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.
I don't love them, any more than I "love" the hammer and saw I used to build my house. Or any more than I "love" the fence I put up to keep varmints out of the garden. Guns are useful too, just as those other things are.
What strange mentality to do you have, that you "love" guns? No one else has mentioned such a "love"... except you. Why?[/quote]
Wow. I know MANY people who love guns.
I mean, I love watches, that doesn't mean I want to marry one. What're you, 6 years old? You know what I mean by love in this context.
I'm pretty sure this pyscho knew the guns were not toys. he didn't want to use the gun in a safe manner.
You're right--and he was obviously able to get into the case, if there was one, to get them. My point was that you lock guns up, even if you trust your own family not to do something stupid, because you don't know who else might have access if you don't. I'm baffled as to why a family with a mentally ill teenager would have those kinds of weapons in their home to begin with.
it only takes 1 gun to kill somebody so why is it important to prevent more than 1 gun to a person?
Why would a person buy four guns? Got any explanation for that? The idiot leading us to this national conversation was brought up by a mother who likely had OCD with gun ownership and chances are, the kid learned to "appreciate" it.
Gun control won't work b/c there is no way the government can confiscate every gun out there. All gun control does it make it tougher for good citizens to own guns and make Democrats feel good about themselves without doing anything that prevents future shootings.
I think that's like saying heroin control wont work because the govt can't confiscate all the heroin so why have heroin control.
Why would a person buy four guns? Got any explanation for that? The idiot leading us to this national conversation was brought up by a mother who likely had OCD with gun ownership and chances are, the kid learned to "appreciate" it.
I own multiple guns because they each serve a different purpose. My breech load side by side shotgun is used for birding and skeet. It would be silly to try and use my .22 rifle or .40 handgun for such a thing. Same as it would be silly to use my shotgun for small game. The .22 would be appropriate there.
I can't speak to this woman's intent as I would not have owned and kept guns in a house with a mentally ill child.
I think that's like saying heroin control wont work because the govt can't confiscate all the heroin so why have heroin control.
That's not a legit comparision b/c good citizens in general don't abuse drugs. Good citizens do own firearms.
unless you can prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns, what good is another gun control law going to do? You seem to thinnk criminals and thementalliy ill care about your laws. They don't! or we wouldn't be dicussing this.
And for whoever said that we are just starting to have a national conversation on g uns b/c of this shooting, that's nonsense. We've been dicussing gun control forever, you liberals just lose the debate. so you exploit every shooting that happens.
You only have two hands so i still don't get the point of whining about a person having 4 guns.
No one (and I mean no one) is proposing that we ban all guns in this country, but that seems to be the hysteria that comes out every time there's a call for common sense restrictions. It's ridiculous. I grew up on a ranch, my husband grew up on a ranch, we live in a rural area of a very rural state, and my husband and boys all hunt--we have a gun case full of rifles and shotguns in our home (locked, with the key and shells/bullets stored elsewhere). My teenagers were taught from a very early age just what kind of damage guns can do--they respect them, and they know how to handle them responsibly. Even with all that, they enjoy bow hunting more than going after deer with a rifle because there's actually some sport to it--guns are mainly used when we have a coyote trying to get at the livestock, or in the rare instances where we find a rabid animal.
There is NO reason that anyone outside of the police or military needs a semi automatic weapon, especially one with a higher capacity magazine, to hunt or protect their home. It isn't even legal to hunt with one here, and if you can't take out an intruder with a shotgun you have no business owning weapons. Assault weapons have only two other purposes--as toys for a gun range, or to kill lots of people quickly. I don't think your right to own a lethal toy should have precedence over my right to keep those guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.
As far as the second amendment goes--the first amendment has lots of restrictions. You can't shout fire in a crowded place, you can't lie about people to damage their reputation, you can't hurl racist epitaphs, and there are limits on the types of pornography you can own or publish, etc. This issue is no different. We don't allow people in this country to own materials to make nuclear weapons, we have restrictions on who can buy many of the materials commonly used in other types of bombs, and I don't think assault weapons should be any different.
If there had been a ban on semi-automatic weapons, would it have prevented this shooting in CT?
Hell no. so why do liberals act like this is the solution? i marvel at that. they think they got it all figured out and they don't. but it is about feeling good about themselves regardless of the efficacy of their so called solution.
Many who say pistols and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they are not used for hunting/sporting, are forgetting that these guns are allowed because the 2nd Amendment says that a "well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed". These guns are to protect the citizens from our own government if it should eveR turn on its people.
Doesn't it seem way more likely and probable that a sick person will get a hold of a semi-automatic and take his hostility out on society, than for the government to come in and turn on us? The former actually happens. The latter is paranoia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
and if you can't take out an intruder with a shotgun you have no business owning weapons. Assault weapons have only two other purposes--as toys for a gun range, or to kill lots of people quickly. I don't think your right to own a lethal toy should have precedence over my right to keep those guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Tesla
The point is you can't ban guns. Why would this guy care about your ban on guns? He shot his mother and a bunch of kids, yet you think he cares what the government has made illegal? You are not thinking out t here.
He wouldn't care but wouldn't it had been much harder for him to get his crazy hands on one, had they been illegal? His mom bought them, legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Tesla
It's just about you feeling good about yourself, not finding a real solution. If there is a way you can confiscate all the guns in the world, let's talk about gun control then.
I think the school knew this kid has some problems. He was assigned a pyschologist when he was in the school.
It has nothing to do with me feeling good about me. It has to do with the safety of the general public. I'm thinking of my own child innocently walking in the mall or in school.
Lots of people see psychologists. And they get better. Lots of people are crazy and never see one.
First, I'd like to say that I'm not "anti-gun". Our family has a couple of guns for hunting, and I have used guns extensively. I just want to point that out so people can save the "leave us alone, *******" comments.
My question is this, for those who are against further gun regulations: What do you propose should be done -- if anything -- in terms of limiting gun tragedies?
We have read much on here from those who are in favor of more gun control, but I haven't read many answers from 'pro-gun' supporters.
I have been thinking about this a lot. I propose that we crack down on these dangerous folks and their families. Trying to mainstream them has not worked. Our current gun laws did work, Adam was not able to buy a gun. So what does he do, he steals his mothers. She was completely irresponsible for having unlocked guns around this kid. Taking him to the shooting range?, what an idiot. I would not be against an amendment to prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has a challenged person under their roof, though I admit that might not be the answer either (they could just go break into a neighbor's house and steal their guns). As a responsible gun owner though, I don't feel that I should suffer because a few jackasses have issues. Lock them up and if they and their families get their feelings hurt, that's tough. Enough is enough, I don't want them around my family.
Last edited by elan; 12-17-2012 at 01:05 PM..
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.
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.
