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 12-21-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,704,727 times
Reputation: 902

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
They do count but IMO all we're doing is singling out easy targets such as guns and video games.
Sometimes they SHOULD be singled out, in context. For example, the deadmom of the Connecticut killer WILLFULLY let her son BOTH play violent video games AND practice shooting guns, KNOWING FULL WELL that her son had a mental disability, one so bad in fact that she kept him out of school. You'd think that parents would at least have enough sense not to give an emotionally challenged kid access to either of those, but apparently not- gun culture and violent video game culture is too engrained in our American culture. So we SHOULD single them out as targets and tell parents not to be idiots and let their developmentally or socially challenged kid partake in them. And in conjunction we should single out unnecessary assault weapons like the AR-15 and 40-clip magazines to be banned from public use while continuing to allow regular rifles, shotguns, and handguns to be legally owned.

Catalysts to mass murder SHOULD be targeted, not to outlaw every example of them, but to get some common sense into Americans' heads about responsible choices. Drunk driving kills people, but purchasing alcohol isn't illegal, while DUI IS illegal. And lots of people can handle alcohol, but alcoholics can't, so you don't take an alcoholic friend or family member to a bar. You DO single out the behavior of drinking and driving and you DO make certain quantities of alchol consumption and driving illegal as targets, but you act within reason. Likewise you DO single out the behavior of violent video game playing and legal gun practice with regards to individuals with mental health issues and you SHOULD ban certain people from purchasing guns and certain guns from being purchased, but you act within reason. And allowing handguns, rifles, and shotguns while banning assault weapons and 40-clip magazines while preaching to parents of children with mental health issues NOT to let them play violent video games and NOT to let them practice shooting guns with you is well within reason.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:42 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,704,727 times
Reputation: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
First of all, a ban will not require anyone to turn in anything.. It will simply stop the manufacture and new sale of these weapons.
It COULD promote turning the illegal guns in if legal penalties were tied to posession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Secondly if you think this will have an impact on the number of murders look to the assault weapons ban of the 80's. It had NO impact on the crime rate.
The issue is not whether whether an individual, not having access to an AR-15, will or won't kill people anyway. The issue is HOW MANY PEOPLE that individual will kill only having access to regular rifles or shotguns or handguns versus having access to an AR-15 with 40 round clips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Thirdly if you look at the overall statistics, there are less crimes committed with a "assault rifle" than virtually any other fire arm...
Do those statistics also show the numbers of people killed PER assault rifle incident versus the numbers of people killed PER handgun incident, or shotgun incident, or regular rifle incident? Reducing the number of people killed per incident is a worthwhile goal. And banning assault rifles and associated high capacity clips will reduce the number of people killed per incident for those murderers who would now have to use firearms of lower kill capacity.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:46 AM
 
20,950 posts, read 17,785,672 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Why do shooters` rights trump our unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 26 people in Conn. were denied their rights last week. Why don`t they count?
That same argument can be used against abortion.

Besides, there is no guarantee against harm. It is to each person to defend himself and his family.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,448,759 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
It COULD promote turning the illegal guns in if legal penalties were tied to posession.



The issue is not whether whether an individual, not having access to an AR-15, will or won't kill people anyway. The issue is HOW MANY PEOPLE that individual will kill only having access to regular rifles or shotguns or handguns versus having access to an AR-15 with 40 round clips.



Do those statistics also show the numbers of people killed PER assault rifle incident versus the numbers of people killed PER handgun incident, or shotgun incident, or regular rifle incident? Reducing the number of people killed per incident is a worthwhile goal. And banning assault rifles and associated high capacity clips will reduce the number of people killed per incident for those murderers who would now have to use firearms of lower kill capacity.
No it won't.. That is a very convenient misconception. With a number of 8 round magazines, anyone with little skill can do the same thing.. In fact, someone with a 6 shot revolver can with enough speed loaders and a marginal skill level.. Quit trying to treat the symptoms. Try and fight the disease instead and you might actually make a difference..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,929 posts, read 10,592,102 times
Reputation: 5591
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
So if we have one guy that rams a car with road rage does that mean we should outlaw cars?Violence to celebrate a college football victory with looting and burning.Police on campuses ;fences arond mnay schools;people stormig state houses.Either we have a people problem or somethings in the water.We have been a nation of guns owners for decades without people assulting people at malls ;schools chruches etc.Its a people problem and usually we see the record of the perosn is obvious the person was violent nthe past or known mental problems of violence.
A car is something that gets you from point A to point B, that is what it was designed for, not to kill people.

A gun was designed for one purpose, to kill people. Don't try to change the subject.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:51 AM
 
7,493 posts, read 10,918,383 times
Reputation: 7394
Oh my gawd! This can't be a serious thread!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,929 posts, read 10,592,102 times
Reputation: 5591
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
No it won't.. That is a very convenient misconception. With a number of 8 round magazines, anyone with little skill can do the same thing.. In fact, someone with a 6 shot revolver can with enough speed loaders and a marginal skill level.. Quit trying to treat the symptoms. Try and fight the disease instead and you might actually make a difference..
Oh yes! Because we have so many skilled crazies out there who can speedily reload a 6 shot revolver and kill 26 people!

It's MUCH easier to open fire on a crowd of people with an automatic weapon and inflict multiple deaths than it is to use a single shot weapon with a much smaller clip.

You CLEARLY do not understand why "assault weapons" are utilized by the military over "6 shot revolvers".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,448,759 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
A car is something that gets you from point A to point B, that is what it was designed for, not to kill people.

A gun was designed for one purpose, to kill people. Don't try to change the subject.
No, guns are designed for other purposes than to "kill people". They are designed for hunting to provide food to many people and the they are designed for recreation for many.. Guns are inanimate objects just as is a car.. In the wrong hands, either has the potential to bring about death and destruction. Yes, a firearm can be used to kill.. Some people deserve to be killed. If you break into my house, you deserve to die and will. There are solutions to this, but they aren't easy, quick and neat. Gun bans are not a solution. They weren't the last ban either..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,448,759 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Oh yes! Because we have so many skilled crazies out there who can speedily reload a 6 shot revolver and kill 26 people!

It's MUCH easier to open fire on a crowd of people with an automatic weapon and inflict multiple deaths than it is to use a single shot weapon with a much smaller clip.

You CLEARLY do not understand why "assault weapons" are utilized by the military over "6 shot revolvers".
You obviously don't understand that an assault weapon "is not an automatic weapon". Get informed about what you are talking about and get back to me..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,929 posts, read 10,592,102 times
Reputation: 5591
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
No, guns are designed for other purposes than to "kill people". They are designed for hunting to provide food to many people and the they are designed for recreation for many.. Guns are inanimate objects just as is a car.. In the wrong hands, either has the potential to bring about death and destruction. Yes, a firearm can be used to kill.. Some people deserve to be killed. If you break into my house, you deserve to die and will. There are solutions to this, but they aren't easy, quick and neat. Gun bans are not a solution. They weren't the last ban either..
Guns are designed to kill, assault weapons are designed to kill people.
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.

© 2005-2021, 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