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.
Any shooting is tragic but going after the tools of the destruction and not the person that is responsible is nothing but a knee jerk reaction.
Do we talk about banning or restricting matches when a arson burns down a building or sets fire to a California countryside?
I just can't get my head around banning something that millions of people enjoy because one guy turned it into a device to murder with.
How many times has a AR15 style rifle been used to prevent a crime or a tragedy? We will never know but the gun itself is not evil, it is a tool.
So why are we trying to prevent North Korea and Syria from developing nuclear weapons?
Why do we have the 'Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?' That's with our allies. Where we trust the people involved, but we are still trying to limit how many weapons are available and to whom.
But the unstable guy who spouts conspiracies all day, and thinks everyone is out to get him should be allowed to have a cache of deadly weapons?
So why are we trying to prevent North Korea and Syria from developing nuclear weapons?
Why do we have the 'Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?' That's with our allies. Where we trust the people involved, but we are still trying to limit how many weapons are available and to whom.
But the unstable guy who spouts conspiracies all day, and thinks everyone is out to get him should be allowed to have a cache of deadly weapons?
Actually the ban the gun debate is more akin to " we don't want a madman like NK having one so we are banning nuclear weapons completely". How many nations with nukes are gonna get on board with that?
Actually the ban the gun debate is more akin to " we don't want a madman like NK having one so we are banning nuclear weapons completely". How many nations with nukes are gonna get on board with that?
I wasn't talking about banning guns. I was responding to the point gun advocates make that people are the problem, not the weapons.
This thread isn't about banning guns, it's about banning a specific kind of gun from being in the hands of just anybody, which makes my comparison, apt.
I wasn't talking about banning guns. I was responding to the point gun advocates make that people are the problem, not the weapons.
This thread isn't about banning guns, it's about banning a specific kind of gun from being in the hands of just anybody, which makes my comparison, apt.
What specific kind? The black scary looking one? Are you afraid of black men too?
I wasn't talking about banning guns. I was responding to the point gun advocates make that people are the problem, not the weapons.
This thread isn't about banning guns, it's about banning a specific kind of gun from being in the hands of just anybody, which makes my comparison, apt.
banning a specific gun is still a ban, just like a nuke is a specific weapon. But say the most popular rifle was a lever action, person goes into a school with a lever action and kills 20 people (which is totally possible), is it time to discuss banning the lever action then? There is one common denominator with these school or mall shootings, people can't or won't fight back which makes easy kills.
banning a specific gun is still a ban, just like a nuke is a specific weapon. But say the most popular rifle was a lever action, person goes into a school with a lever action and kills 20 people (which is totally possible), is it time to discuss banning the lever action then?
We do not allow people to own Nukes. Specific governments control Nukes, just as members of specific governmental organisations would still have guns under any so called 'ban.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
There is one common denominator with these school or mall shootings, people can't or won't fight back which makes easy kills.
Tell that to the victims of all the school shootings in Australia since they created stricter gun regulations.
Anyway, I haven't provided my stance on gun regulation, I've only responded to arguments that I thought were faulty.
Tell that to the victims of all the school shootings in Australia since they created stricter gun regulations.
Anyway, I haven't provided my stance on gun regulation, I've only responded to arguments that I thought were faulty.
What about Australia? You think Americans are gonna turn them in like they did?, I doubt it. Get ready to spend billions upon billions on more prisons, law enforcement and a choked legal system and congrats to making 100,000's upon 100, 000's of people criminals who never where before.
And I ask again when the next psycho that shoots up a school uses a lever action is it time to talk about banning that gun? You know, the rifle that is known to have taken most deer in hunting?
Back in the 70's and 80's the gun ban crowd focused on trying to ban handguns. The semi auto rifle like the AR-15 was for sale then but it was under the anti's radar. So let me ask, when the next psycho shoots up a school with a handgun is it time to talk about banning handguns?
The answer from the anti is, yes it is always time to talk about banning guns completely.
SO basically what this is alluding to is the fact that major policy in the country can be swayed by certain individuals who have money and influence?
Let me put on my shocked face.
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.