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 think what everyone is missing here is that responsible gun owners are not going to be "punished" as you put it. The process of owning a weapon will be a bit slower because of the background checking ramp up but other than that, I don't see the issue here. They want to be sure that another psychotic imbicile doesn't get ahold of a gun that holds 30 rounds or any other weapon that they can possibly wipe out 20 kids with or anyone else for that matter.
So limiting the number of rounds (which isn't going to happen in the proposed legislation) makes a firearm less dangerous? Interesting thought. I was taught that one bullet could kill you just as dead as 10.
Responsible firearm owners being punished isn't my main issue with the proposed legislation. My issue is that our "representatives" -and I use the term in quotes because they are representatives of the public in name only at this point - are wasting time with legislation that will do absolutely nothing to stop the next person that decides to shoot up a school. This is a paper tiger law that affects nobody except the law-abiding.
If our "representatives" were interested in stopping incidents like Sandy Hook, they would be repealing the Gun Free Zone law that turns our schools into hunting zones for the insane. They would also be cracking down on mental health care and enforcing stricter regulations on drug companies, while enacting harsher punishments on people who commit crimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pammyd
No one seems to understand that the murder of those 20 kids in Newtown plus the 6 teachers was one of the worse mass murders in the history of the United States EVER.
Sandy Hook doesn't even make it into the top 10 list of mass murders in the United States. In fact, the largest mass murder (that wasn't called a terrorist attack) in U.S. history was pulled off with a gallon of gasoline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pammyd
Babies...20 babies he blew the faces off of. At times I find my mind having issues wrapping around the WHY of it all.
The why of it all is pretty simple. Adam Lanza was a deranged individual who, due to his mother's apparent unwillingness to deal with his issues, was in a position to do massive amounts of damage when he finally went over the edge. If you want to blame someone for his behavior, the people you should be pointing fingers at are his parents and his doctors, who should have committed the crazy bastard a long time ago.
The above statement, of course, relies on the stories that Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator, which is still a valid topic of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pammyd
This whole thing doesn't REALLY have a lot to do with what political party you lean towards, what kind of an avid hunter you are or are not or what amendment we are blowing out of the water. It is all about how to control who has the ability to shoot human beings at will and who does not. Its a mess and a mess that needs to be sorted out without bashing each other over what we believe and don't believe. We all need to get on the same page with this somehow so this type of thing NEVER happens again.
You are partially right. It does have to do with control, but your feelings of comfort with that control and your trust in our government to exercise that control in a responsible manner are seriously misplaced. Once again, if it was really about saving lives, the legislation would be focusing on the cause of crime and not on the tools that are used to perpetrate crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pammyd
If you are a gun lover, a hunter or just love the sport of target shooting...how about helping some of these legislators figure out a way to keep everyone happy?? Why be angry and holler about your rights being abused?? Who was protecting the rights of those 26 people with Adam Lanza broke into that school and killed them?? Who was and is protecting the rights of those first responders while they are trying to get over the horror of seeing those babies dead??
I say we work together to come to a peaceful solution for everyone and keep in mind that this sort of thing simply cannot and should not EVER happen again.
I agree that we should all be trying to curb violence. Unfortunately, I can't agree that any legislation aimed at firearms is going to be effective in doing so. While I understand the knee-jerk emotional reaction of those who want to pass feel-good legislation, it is still a waste of time. If you want to curb violence, start looking at the cause of violence rather than the tools that are used to commit violence. Humans have been killing each other since long before firearms were invented, but history has shown that there are ways to slow the trend. Unfortunately for the enablers on the left side of the aisle, those ways are fairly drastic and won't make them feel good about themselves. Things like stricter laws that will permanently remove offenders from society would be a good place to start. Don't like capital punishment? Fine, lock the criminals up and throw the key into the deepest hole you can find. But stop blaming inanimate objects for human behavior.
I think what everyone is missing here is that responsible gun owners are not going to be "punished" as you put it. The process of owning a weapon will be a bit slower because of the background checking ramp up but other than that, I don't see the issue here. They want to be sure that another psychotic imbicile doesn't get ahold of a gun that holds 30 rounds or any other weapon that they can possibly wipe out 20 kids with or anyone else for that matter. No one seems to understand that the murder of those 20 kids in Newtown plus the 6 teachers was one of the worse mass murders in the history of the United States EVER. Babies...20 babies he blew the faces off of. At times I find my mind having issues wrapping around the WHY of it all. This whole thing doesn't REALLY have a lot to do with what political party you lean towards, what kind of an avid hunter you are or are not or what amendment we are blowing out of the water. It is all about how to control who has the ability to shoot human beings at will and who does not. Its a mess and a mess that needs to be sorted out without bashing each other over what we believe and don't believe. We all need to get on the same page with this somehow so this type of thing NEVER happens again. If you are a gun lover, a hunter or just love the sport of target shooting...how about helping some of these legislators figure out a way to keep everyone happy?? Why be angry and holler about your rights being abused?? Who was protecting the rights of those 26 people with Adam Lanza broke into that school and killed them?? Who was and is protecting the rights of those first responders while they are trying to get over the horror of seeing those babies dead?? I say we work together to come to a peaceful solution for everyone and keep in mind that this sort of thing simply cannot and should not EVER happen again.
I know who DIDN'T commit any of those crimes, that would be me and millions of other law abiding citizens so if you could quit using us in the same sentence that would be great.
So limiting the number of rounds (which isn't going to happen in the proposed legislation) makes a firearm less dangerous? Interesting thought. I was taught that one bullet could kill you just as dead as 10.
If limiting the sizes of magazines takes the death toll from 20 down to 10, is it worth it?
Quote:
Responsible firearm owners being punished isn't my main issue with the proposed legislation. My issue is that our "representatives" -and I use the term in quotes because they are representatives of the public in name only at this point - are wasting time with legislation that will do absolutely nothing to stop the next person that decides to shoot up a school. This is a paper tiger law that affects nobody except the law-abiding.
The automatic weapon ban seems to have worked well. Why do you think other bans would not?
Quote:
If our "representatives" were interested in stopping incidents like Sandy Hook, they would be repealing the Gun Free Zone law that turns our schools into hunting zones for the insane. They would also be cracking down on mental health care and enforcing stricter regulations on drug companies, while enacting harsher punishments on people who commit crimes.
Who exactly would you like to be packing heat at schools? Also, is it your contention that harsher sentences will deter the kinds of people who go on these mass/spree killings? Do you think that these are folks who weigh the costs/benefits of going out on these slaughters?
Quote:
Sandy Hook doesn't even make it into the top 10 list of mass murders in the United States. In fact, the largest mass murder (that wasn't called a terrorist attack) in U.S. history was pulled off with a gallon of gasoline.
Yep, you forgot to include, "So why don't we ban gasoline?"
Quote:
You are partially right. It does have to do with control, but your feelings of comfort with that control and your trust in our government to exercise that control in a responsible manner are seriously misplaced. Once again, if it was really about saving lives, the legislation would be focusing on the cause of crime and not on the tools that are used to perpetrate crime.
The cause of this crime was the arsenal available to this individual. I know this will come as a great shock to you, but depression or schizophrenia are not causes of homicidal behavior. Not only is there no causality, there is no correlation that I have seen.
They wont be happy until they can try to take them. And that still wont solve the problem.
liberals wont be happy until they can take firearms out of the hands of the law abiding citizen. as long as they are not the ones that have to confiscate them from the private citizen, as they might get shot in the process of confiscation.
what they might or might not know, is that any firearm confiscation will lead to a war of some type. hard to beat a army of 30 million firearms owners.
I think once the "idea" is passed everyone will go back to watching Dancing with the Stars and forget about it.
They'll pat themselves on the back and consider it over and done with.
That's how issues seem to be handled these days. When do they ever go back to see if legislation worked or didn't work ?
NCLB, Amnesty, Gun Control all have legislation that was passed at that time to "fix the problem".
If limiting the sizes of magazines takes the death toll from 20 down to 10, is it worth it?
First of all, it wouldn't change the death toll. Educate yourself about firearms and you will realize that limiting the size of detachable magazines would have almost zero effect on the number of rounds that can be fired by anyone with the slightest modicum of coordination.
I do, however, love the emotional "if it saves just one life" argument that has been prevalent among those who are attacking our 2nd Amendment rights. Answer this: judging by the increase of suicides among teenagers who are bullied on Facebook and other social media, banning free speech would save lives. That being the case, is banning free speech worth it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
The automatic weapon ban seems to have worked well. Why do you think other bans would not?
What automatic weapon ban? Automatic weapons aren't banned, they are restricted. However, the AWB that was passed in 1994 didn't do squat. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, as can be seen throughout U.S. history. For some education on the ineffectiveness of prohibition, look up the War on Drugs or the Eighteenth Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
Who exactly would you like to be packing heat at schools? Also, is it your contention that harsher sentences will deter the kinds of people who go on these mass/spree killings? Do you think that these are folks who weigh the costs/benefits of going out on these slaughters?
Any responsible and trained citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds. Every school should also have armed security personnel in place at all times. We protect our money with armed guards and allow our children to occupy a potential hunting preserve from Monday through Friday. I'd say priorities are a bit skewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
Yep, you forgot to include, "So why don't we ban gasoline?"
Why would we ban gasoline? Just because it was used in a mass murder? Sorry, I don't believe in banning anything just because it can be misused. If we go down that route we'll have nothing at all. Look around your living room. I guarantee there are at least a dozen items that can be used as a deadly weapon. Should we ban all of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
The cause of this crime was the arsenal available to this individual. I know this will come as a great shock to you, but depression or schizophrenia are not causes of homicidal behavior. Not only is there no causality, there is no correlation that I have seen.
The "arsenal" (using the term loosely, since judging by the list in another thread it was more of a random collection) was not the cause of this crime. Once again, you are blaming inanimate objects for the actions of human beings. At the risk of sounding trite, guns don't cause crime any more than spoons cause weight gain.
As for your contention that schizophrenia is not a cause of violent behavior, science disagrees with you. Paranoid schizophrenics can become violent. While it isn't common, it does happen. Considering that you are grouping all gun owners into a category of violent offenders based on the actions of a very minuscule sampling, you don't really have any room to complain about someone doing the same with schizophrenics.
If limiting the sizes of magazines takes the death toll from 20 down to 10, is it worth it?
It won't. The speed it takes to change magazine has been explained many, many times. get up to spreed.
The situation has happened where MULTIPLE crooks have invaded a home. Being the are criminals one would assume they won't follow magazine size laws. If each crook is armed wit "large" magazines, and have 15 rounds each, why should the homeowner be limited to ONLY 10 rounds
The automatic weapon ban seems to have worked well. Why do you think other bans would not?
It has? when? The stats from the previous ban have shown otherwise.
Who exactly would you like to be packing heat at schools? Also, is it your contention that harsher sentences will deter the kinds of people who go on these mass/spree killings? Do you think that these are folks who weigh the costs/benefits of going out on these slaughters?
Wash. D.C. had, and still might, police in EVERY public school back in 1970.
Aren't our children worth a little more in taxes?
How about QUALIFIED people? There are MANY veterans who teach. MANY teachers are hunters, competitive shooters etc.
Yep, you forgot to include, "So why don't we ban gasoline?"
The cause of this crime was the arsenal available to this individual. I know this will come as a great shock to you, but depression or schizophrenia are not causes of homicidal behavior. Not only is there no causality, there is no correlation that I have seen.
Any sane person knows the new state laws and proposed national laws will do nothing to curb gun violence, but rather punish responsible citizens. So when the next tragedy happens what will the anti-gun liberals do then?
My prediction is they will, yet again use victims to push for an even bigger unprecedented push to further hatchet our 2nd Amendment. As for specifics, one can only imagine. Something will happen again and we all know it. Instead of dealing with the actual problem, mentally ill and deranged people who nearly always show signs beforehand, they target our rights
You got it Toyota the will outlaw hatchets....or how about locking up the criminally insane?
First of all, it wouldn't change the death toll. Educate yourself about firearms and you will realize that limiting the size of detachable magazines would have almost zero effect on the number of rounds that can be fired by anyone with the slightest modicum of coordination.
Fiddlesticks. We have seen with the Gabby Giffords shooter that he was stopped when trying to attach a new magazine.
Quote:
I do, however, love the emotional "if it saves just one life" argument that has been prevalent among those who are attacking our 2nd Amendment rights. Answer this: judging by the increase of suicides among teenagers who are bullied on Facebook and other social media, banning free speech would save lives. That being the case, is banning free speech worth it?
I don't see how banning speech addresses that problem. Could I see laws making it criminal to target a minor for harassment on sites like you mention a higher-degree misdemeanor or even a felony, sure? I wouldn't necessarily see that as an unreasonable limitation on freedom of speech. I think there are justifiably limits on speech. The problem is that an increasing number of you gun fondlers seem to think there are no justifiable limits in gun ownership.
Quote:
What automatic weapon ban? Automatic weapons aren't banned, they are restricted. However, the AWB that was passed in 1994 didn't do squat. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, as can be seen throughout U.S. history. For some education on the ineffectiveness of prohibition, look up the War on Drugs or the Eighteenth Amendment.
Fine, we'll go with "restriction." Why aren't these killers making use of automatic weapons more often if your argument that gun control never keeps guns out of the hands of criminals is a valid argument?
Quote:
Any responsible and trained citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds. Every school should also have armed security personnel in place at all times. We protect our money with armed guards and allow our children to occupy a potential hunting preserve from Monday through Friday. I'd say priorities are a bit skewed.
Most cops miss their target, much less the ridiculous "training guidelines" from LaPierre's goofballs of 40-60 hours of training. What a joke. If you think we want teachers, janitors and lunch personnel packing heat in public schools, you're a clown.
Why would we ban gasoline? Just because it was used in a mass murder? Sorry, I don't believe in banning anything just because it can be misused. If we go down that route we'll have nothing at all. Look around your living room. I guarantee there are at least a dozen items that can be used as a deadly weapon. Should we ban all of them?
Quote:
The "arsenal" (using the term loosely, since judging by the list in another thread it was more of a random collection) was not the cause of this crime. Once again, you are blaming inanimate objects for the actions of human beings. At the risk of sounding trite, guns don't cause crime any more than spoons cause weight gain.
The crime was only possible due to the arsenal at his disposal. Guns are what have enabled crimes to occur that could not occur to anything approaching the same degree in the past. Frankly, your argument is asinine. It's like arguing that if Kim Jong-Un gets a nuclear weapons capable of hitting the states, the reason the U.S. was attacked was not because he had possession of long-range nuclear weapons. No sir. That would be "blaming the inanimate object." Instead, we must pretend that long-range nuclear weapons are not the problem, but rather we must blame the kooky leader after he has bombed us. My preference would be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of kooky leaders.
Quote:
As for your contention that schizophrenia is not a cause of violent behavior, science disagrees with you. Paranoid schizophrenics can become violent. While it isn't common, it does happen. Considering that you are grouping all gun owners into a category of violent offenders based on the actions of a very minuscule sampling, you don't really have any room to complain about someone doing the same with schizophrenics.
I have not once grouped "all gun owners into a category with violent offenders." You made that up.
I think I've identified the other problem: You have no idea what causality means. Yes, paranoid schizophrenics can become violent. So can people with OCDs. So can people with green eyes who are pigeon-toed. You have and you will find zero evidence that there is a causal relationship between schizophrenia and homicidal behavior. In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. It just makes it more convenient to distract everyone from guns to these "crazy people" who should be put in loony bins.
Any sane person knows the new state laws and proposed national laws will do nothing to curb gun violence, but rather punish responsible citizens. So when the next tragedy happens what will the anti-gun liberals do then?
My prediction is they will, yet again use victims to push for an even bigger unprecedented push to further hatchet our 2nd Amendment. As for specifics, one can only imagine. Something will happen again and we all know it. Instead of dealing with the actual problem, mentally ill and deranged people who nearly always show signs beforehand, they target our rights
when new gun laws don't work, the ignorant voting population will just demand more "someone should do something" laws to make themselves feel good again, rinse, repeat.
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.
