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)
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:22 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 3,039,252 times
Reputation: 3271

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
Well this is fascinating from the comments-



Interesting. I know hostesses at clubs manipulate rich guys, like Tiger Woods mistress. I suppose they can really mess things up for a man if they get their hooks in them. This relationship is probably based on this woman manipulating Paddock for money. She doesn't seem to have a job anymore but spends a lot of cash based on her Facebook pages. Now it's all over, she must be really devastated.
Wait for few more days. She may even be cousin of Kim or Duterte..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:22 AM
 
10,091 posts, read 5,741,679 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
When the 2nd amendment was written guns were muzzle loaders that, in the hands of an expert, could fire a ball every 15 - 20 seconds. A rifle was accurate to 400 - 500 yards max. Muskets were semi-accurate up to 50 yards or so.

Does anyone know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about creating a right to bear arms that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute and fire over 1200 yards? I'm not a lawyer but original intent might indicate that they were thinking of the arms of their time. They couldn't have conceived of todays weapons nor who should have the right to bear them.

It's already been decided people have a right to bear arms. What kind of arms? Not all obviously. Billionaires can't buy out of service nuclear subs, I assume. You don't see Abrams tanks out during hunting season. Not to mention F-18s. Some limits on bearing arms are in effect presumably. Why not extend them to weapons of the kind used in this massacre?

My own opinion is that wanting to own a firearm of this type is enough evidence of mental instability to disqualify a person from having one. That goes for all these guns that look like military weapons, especially those that can be converted to automatic fire.

There is no telling when someone will "crack" and psychologists are no better at identifying likely crackers than the common man. Removing these arms is the only way to prevent or at least minimize future massacres.
Well how do you eliminate the black market? You now have 3D printers that give people the ability to manufacturer their own guns or modify weapons. And the internet makes it easier than ever before to buy and sell on a black market.

I agree that these type of weapons should only be in the hands of law enforcement or military. There is no valid reason or argument for a citizen needing to find hundreds of rounds per minute. That is a mass murder machine. The guy that committed the Mcdonald massacre had an uzi. No one could rush and jump him because he would just spray them down with bullets. If he only had a single shot weapon then they had a chance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:23 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,877,895 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
are you unable to dispute my statistics?
I already did: Chicago. Some of the most restrictive ant-gun laws in the US. And what happens EVERY weekend in Chicago?

And guess who's wielding those guns and are shooting/killing others? Law-abiding citizens? No. Felons. Criminals. You can pass whatever law you want and it WON'T change a thing. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:23 AM
 
12,282 posts, read 13,247,766 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Ok, first off there are multiple levels of protective vests. Some are kevlar, some are ceramic plates or a combination of metal and weave etc.

Next, bullet composition is one deciding factor a bullet can pierce an object, the other is simply energy. Almost any firearm can go through armor depending on the composition.

Last, there are billions of old FMJ ammo out there and it would be for all practical reasons useless to even attempt to reel it in. Then there is reloading, no way to regulate that at this point in history.
Lets say your kid is a shop lifter. You say you can't stop him. You say He has learned how to do it and there are too many stores.

I know a few guys with weapons that would never pass a Psychological test to own a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:24 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,327 posts, read 47,088,247 times
Reputation: 34089
Quote:
Originally Posted by veuvegirl View Post
There is though, moving forward. Don't sell bullets that are made specifically for piercing kevlar.
Why? You can make them from billet steel. Thus my reloading comment. You can cut hardened steel and either mold or grind it down to make boolits. Cast boolits are easy to make.

People have been making their own bullets since gun powder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:24 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,755 posts, read 9,654,477 times
Reputation: 13169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Neither do control laws. Now what?
yes, they do. proof is right there in my facts.

Nevada had a hundred more gun homicides than NJ in one year with a quarter of the population of NJ. Nevada has lax gun laws; NJ's are strict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:24 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,877,895 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Ridiculous argument spoon fed to you by the NRA.
Chicago's gun-toting felons are NRA members? Do you realize how ridiculous you've made yourself look? /SMH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:25 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,327 posts, read 47,088,247 times
Reputation: 34089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Lets say your kid is a shop lifter. You say you can't stop him. You say He has learned how to do it and there are too many stores.

I know a few guys with weapons that would never pass a Psychological test to own a gun.
I've known felons that could not legally buy guns but still had them. That's kind of the summary of this entire thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:26 AM
 
12,282 posts, read 13,247,766 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
you cannot prevent them, you take away guns, they'll use car bombs, etc....where there is a will there is a way....

quick fixes do not work....
ASSUMPTIONS without being rational. Sure wouldn't be bad to start limiting how nuts can get to us. The govt has made it very hard to get explosives and that is working very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,835,417 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's a person's emotional problem, not a gun problem.

If guns were the problem, the 9/11 hijackers would have gunned down people in the twin towers instead of flying planes into them. If guns were the problem, terrorists wouldn't be renting trucks and driving them into crowds in Europe. If guns were the problem, terrorists wouldn't be attacking crowds with knives. If guns were the problem, terrorists would not be committing acid attacks. If guns were the problem, the sarin gas attack wouldn't have happened in Japan.

What do all those have in common?

Hint: NOT the means of the attack.

Think rationally. Don't succumb to irrational emotions.
Tell that to your Republican congress!

Quote:
The American Health Care Act, which passed the House in early May and will soon be debated in some form in the Senate, will mark a major shift in national policy for opioid treatment, as well as for mental health, behavioral health, and substance abuse across the board. And it would come just after the Affordable Care Act began to create the first semblance of a true national safety net for those health issues.

Beyond providing massive expansions in health coverage via Medicaid and subsidized private insurance, the Affordable Care Act also expanded previous laws that helped ensure mental-health services for those people with coverage.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...verage/528291/

Meanwhile be very careful where you go because there are plenty of people out there right now, with weapons of mass destruction, itching to follow in the footsteps of Stephen Paddock.
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. The time now is 06:38 AM.

© 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