Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-20-2016, 10:34 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,569 posts, read 17,281,298 times
Reputation: 37300

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
...........Your list shows 10 people over 30 years.
The list shows 218 killed, and 213 injured. And only 1 event during the years 1994 to 2004, which was the length of the assault weapons ban signed by Clinton. The sunset provision killed the bill after 10 years.

FYI:
Quote:
In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.[7]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2016, 10:41 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
The list shows 218 killed, and 213 injured. And only 1 event during the years 1994 to 2004, which was the length of the assault weapons ban signed by Clinton. The sunset provision killed the bill after 10 years.

FYI:
When Timothy McVeigh killed more than your entire list. There were thousands of semi-automatic weapons in the country during this time period also. It did nothing about the thousands already in people's hands that could sell them if they wanted to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 10:50 AM
 
4,798 posts, read 3,508,401 times
Reputation: 2301
Still allot of ignorance here. Assault weapons? High capacity? High velocity?
Look at ammunition. Its the ammo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 11:17 AM
 
1,166 posts, read 755,214 times
Reputation: 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The complete lack of critical thinking skills among the gun control crowd is quite stunning. As if thugs, felons, terrorists, etc., who have NO problem violating laws to commit their crimes will suddenly be law-abiding persons when it comes to gun control laws.

Narcotics are controlled. How has that worked out? Have the drug dealers been eliminated? The addicts? ODs? No to all of the above. Guess why? They're completely ignoring narcotics control laws.

In fact, ODs cause more deaths than firearms.

Really good chart breaking down cause of deaths in the U.S.:

http://media.oregonlive.com/data/ima...86_post-01.jpg

Maybe you can explain how the same people that say that gun control laws will not prevent crime insist that a law that tells people which bathroom they can use is necessary to protect people from sexual predators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 11:36 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,617,602 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
You're saying it's good for the Supreme Court to play politics...when it's on the side of an issue you like.

I'm saying that is how the game is played today, regardless what we both think.
The Supreme Court has always been politically appointed, to play party politics and the power of advantage.... That is not new news.

The power play in the Supreme Court before the Civil War broke out and during Wilsons reign, makes what is happening today look like cake & coffee time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 11:38 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,001 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13700
Quote:
Originally Posted by plannine View Post
The strawman appeareth. Not everybody who is shot dies. Overall, most live, thanks to medical advancements or really bad shooters.
Not everyone who uses illegal narcotics dies, either. Yet, ODs kill MORE people than firearms.

Quote:
I've never seen a narcotic, jump into the air, and fly into a roomful of peoples mouths, or arms.
I've never seen a gun do that, either. Get the point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Central NJ and PA
5,067 posts, read 2,277,519 times
Reputation: 3930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
If guns were grown in backyards or manufactured in basements then your analogy would make sense.

Criminals will ignore gun control laws as long as assault weapons are available. If Bad Guy can't qualify to purchase, he'll hire Good Guy to buy one for him. If Good Guy can't find a store to buy his Sig Sauer or his Glock, he'll have to settle for a something less lethal. Bad Guy will still get to kill people, of course, but not quite as many.

Removing assault weapons from store shelves and trade shows will not reduce crime. It WILL reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings. Look at the list below list. Assault weapons were used in every one.
Small nit to pick with that list. The 32 people killed at Virginia Tech were killed with handguns, not a rifle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,234,540 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Good. Taking assault weapons off the shelves is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see a national ban. Current owners are allowed to keep their guns, but may not sell them privately in Connecticut.

The ban in Connecticut includes pistols.

Of course the question is always asked, "Do criminals care about these laws?", and the answer is "no, they don't. Criminals will do as they damn well please".
That's why semi-automatic weapons need to be removed from shelves in American stores and gun shows.

Connecticut is among the most permissive states in terms of carry permits, and I think that's the direction we need to go; let people carry weapons to defend themselves and their property but restrict nationwide what can be purchased by civilians.

Fire away
We already had an assault weapons ban. It solved nothing.

And removing ALL semiauto weapons means removing almost every handgun, every AR15 and many other rifles. Not going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 12:08 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,001 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Criminals will ignore gun control laws as long as assault weapons are available.
They'll ignore them even if they're banned. Where do you think heroin comes from? Think people are growing it in their back yards? It's smuggled into the country by EXACTLY the same people who will smuggle assault weapons into the country if they're banned. Then only the criminals will have them, and law-abiding people won't be able to defend themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 12:20 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,001 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13700
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxone View Post
Maybe you can explain how the same people that say that gun control laws will not prevent crime insist that a law that tells people which bathroom they can use is necessary to protect people from sexual predators.
Sure: Whereas males were barred from entering and using girls' multiple occupancy changing/locker/shower rooms, where MINOR girls are in various stage of undress or naked, in schools up until this year, Obama's edict to every public school in the country now requires schools to let anatomical males into and have full access to those girls' facilities based SOLELY on how they "say" they "feel" about their gender identity. No proof of actually being transgender required, whatsoever. If schools don't comply, they lose their federal funding.

98-99% of all sex predators are male. Some are teenagers. Let them into schools' girls' restrooms/changing/locker/shower rooms based solely on their "say so," and there's NO doubt the number of minor female sex crime victims will increase.
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 04:36 AM.

© 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