of crowded exits then we will have to pass laws for security guards to look for them.



And box cutters and small knives are no longer allowed on airplanes and airport security has greatly increased. But after the mentally ill and terrorists use guns to kill people republicans refuse to pass extra security measures.



No one is talking about banning guns from responsible gun owners, rather democrats are talking about banning gun sales to suspected terrorists (but the republicans oppose such laws.)

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC
NRA blocks law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns - NY Daily News









If you've never worked in any capacity where you deal with terrorists and understand their capabilities, it would be difficult to find them. You need to be trained very well to find a bomb. Most of them aren't made to look like bombs. That would defeat the purpose. What you are proposing is to be reactive, instead of proactive. How many would be dead if we waited for them to plant a bomb?


The extra security measures is a backdoor start to banning guns altogether. The only reason it was voted down was because it takes away the right of those who are wrongly on that watchlist to legally purchase a firearm.


It's a slippery slope and I agree that measures need to be taken. But when a bill could potentially stifle the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong, it must be carefully evaluated. It could be a slow erosion of people's rights and liberties and no one is going to allow the government to do that if there are other ways to stop the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,755 posts, read 8,134,530 times
Reputation: 8528
It is pretty common when the GOP gets rid of a regulation only bad things happen. Same with stuff they bring to the floor of the congress, nafta, repeal of glass stegall, passing tpa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,698,731 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Can you put a pressure cooker under your coat and bring it in a night club?
Can you kill 50 people with a box cutter?
Can you kill as many people with a pipe bomb as you can a AK-47 with 20 extra magazines?

Guns are the weapon of choice for mass murders and having common sense gun laws (is common sense.)
Absolutely! That is why we need to regulate guns better. If the argument is that terrorists will move to other methods, so can those who argue it. Those who believe we shouldn't regulate guns because terrorists can use knives, box cutters, etc... as effectively, can also use the same to protect themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,698,731 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post
No, but you can strategically place one around the building to cause mass damage, and then another outside that could be set to go off as people try to exit.



Absolutely. It worked on 9/11 when the terrorists seized those planes. It could also work if they took over a transit bus, a train, or some other form of mass transit.





Again, the answer is yes. If enough of them are strategically placed, you could actually do more damage.




Because they are easier. The problem is when you ban guns from legal gun owners, the only people who have guns are the criminals. You pretty much give them a free-for-all on who they can target next. An armed society is a polite society. You're a lot less likely to attack someone who you know could very well fight back.


The answer is not to focus on "assault rifles" (which people misconstrue most weapons as by looks and not function) and banning guns from law-abiding citizens. All you are doing is taking away a person's ability to defend themselves. Even if they were all taken away, a criminal who wants to kill is going to kill. You'd have to ban sticks, rocks, metal, plastic, and anything else that a clever criminal could fashion into a weapon. The answer is to address why the killings are taking place and confront that.
Why would you need guns when you can use your pressure cooker and box cutter to protect yourself? If they are effective for terrorists, they should be good enough for you too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,698,731 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post





If you've never worked in any capacity where you deal with terrorists and understand their capabilities, it would be difficult to find them. You need to be trained very well to find a bomb. Most of them aren't made to look like bombs. That would defeat the purpose. What you are proposing is to be reactive, instead of proactive. How many would be dead if we waited for them to plant a bomb?


The extra security measures is a backdoor start to banning guns altogether. The only reason it was voted down was because it takes away the right of those who are wrongly on that watchlist to legally purchase a firearm.


It's a slippery slope and I agree that measures need to be taken. But when a bill could potentially stifle the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong, it must be carefully evaluated. It could be a slow erosion of people's rights and liberties and no one is going to allow the government to do that if there are other ways to stop the problem.
We want better background checks so only the law abiding citizens get guns. Period! Wasn't Omar on a watch list?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,216,640 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss View Post
The GOP failed to extend the assault weapons ban in 2004 and we get to see the results in real time.

The AWB did absolutely nothing to curb violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,698,731 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
The AWB did absolutely nothing to curb violence.
Sure prevented mass shootings!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,130 posts, read 5,767,655 times
Reputation: 7695
Is there any other tool in existence that gets blamed when someone misuses it?
Orlando was a "mass shooting" like 9/11 was a plane crash.

One Presidential candidate blames it on guns,
the other blames it on the man and the ideology that motivated him.
Tough choice? No, not much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top