Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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 06-15-2016, 11:04 AM
 
10,926 posts, read 21,992,098 times
Reputation: 10569

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
Rolling Stones magazine even called for the repeal of the second amendment.
See? Sensible...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,851 posts, read 2,300,927 times
Reputation: 4546
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHDave View Post
What is sensible to some isn't sensible to others.

When I have a problem to solve, it is solved by finding the root cause and targeting that. Guns are not the root cause of these attacks. No matter what you do with gun laws the attacks will continue. What is the point of targeting something that isn't related to the cause?


To distract from the root cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:06 AM
 
10,737 posts, read 5,664,235 times
Reputation: 10863
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
no one is talking about banning guns, just sensible gun regulations.
What sensible gun regulations, that aren't currently on the books, would have prevented this tragedy? Be specific.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,796 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278 View Post
Every time on of these mass killings happens you hear "ban guns" and i always question people what would that do? So if you ban guns being sold or produced in this country they will just smuggle them in from other countries just like they do now with the drugs. There is an obvious ban on drugs too how is that working out?

People can even manufature guns right in their own garages. Many people have metal lathes and all types of machinery to build anything. And the more laws idea is just a joke. When was the last time a criminal cared about a law? Our prison system is packed because of criminals who cared about laws. You can make a law or ban something it will never stop a criminal. It may put them away after they create havoc but another criminal just takes his place. Criminals are just like roaches they can't be stopped.

Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about these mass murders. When you have 250+ million people in the country you are going to get some bad apples it's just the way it is.

I personally don't own a gun but if i decide to get one for protection i don't want that right taken away. Only allowing the criminals to have the guns is the dumbest idea. And when seconds count the police are minutes away. Lets just say guns magically went away criminals will just find another weapon to use. Right on this forum i read the topic about the guy in the supermarket getting his neck cut by some nut with a box cutter he was randomly targeted.

What would you do when someone is slashing at you with a box cutter? Tell him to wait while you call the police? Get another box cutter to equal the playing field? Or own a gun for protection and shoot the threat?

Well i know some would say "just tase him or pepper spray him because he was just having a bad day you don't need to kill him"
You know, Eddie, you're wrong right out of the gate. I haven't heard much of anyone saying "ban guns". Honestly, I can't remember anyone REALISTICALLY saying that. So my question to you is -- why are your pouring kerosene on the fire?

And no, "many" people do not have the capability to manufacture their own guns. It's a very rare person that can do that.

Then you argue your own points. First you say that laws can put criminals away, and in the next sentence you say criminals can't be stopped. Which is it?

I don't believe that "there is nothing that can be done about these mass murders". For example, does a right to own a gun mean any gun? Omar Mateen fired 24 shots in 9 seconds. Why not outlaw common people owning "guns of war". Regular pistols; okay. Rifles; okay. Shotguns; okay. Semiautomatic guns; why? Do you think that if all Mateen had was a box cutter that 50 people would be dead right now? Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,796 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278 View Post
Actually yes people are talking about banning guns many many people. There are already plenty of gun regulations. You can add more if you like and it won't stop a criminal from obtaining a gun. If he can't buy it legally he will just go to the city where you can easily obtain drugs and guns.
Okay, so give me a list of the notable people who have said to ban all guns since the Orlando shooting. It's going to be an awfully short list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:14 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,268 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
You know, Eddie, you're wrong right out of the gate. I haven't heard much of anyone saying "ban guns". Honestly, I can't remember anyone REALISTICALLY saying that. So my question to you is -- why are your pouring kerosene on the fire?

And no, "many" people do not have the capability to manufacture their own guns. It's a very rare person that can do that.

Then you argue your own points. First you say that laws can put criminals away, and in the next sentence you say criminals can't be stopped. Which is it?

I don't believe that "there is nothing that can be done about these mass murders". For example, does a right to own a gun mean any gun? Omar Mateen fired 24 shots in 9 seconds. Why not outlaw common people owning "guns of war". Regular pistols; okay. Rifles; okay. Shotguns; okay. Semiautomatic guns; why? Do you think that if all Mateen had was a box cutter that 50 people would be dead right now? Really?
A pump shotgun with 4 buck can put 200 9 mm sized holes in stuff in 9 seconds. ALL guns have been used in war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,796 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd View Post
I'm getting tired of everyone from Bernie, Hillary and the talking shocking heads on the news calling the murderers rifle an "automatic" it is not an automatic it is a semi automatic. There is a big difference. The military version has an option to be full auto the civilian AR15 does not.

It was many years ago when the Gov. banned the sale of automatic weapons to the public. They can still be owned but one needs to jump through the hoops to get a federal license to do so.

The AR15 and others like it are precision tools for the target shooters that are looking for fine accuracy. They are no more killing machines than the car the gun owner drives to the shooting range.

I heard an extremist talking today and he compared the influx of muslims to a Trojan Horse. No it wasn't Trump.
We are importing thousands of people from dangerous areas of the world and they don't like us.. What could happen??
Imagine if all the legal guns were seized and then the Trojan Horse opens up and we are taken over! What could we do?

Evil will find a way be it with a gun, a bomb, a machette or a truck loaded with bombs. Banning guns will do nothing but aide the enemies.
And I'm getting awfully tired of people like you making petty distinctions to win debating points. It may not be the precise definition, but what sportsman or hunter needs to be able to fire 24 shots in 9 seconds?

And since you're requiring accurate discussions, the gun used was not an AR15.

24 shots in 9 seconds is not "looking for fine accuracy".

Again, I see a sparsity of people saying to ban all guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,796 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodpete View Post
Talking about the "Gun problem" is a liberals way of handling it. Liberals have NEVER had a solution to any problem, they talk about it, throw some money at it and blame the Republicans for not caring. Poverty, gun control, immigration, etc. It's always been that way and probably always will be.
And I haven't seen a Republican president or Congress solve any of those issues, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,796 posts, read 24,297,543 times
Reputation: 32935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansProof View Post
Just like I can keep my doctor with Obamacare?


Trust doesn't get broke twice.
You're right. Just like all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam supposedly had that justified the deaths of over 4,000 Americans. Or the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier photo-op.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 11:25 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,268 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
And I'm getting awfully tired of people like you making petty distinctions to win debating points. It may not be the precise definition, but what sportsman or hunter needs to be able to fire 24 shots in 9 seconds?

And since you're requiring accurate discussions, the gun used was not an AR15.

24 shots in 9 seconds is not "looking for fine accuracy".

Again, I see a sparsity of people saying to ban all guns.
Banning the AR or other semi-autos isn't going to change crime stats. It didn't the last ban, it won't this one or any future "ban". All these bans do is make gun manufacturers get clever and all owners do is pay a fee, enter the serial number into a database and call them "assault weapons".

How is any of that going to stop mass shootings. I still have "assault weapons" from the first "ban". I still took them hunting, to the range, everywhere. Bans are a joke.

The un-informed have this misguided conception that a ban magically sucks all the AR-15s and AK-47s from the masses. They don't.
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 > Great Debates

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