RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/20/2012 11:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Someone on another site trotted out the tired sound bites. "What about hunters?" I live in a rural area, and no one hunts with automatic weapons. Deer aren't that hard to kill. "When guns are illegal, only the criminals will have guns." Right--like only the criminals have nuclear weapons, and only the criminals get to kill, and only the criminals speed, and only the criminals drive drunk...it's pseudo-reasoning, not an honest look at the question. thats fucking absurd. you can get a nuke if you want, they start about 3/4 of mil. the only criminals will have guns reasoning is both sound and proven, so the only tired rhetoric is yours.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/20/2012 11:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr as a reasonable, licensed weapon-carrying citizen, are you *obligated* to try and help your fellow man? I do not think so. If someone is drowning here in The Netherlands we are not obligated to jump into the water to rescue that person. its a moral obligation not legal.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/20/2012 11:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really effective gun control can be done. First require all gun manufacturers, distributers and retailers to track every individual weapon. End gun show sales not requiring background checks and paperwork. Any weapon used by someone other than its registered owner could then be tracked to where it entered the illegal market or at east to the last legal owner. Second stop the nonsens of banning individual models of guns. Outlaw certain capabilities. For instance semi automatic action. Hunters can use bolt action. Same goes for removable magazines. Single shot or stripper clips work fine for hunting but do not permit the sort of mayhem an AR-15 with a 30 round magizine does. Finally the nation would have to accept that in the short term these meaures would be imperfect but as illegal weapons are found and destroyed and the stream of straw purchases dries up the number of guns would decline. hahaha right and anyone with even the most basic machine shop can crank them out. you dont need accuracy for suicide massacres and then what do you plan on doing with the 500 million guns in the US in private hands today? Many of which are collectors items. Run around like the nazis and collect them all? On the other hand if 10 people close to the scumbag had weapons of anykind combined they could make hamburger out of his ass even with his body armor. All it takes is one well placed shot. and if everyone in the theater had a weapon then we would be scraping his ass off the wall right now.

rhondare -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/20/2012 11:44:25 PM)
quote: Second stop the nonsens of banning individual models of guns. Outlaw certain capabilities. For instance semi automatic action. Hunters can use bolt action. Same goes for removable magazines. Single shot or stripper clips work fine for hunting but do not permit the sort of mayhem an AR-15 with a 30 round magizine does. so only your government has the right to these? not directed at you, I'm just learning how to use forums.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/20/2012 11:50:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I don't carry to go to a movie. but I do carry for the parking lot and for my front yard where I was once mugged. By the way do you know what happens to a man in a bullet prove vest when he is hit by a 40 at 20 ft? cracked or broken rib, mine carries 15 I can beat him to death without ever penetrating the vest. At 20 ft. I know a number of people who can hit him with their eyes closed. I used to carry a ruger p90 45 cal conceled it is about the same size as a 1911 so your concept of how effective concealed carry weapons are is flawed. The p90 is an aluminum m1911. I cannot find a concealed carry holster for that gun. Did you just shove it into the back of your pants? Every pistol I've ever seen meant for concealed carry was a small caliber and those do not have anywhere near the power of a .40 S&W. Mine was stainless steel and sometimes I would carry it in my pants with the belt tight enough to hold it in place. I have over the years carried a P90, a ruger vacarro, a smith model 10 and a smith sigma the same way with no problem. The sigma is not a very large weapon, and comes in 9mm, 40, and 45 calibers all compact enough to carry and powerfull enogh to be effective. Also carried the P90 in my hip pocket with a long shirt.

joether -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 2:58:31 AM)
Seems more like a 'mental health screening' should be the norm for those that own firearms. Given the number of massive shootings in the last decade alone, were not caused by someone hell-bent on revenge. The Arizona shooting that Rep. Giffords was unfortunately a part of, had a shooter whom was....unbalanced....to say the least. The Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, was done by a person with 'a few screws loose'. An I suspect this person in colorado will be found "elevator does not go to the top floor". Just cus someone is insane, doesnt mean their dumb or foolish. Some of them are very smart and creative. But yet, in each of these mass shootings, no one seems to argue against the idea that the person was obviously mentally and/or emotionally unstable. On a leaser scale, its quite possible that a percentage of murder/suicides were caused by someone obviously in need of some therapy. And EVERY suicide by a firearm was by someone that should have gotten some good help. I'm not for limiting one's ability to have a firearm for what ever....legal...purpose they desire to own. IF they are a responsible, law abiding citizen, that possible decent reasoning and wisdom, shouldnt be a problem. But given what we know of the human body and mind against what was known in the late 18th century.....shouldnt we approach this problem with a bit more wisdom? It is simply incredible that we have this vast knowledge of a wide range of mental and emotional problems that drive people to use firearms to great amounts of destruction; yet kid ourselves constantly that if we took the step of a mental/emotional health screening would be even worst than it is now. Its generally considered to get a physical once every year. To get your eyes checked once every two years, and depending on family history or conditions substanded through one's life, checking of specific illnesses or conditions every six months to a year. Anyone wish to challenge any of these concepts? Do they sound reasonable from what we know of the human body in 2012? A mental/emotional health screening would be performed every three to four years, unless something comes up (job lose, unemployed for 6+ months, death of spouse, death of close friend, dreadful illness, etc). And if something was found, that the gun owner (if stable enough, as determined by a medical doctor and/or legal judge) puts ownership of said firearms into the hands of someone they trust to keep them away from the person in question. Until such time, as the person recovers (hopefully that is possible). Wouldn't that be the sign of a responsible gun owner? Or should we simply put our heads back into the sand for another two years (which is the average for mass shootings)? And at that time, we'll talk about all the same bullshit we are talking about now as a nation. Gun control nuts on one side, and gun nuts on the other. Nothing gets accomplished with the execption of some poor town or city that ends up having to bury a whole lot of innocent/good friends and family? Should we allow mentally and/or emotionally unstable individuals easy access to firearms? Or those who have since gotten firearms, but are now ticking time bombs?

SilverMark -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 4:10:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really effective gun control can be done. First require all gun manufacturers, distributers and retailers to track every individual weapon. End gun show sales not requiring background checks and paperwork. Any weapon used by someone other than its registered owner could then be tracked to where it entered the illegal market or at east to the last legal owner. Second stop the nonsens of banning individual models of guns. Outlaw certain capabilities. For instance semi automatic action. Hunters can use bolt action. Same goes for removable magazines. Single shot or stripper clips work fine for hunting but do not permit the sort of mayhem an AR-15 with a 30 round magizine does. Finally the nation would have to accept that in the short term these meaures would be imperfect but as illegal weapons are found and destroyed and the stream of straw purchases dries up the number of guns would decline. hahaha right and anyone with even the most basic machine shop can crank them out. you dont need accuracy for suicide massacres and then what do you plan on doing with the 500 million guns in the US in private hands today? Many of which are collectors items. Run around like the nazis and collect them all? On the other hand if 10 people close to the scumbag had weapons of anykind combined they could make hamburger out of his ass even with his body armor. All it takes is one well placed shot. and if everyone in the theater had a weapon then we would be scraping his ass off the wall right now. Yes...in a dark crowded theater....uh huh.... Not quite the way things work, very few people are that good at firing a weapon, let alone in the dark. A bit unrealistic, and the answer to guns, is rarely more guns, a bit like fucking for the sake of chastity!

Moonhead -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 4:11:15 AM)
The point that hasn't been adressed yet is that this took place in a concealed carry state, and nobody tried to take a shot at the tooled up cretin while he was murdering people with impunity. Given that the self defence argument is the standard justification for concealed carry, that's an argument for more stringent gun control in itself, isn't it?

servantforuse -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 5:52:10 AM)
All states have conceal carry laws except Illinois. Maybe no one in the theatre had a gun at the time. There was a sign afterall that said the theatre was a gun free zone.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 6:18:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u the earlier post detailing the folly of return fire from citizen/s in a dark crowded theater.......allow me to add in most crowded environments,especially when one considers the possibilities of multiple armed citizens unaware of each other and unaware of each others benign intentions. Situational awareness and target identification would seem to be appropriate.

SilverMark -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 6:20:37 AM)
How do you identify a target in a dark theater filled with tear gas?...Next theater you attend are you wearing a gas mask and carrying a firearm?

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 6:26:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The point that hasn't been adressed yet is that this took place in a concealed carry state, and nobody tried to take a shot at the tooled up cretin while he was murdering people with impunity. Given that the self defence argument is the standard justification for concealed carry, that's an argument for more stringent gun control in itself, isn't it? How so? First, what are the odds of a CC even being in the theater? Second, does the theater have a no guns policy? Third, is there state law in CO prohibiting carry in a ticketed venue? So, is it an argument for more stringent gun control in itself or is it an argument about theater policy (or law stating guns are not allowed anywhere where one buys a ticket for admittance), both being forms of gun control? If a concealed carry might have made a difference, and had such been present but for policy or law, the fault lies with gun control itself.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 6:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark How do you identify a target in a dark theater filled with tear gas?...Next theater you attend are you wearing a gas mask and carrying a firearm? It's not easy and may very well take time or not happen at all. Target acquisition may very well be impossible. The point being one must be situational aware and identify the target to have any effect. There is no guarantee of success. Conversely, there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever. But I do note the flavor of your response. It has that certain air about it.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:04:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever. And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public. If someone was close enough and level headed enough to draw and shoot the shooter without hitting anyone else or getting killed themselves they were close enough to tackle and bring down the shooter as well, which after all would have been the safer approach. Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The point that hasn't been adressed yet is that this took place in a concealed carry state, and nobody tried to take a shot at the tooled up cretin while he was murdering people with impunity. Given that the self defence argument is the standard justification for concealed carry, that's an argument for more stringent gun control in itself, isn't it? How so? First, what are the odds of a CC even being in the theater? Second, does the theater have a no guns policy? Third, is there state law in CO prohibiting carry in a ticketed venue? So, is it an argument for more stringent gun control in itself or is it an argument about theater policy (or law stating guns are not allowed anywhere where one buys a ticket for admittance), both being forms of gun control? If a concealed carry might have made a difference, and had such been present but for policy or law, the fault lies with gun control itself. Because, whenever something like this happens, there's immediately a few internet tough guys like yourself insisting that if it wasn't for all of these evil liberals and their gun control, then somebody else would have slotted the tosser before they killed anybody. In this case that obviously didn't happen.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:24:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever. And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public. If someone was close enough and level headed enough to draw and shoot the shooter without hitting anyone else or getting killed themselves they were close enough to tackle and bring down the shooter as well, which after all would have been the safer approach. Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed. Watch the vid I linked to. Ok, lets get you post. Your response to there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever is And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public. I do not see the link between what you quoted and what you state. You have two unrelated issues there. One does not follow from the other. What is close enough? Would 12 feet do? Again, watch the vid. Her dad did just what you said should be done. He died. Now Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed is partially correct. Defense is not incumbent on being armed, but being armed is way more preferable than not. Would you prefer rushing an armed man?

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Someone on another site trotted out the tired sound bites. "What about hunters?" I live in a rural area, and no one hunts with automatic weapons. Deer aren't that hard to kill. "When guns are illegal, only the criminals will have guns." Right--like only the criminals have nuclear weapons, and only the criminals get to kill, and only the criminals speed, and only the criminals drive drunk...it's pseudo-reasoning, not an honest look at the question. thats fucking absurd. you can get a nuke if you want, they start about 3/4 of mil. the only criminals will have guns reasoning is both sound and proven, so the only tired rhetoric is yours. There you have it. Legalize nuclear weapons. From RealOne, the Reason Machine. [8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark How do you identify a target in a dark theater filled with tear gas?...Next theater you attend are you wearing a gas mask and carrying a firearm? His spidey sense, no doubt.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:29:59 AM)
[image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7Se7iswAanA/TS8vYpcVG5I/AAAAAAAANRk/Fn9jRlys7Ms/s1600/cartoon011210.jpg[/image]

TheHeretic -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/21/2012 7:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark How do you identify a target in a dark theater filled with tear gas?...Next theater you attend are you wearing a gas mask and carrying a firearm? His spidey sense, no doubt. Or maybe the muzzle flashes?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875