The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1941 - 1960 of total 4988 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 4, 2013 - 12:34pm PT
Maybe they should replace the soccer field with a shooting range and get a sniper...
kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
Feb 4, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
The odds against this happening again in Newtown must be in the billions, even without the guards.


Make sure yer kids keep their hands outta their pockets and don't make any sudden moves.
kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
Feb 4, 2013 - 12:42pm PT
Werners posting was a serious one? lol
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 4, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
Ron, do you have any kids in school?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oWL0utYqhA&feature=fvwp&NR=1

I think I'm in love....
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
Your stupid enough to believe removing weapons from GOOD law abiding citizenry will somehow make the bad guys hand in their weapons..

Nope. I'm stupid enough to think if someone like me can EASILY buy a gun with a minimal background check and stockpile ammo off the internet... any mentally unstable fukwad can. I'm stupid enough to think that, if we make it AT LEAST AS HARD to own a gun as it is to own a car, we will have fewer cases like Newton, Aurora, Columbine, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc


But I see your point... if Al Qaeda can get one of our best at a shooting range full of guns... or someone can walk into a IHOP and waste a bunch of National Guardsmen... or someone with a history of mental illness can kill 13 in a military academy... yep, the answer is clearly more guns. In fact, the ONLY thing that will make us safe is to lift ALL restrictions on ALL firearms. Come to think of it, the only SANE response to mass shootings is to issue everyone a gun and require that they carry it on them at all times.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
Philo,

Your boy Krugman has difficulty speaking in complete sentences.

"But what really strikes me — I don’t know how this plays, you know, what will happen. What strikes me is we’ve actually gotten a glimpse into the mindset, though, of the pro-gun people and we’ve seen certainly Wayne LaPierre and some of these others. It’s bizarre. They have this vision that we’re living in a “Mad Max” movie and that nothing can be done about it, that America cannot manage unless everybody’s prepared to shoot intruders, that — the idea that we have a police forces that provides public safety is somehow totally impractical, despite the fact that, you know, that is, in fact, the way we live."


Huh? That's just gibberish. He's babbling. He makes no sense at all, because he can't focus his thoughts.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
35 gun deaths in the UK last year

12,000 in the US

The UK outlawed guns, and it worked.

Can't handle the truth? Too bad, idiot.

The UK has a pretty high violent-crime rate, maybe not guns, but still...Also they do not have a 2nd Amendment. Do you propose repealing the 2nd? Banning guns?

Good luck.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:26pm PT
But only 35 gun deaths, compared to our 12,000 - obviously, outlawing guns works, and has been proven to work.

How many gun-related deaths in "gun-free" Chicago?? Is that working?

Do you advocate banning ALL guns?
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
Chaz, sorry you didn't understand that that is a direct transcript from an on air interview not a prepared speech.

Blue, I wish you guys would get off the phony pony ride of "banning ALL guns".
That is not and has never been the issue.

Waiting on an answer to a simple question Ron.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:35pm PT
Yes you have kids? Or Yes philo what do you want?
If yes to kids, are they grown and gone or are they still in school?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
Blue, I wish you guys would get off the phony pony ride of "banning ALL guns".
That is not and has never been the issue.

Then what the f*#k is your solution? Do you realize that a semi-auto handgun is more lethal in close quarters than an "assault rifle"?

Most 9mm handguns have around a 15-round capacity. Now imagine someone with 3 magazines. That's 45 rounds. And 1 9mm round will kill you if placed properly. 45 dead people.

It ain't the guns, it's the mind that needs to be fixed. If you want my solution to stop these shootings, I would force everyone taking psychotropic meds to be put into a State registry and denied the right to have guns, until they are deemed o.k. and no longer need the drugs.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
That's a "solution"?


Yep. Almost all mass-shootings involved people taking these drugs. It's a bigger problem, not just guns, but our desire to keep our kids medicated on these drugs because we have generally failed as parents.

It's a societal problem really. Couple drugs with a lack of morality and responsibility, and BINGO, kids shooting people for stupid reasons.

It's culture-rot.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
This "immigrant" gets it 100%. Watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU
John M

climber
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
"I would force everyone taking psychotropic meds to be put into a State registry and denied the right to have guns, until they are deemed o.k. "

Blue.. You have used the arguments that making something illegal just means the only people who have it are criminals. So how would a law stop these people from getting access to guns? If your premise is true.

Plus.. what do you do for people who have a short term mental health episode and need the meds to get through it? How do you determine that they are now safe. IE.. a returning Vet with post traumatic stress disorder needing meds. Is he or she now banned for life from owning a gun? Your law would require a doctor to determine when someone was safe? Do you know if any doctors would do that? I wonder how many guys in the military are taking some of these meds..
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
John, the first step is to remove people with these prescriptions from gun eligibility. Just like felons.

They will get them, as in Newtown, but it's a start.

What nobody is talking about is that Newtown was unavoidable without a complete ban on all guns everywhere. This sh#t WILL happen. The question that NOBODY IS F*#KING ANSWERING IS, WHY DID HE DO IT?

Who stands in front of a 5-year old and shoots the kid dead? For no reason. This was the work of utter evil. I have no other way to explain it. And I have a 5-year old son.

Pure evil, or utter insanity. Do not try to comprehend it, you can't if you are sane.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
What is wrong with universal background checks?
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
Well good, should be a no brainer then.
guyman

Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:31pm PT
The state of California dosen't have the will, the money or the balls to go get the guns of about 20,000 fellons and mental tards who have court orders to surrender their guns.

What makes you think that some new laws are going to change anything?

John M

climber
Feb 4, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
John, the first step is to remove people with these prescriptions from gun eligibility. Just like felons.

so you are cool with taking guns away from military personal or police officers if they take these meds? I think that would lead to all kinds of problems, such as people not going to doctors when a little help would fix them right up. There is a difference between people with long term mental health problems and people with situational mental health problems that some short term care would fix, yet you have no differentiation in your law. I wouldn't be surprised if there are police officers taking some of the meds you are worried about.

Your law would open up a can of worms. It would be interesting to see how you deal with it. What would happen if you went through a very traumatic experience and needed these meds to help you get through it? Would you give up your right to own a gun permanently? Who would determine that you are now safe? I bet you would fight like a crazy man to keep your guns or at least get them back.

What you might not have thought of is once labeled a crazy person, its very hard to get rid of that label. So what would end up happening is that people just wouldn't go get help when it could really help them. there are plenty of case that people get short term help and are fine after, but there are also cases where people don't get help and there problem just gets worse and worse until it becomes very difficult to ever fix it.

Just some things to think about. I'm mostly agree that there are some psychiatric cases that shouldn't own guns. But just like deciding which guns to ban, there are all sorts of variations and difficult decisions, many which would be a lot tougher then just saying this or that gun is bad.
Messages 1941 - 1960 of total 4988 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta