Grits and Shins Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Maybe, but that doesn't mean we should make things any easier for a shooter. Just because the best mouse trap currently available won't catch 100% of mice, does that mean you shouldn't set it? Of course note. The sane approach is to use that mouse trap until you can build a better one; not let the mice run wild. So you foresee some date in the future where criminals will abide by all the gun control laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) the constitution says we have the right to arm ourselves...case closed. The 2nd Amendment isn't very long. If you are going to pretend that you know something about it, you might as well start off by quoting what it says; not what you'd like it to say. Edited April 18, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 The 2nd Amendment isn't very long. If you are going to pretent that you know something about it, you might as start off by quoting what it says; not what you'd like it to say. 2nd amendment = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Pick one (or more)...... School alienation / bullying Day care / parents working TV violence Video game violence General culture coarsening Instant gratification No time for the kids No fault culture Feel free to add your own. Can probably be a subtitle to one of Ursa's list: Severe Lack Of Discipline Kids don't get their asses whipped anymore for fear of lawsuits and/or child abuse cases. Lack of God and Religion Yes, there are different beliefs in this country, but the majority are christian oriented as our founding fathers were. Say what you will and some will chastize me for this, but this is exactly what is ruining this country. We are too afraid to step on someone's toes. TO HELL WITH THAT! We need to get back to basics people or this country will see more and more incidents like VT and Columbine and then some. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of watching this great country of ours go down the toilet. Something has to be done but i fear it is already too late. I really hope and pray that I'm wrong. Open up your eyes everyone! Look at what's happening and then ask yourselves why. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) Just because the best mouse trap currently available won't catch 100% of mice, does that mean you shouldn't set it? Of course note. The sane approach is to use that mouse trap until you can build a better one; not let the mice run wild. Personally, I think gun laws should be less complicated, but more stringent - and pretty much just sort of a Sharia-like "if you get caught with an illegal gun, we cut your hands off." Of course, I'm also silly enough to think that higher BACs thresholds and real punishments are a better solution for drunk driving than the current profiteering our governments partake in. Edited April 18, 2007 by Chavez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Personally, I think gun laws should be less stringent, but more clear - and pretty much just sort of a Sharia-like "if you get caught with an illegal gun, we cut your hands off." Of course, I'm also silly enough to think that higher BACs thresholds and real punishments are a better solution for drunk driving than the current profiteering our governments partake in. In this we seem to be in agreement. I believe attempting to control gun ownership is the wrong approach. Instead we should penalize the undersireable behavior in a more stringent manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) So you foresee some date in the future where criminals will abide by all the gun control laws? No. I envision a future where fair minded gun proponents support sensible, effective gun control laws without interpreting all such attempts as an "unconstitutional" afront to their 2nd Amendment rights. A total ban is preposterous. Totally unregulated gun ownership, equally so. The good people of this nation ought to be able to meet somewhere in the middle with an eye to balancing the 2nd Amendment concerns with those of public safety. Will we stop all gun crime? Nope. But if we could prevent even a handful of senseless murders, I certainly think its worth making the effort to strike that balance. If you disagree, then we probably shouldn't continue this discussion. Edited April 18, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 We are too afraid to step on someone's toes. TO HELL WITH THAT! I dunno, I run into people all too willing to step on others toes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) In this we seem to be in agreement. I believe attempting to control gun ownership is the wrong approach. Instead we should penalize the undersireable behavior in a more stringent manner. I totally agree that's worth doing, but that kind of "back end" approach doesn't help much in these sorts of murder/suicide situations (unless the shooter has been busted for prior gun-related offenses). That's why "front end" approaches (like, but not limited to) sensible regulation of gun ownership must be considered. It shouldn't be an either/or situation. Edited April 18, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) < shakes head > Gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals will always have access to guns regardless of the number of ineffective gun control laws are enacted. Yes, we certainly want law abiding citizens (like Cho supposedly was) to have guns. Ban guns from private ownership. Make it illegal to sell them. Make the penalty 3 years in prison if found with one in your posession, or if you are selling one. No ambiguity. You own/sell a gun, you go to jail for 3 years. I bet that would put a dent in the underground...and while criminals still may opt to use them, I bet my left and right nuts that number of deaths by these ridiculous instruments goes waaaay down. Don't think so? Try it for 5 years. This country has tried various ways to allow people the right to bear arms for 230+ years...it isn't working. Because some part of the constitution is pathetically outdated, your gonna hang your argument on a Right that was written before anyone even knew what semi-automatic even meant? Thats pretty narrow-minded. BTW, why the f**k would I want my law-abiding neighbor to be able to have a gun, potentially have too much to drink/fight with his wife/lose his mindwhatever, and turn the gun on others? I don't...and I should be subjected to living with that possibility. Also, please show me an article (anywhere) that shows a law-abiding citizen defending himself with a gun. For everyone you show me, I can show you 50 about an accidental death cause by a gun...it just isn't worth it to the majority who feel they have no place in a civilized culture. When is enough enough? Edited April 18, 2007 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I totally agree that's worth doing, but that kind of "back end" approach doesn't help much in these sorts of murder/suicide situations (unless the shooter has been busted for prior gun-related offenses). That's why "front end" (like, but not limited to) sensible regulation of gun ownership must be considered. It shouldn't be an either/or situation. The problem is that in cases like this there's really no "front end" precautions that you can take that aren't bitter pills to swallow - should someone buying a gun have to open up his medical records? if someone goes on certain medications, can his doctor take his firearms away? Etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Also, please show me an article (anywhere) that shows a law-abiding citizen defending himself with a gun. For everyone you show me, I can show you 50 about an accidental death cause by a gun...it just isn't worth it to the majority who feel they have no place in a civilized culture. Well, the upside of that is it's the pro-gun people who are accidentally shooting themselves or their kids, so that takes them out of the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 No. I envision a future where fair minded gun proponents support sensible, effective gun control laws without interpreting all such attempts as an "unconstitutional" afront to their 2nd Amendment rights. A total ban is preposterous. Totally unregulated gun ownership, equally so. The good people of this nation ought to be able to meet somewhere in the middle with an eye to balancing the 2nd Amendment concerns with those of public safety. Will we stop all gun crime? Nope. But if we could prevent even a handful of senseless murders, I certainly think its worth making the effort to strike that balance. If you disagree, then we probably shouldn't continue this discussion. We have an inordinate amount of gun control laws already on the books. How do you propose to make them "effective"? If it was as simple as passing a law then we would already have eliminated the problem. Criminals will always have access to guns. The only thing more gun control laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns and makes it a bunch more expensive. What gun control law do you propose that would have prevented yesterday's tradegy? It was already illegal for him to carry those firearms and probably illegal to have them on campus too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) We have an inordinate amount of gun control laws already on the books. How do you propose to make them "effective"? If it was as simple as passing a law then we would already have eliminated the problem. Criminals will always have access to guns. The only thing more gun control laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns and makes it a bunch more expensive. What gun control law do you propose that would have prevented yesterday's tradegy? It was already illegal for him to carry those firearms and probably illegal to have them on campus too. About a month ago, the dude walked into a retail store in Roanoke and purchased the 9MM, and 50 rounds of ammo. Then about a week ago, purchased retail the .22. I bet if he had to go "underground' for the weapon, and the ammo, and risk being caught before he had a chance to execute his plan, he MAY have thought twice. The fact that it was sooooo easy for him to get the guns legally made this fantasy one which he could easily carry out. Period. Experts are also opining that he was able to carry out the crime with such lethality due to him being so experienced in using the weapons. Don't ya' think that if they were illegal to own or use, the guy may not have had as much opportunity to practice his craft? Reports are that he was a regular att a local firing range over the last several weeks. If that firing range never existed, where would this dufus have gotten his expertise? In the backyard? Ban gun ownership for 5 years. Plain and simple. If it works in cutting death by guns without an escalation in other methods, make it permanent. If it doesn't, try another tactic. We obviously can't remain status-quo. Edited April 18, 2007 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Yes, we certainly want law abiding citizens (like Cho supposedly was) to have guns. Ban guns from private ownership. Make it illegal to sell them. Make the penalty 3 years in prison if found with one in your posession, or if you are selling one. No ambiguity. You own/sell a gun, you go to jail for 3 years. I bet that would put a dent in the underground...and while criminals still may opt to use them, I bet my left and right nuts that number of deaths by these ridiculous instruments goes waaaay down. Don't think so? Try it for 5 years. This country has tried various ways to allow people the right to bear arms for 230+ years...it isn't working. Because some part of the constitution is pathetically outdated, your gonna hang your argument on a Right that was written before anyone even knew what semi-automatic even meant? Thats pretty narrow-minded. BTW, why the f**k would I want my law-abiding neighbor to be able to have a gun, potentially have too much to drink/fight with his wife/lose his mindwhatever, and turn the gun on others? I don't...and I should be subjected to living with that possibility. Also, please show me an article (anywhere) that shows a law-abiding citizen defending himself with a gun. For everyone you show me, I can show you 50 about an accidental death cause by a gun...it just isn't worth it to the majority who feel they have no place in a civilized culture. When is enough enough? Ignoring what has happend to millions of disarmed subjects (not citizens) throughout history is narrow-minded. Millions murdered. Millions. Not 33 in the most devastating shooting spree in U.S. history. Tens of millions of people have been murdered simply because they lacked the ability to fight back. Yesterday was tragic and I do not mean to belittle the scope of the event, but a little persective sometimes comes in handy. All of the gun murders committed in the U.S. since 1776 probably don't equal the average monthly total of the ovens of Auschwitz. Perspective. History. Get some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 cant ban guns over a few bad apples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Ignoring what has happend to millions of disarmed subjects (not citizens) throughout history is narrow-minded. Millions murdered. Millions. Not 33 in the most devastating shooting spree in U.S. history. Tens of millions of people have been murdered simply because they lacked the ability to fight back. Yesterday was tragic and I do not mean to belittle the scope of the event, but a little persective sometimes comes in handy. All of the gun murders committed in the U.S. since 1776 probably don't equal the average monthly total of the ovens of Auschwitz. Perspective. History. Get some. This is really your argument? Auschwitz? The Colonial Wars some 100-250 years ago? You need to seek help...immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) cant ban guns over a few bad apples Why not? So Johnny Trailerpark can continue to hunt deer and teach his kid how to use semi-automatic weapons? EDIT: that was wrongto write. I am very angry over the losses from yesterday. If I offended anyone by the "trailerpark" comment I apologize. Some of my good friends are hunters and responsible gun owners, but we will NEVER see eye-to-eye on gun rights. I honestly can't think of one good reason to own a gun that outweighs the potentially hundreds of reasons not to own one. Edited April 18, 2007 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 This is really your argument? Auschwitz? The Colonial Wars some 100-250 years ago? You need to seek help...immediately. I think his point was that the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals from their government, etc. and that the removal of individual rights has had tragic results in past history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Ignoring what has happend to millions of disarmed subjects (not citizens) throughout history is narrow-minded. Millions murdered. Millions. Not 33 in the most devastating shooting spree in U.S. history. Tens of millions of people have been murdered simply because they lacked the ability to fight back. Yesterday was tragic and I do not mean to belittle the scope of the event, but a little persective sometimes comes in handy. All of the gun murders committed in the U.S. since 1776 probably don't equal the average monthly total of the ovens of Auschwitz. Perspective. History. Get some. Aside from the historical implications ... why shouldn't I have the right to protect my loved ones and property from armed invasion from criminals? I, for one, do not have a high degree of faith in the ability of the local police department to respond in a timely enough fashion to prevent harm to my family. Why should I be defenseless against the thug on the street that chooses to break into my house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I think his point was that the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals from their government, etc. and that the removal of individual rights has had tragic results in past history. The Bill of Rights was wirtten 230+ years ago, in a completely different enviorment, under completely different circumstances, with completely different weapons available to the masses. Britain, the Netherlands, France, and many other "civilized" countries have exceptionally strict gun laws....and thus far, without the tragic results you mention. Its time to get off a position that was outdated decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Why should I be defenseless against the thug on the street that chooses to break into my house? The same reason I should not have to worry about you with a gun living next door to me and my four kids. So maybe you are right...maybe those opposed to guns should just leave the US. That way, all you'd have left in this country would be a bunch of people with guns. Does that really make you feel better? "Someone else has one, so I better get one"....ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 2nd amendment = Denny Crane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 Denny Crane. mad cow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 What if everyone (subject to background checks like now) could have guns but only for home defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.