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 live in the safest city in the USA, and just about everyone has guns. Guns are legal here, shooting people trying to break into your house is legal, and you don't even have to drag the corpse into the house.
The story says several guns were used and the suspect is a teen-ager.
Which of the existing gun laws were effective in preventing this?
What new laws would keep incidents like this from happening in the future?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
We don't know yet. No details have been released yet. At this time we don't know the relationship of the suspect to the victims, who the guns found at the scene belong to, or if this is drug related.
It should too early for pro and anti gun advocates to jump on their hobby horses and make this political. But don't let me stop you. Please, proceed....
Let me bring you up to speed Professor katzpaw.
Regardless of whatever else comes to light, teen-agers don't legally buy guns and gun laws don't stop murderers, but please be sure to keep us all informed as those new developments emerge.
We don't need laws that only affect law-abiding citizens and that will do nothing to reduce crime. Some of you are so dense!
Teenagers can't legally buy guns so where do you think this killer got his guns? Most likely parents, who are law-abiding citizens. So, if his parents hadn't had these guns, or Nancy Lanza hadn't had her guns, would this crime or the massacre in Newtown have happened?
Because rational people have been down this road and we have seen that gun control laws simply don't work.
Murderers don't obey gun laws.
FTR, I have never been in favor of doing nothing.
Every willing, sane, responsible and law-abiding citizen should be armed at all times.
If a handful of teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, he wouldn't have had ten full minutes to slaughter children before police arrived and dozens of kids would still be alive.
My question to you is, since mass shooters tend to select gun-free zones for their attacks, how do you defend laws that prohibit the only people with a chance to stop them from carrying firearms?
So most speeders pick reduced speed zones to speed? Most gun crime and gun violence is commited in gun-anywhere zones. It's just that there is so much gun violence in the U.S. that some of it is going to end up in gun-free zones.
"At the end of the day, I want to make it very clear that the NRA is in absolutely no rush to change anything," LaPierre later said in a written statement. "One thousand dead kids would have very little impact on us. Now if 50,000 kids died in a school shooting that might be a different story. Something around 50,000 to 80,000 dead kids. You know what, forget that. Maybe something closer to 250,000. Yeah, 250,000 dead kids."
I would have put the number even higher than 250k. how many children would it take for you to give up all your civil liberties, children you do not even know.
You're blaming victims of a crime and not the criminal! Again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Teenagers can't legally buy guns so where do you think this killer got his guns? Most likely parents, who are law-abiding citizens. So, if his parents hadn't had these guns, or Nancy Lanza hadn't had her guns, would this crime or the massacre in Newtown have happened?
"At the end of the day, I want to make it very clear that the NRA is in absolutely no rush to change anything," LaPierre later said in a written statement. "One thousand dead kids would have very little impact on us. Now if 50,000 kids died in a school shooting that might be a different story. Something around 50,000 to 80,000 dead kids. You know what, forget that. Maybe something closer to 250,000. Yeah, 250,000 dead kids."
And that's the attitude we're dealing with all over America.
You're blaming victims of a crime and not the criminal! Again!
No, you or someone on here said that gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens would not have an effect. I don't agree. If this killer's parents had not had an assault weapon then this teenager would not have been able to obtain it on his own.
We don't need laws that only affect law-abiding citizens and that will do nothing to reduce crime. Some of you are so dense!
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.
