|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2012 02:35:39 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Dude, that was not Venser, it was landonkane
LOL |
Heh... Noted, clearly I botched that argument pretty solidly! :)
Example not withstanding, my perception of the fellow isn't radically changed. |
You do realize that you're engaging in entirely the same behavior that you are ranting against, right? That isn't lost on you? |
Of course it's not... However, when my error was pointed out, you'll notice my only real defense was to admit my mistake. The rest of what I said is no less valid, despite my error.
My major issue is him sniping at one small error here or there, while turning a blind eye to the argument at large, it's annoying and a serious pet-peeve of mine as it tends to derail arguments into BS like this. |
Your real mistake was starting up a discussion with him in the first place. He tried to bait me but I wouldn't take it. There is a huge difference between having a discussion with someone who wants to have a real discussion and someone who just wants to stir the pot no matter what the discussion. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 02:37:05 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Dude, that was not Venser, it was landonkane
LOL |
Heh... Noted, clearly I botched that argument pretty solidly! :)
Example not withstanding, my perception of the fellow isn't radically changed. |
You do realize that you're engaging in entirely the same behavior that you are ranting against, right? That isn't lost on you? |
Of course it's not... However, when my error was pointed out, you'll notice my only real defense was to admit my mistake. The rest of what I said is no less valid, despite my error.
My major issue is him sniping at one small error here or there, while turning a blind eye to the argument at large, it's annoying and a serious pet-peeve of mine as it tends to derail arguments into BS like this. |
Your real mistake was starting up a discussion with him in the first place. He tried to bait me but I wouldn't take it. There is a huge difference between having a discussion with someone who wants to have a real discussion and someone who just wants to stir the pot no matter what the discussion. |
Agreed. And the good news is that I do tend to learn from my mistakes... Sometimes more rapidly than others. :) |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 02:38:43 PM · #203 |
So let me get this straight, pointing out someone's numbers are incorrect is stirring the pot?
Cory claimed that the murder rate of Europe and the US were on par. His own links proved otherwise. Somehow I'm the bad guy. That's good to know. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 02:42:47 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Venser:
So let me get this straight, pointing out someone's numbers are incorrect is stirring the pot?
Cory claimed that the murder rate of Europe and the US were on par. His own links proved otherwise. Somehow I'm the bad guy. That's good to know. |
I wasn't referring to anything you said to cory, and once again whether you realize it or not you are once again trying to bait me and stir the pot. And just because I probably won't respond to any come back you offer doesn't mean you have won it just means I just don't think it is worth my time.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 14:45:04. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 02:52:31 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Venser:
So let me get this straight, pointing out someone's numbers are incorrect is stirring the pot?
Cory claimed that the murder rate of Europe and the US were on par. His own links proved otherwise. Somehow I'm the bad guy. That's good to know. |
Venser,
I was being honest about getting this back on track, and I'm going to approach this in the good faith that you have agreed to do so.
My original post was implying, not that the murder rate was on par, but rather that the disparity was due to a much more complex situation than simply guns can account for.
I hope you see that my post was referencing the complexity of households that own guns, versus overall homicide rates, and the overall number of gun-related deaths.
The real conclusion was that, on a per-country basis, gun-related deaths follow a trend that closely approximates gun-ownership, but that this trend doesn't continue when we look at the overall homicide rate. Therefore, people are still killing each other, but are simply choosing other tools to do so.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 14:55:03. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 03:08:12 PM · #206 |
If gun control laws worked and criminals did indeed obey gun control laws, that nutjob in Aurora would have obeyed the law and left his guns in his vehicle. Of course, he, and other criminals don't really pay any attention to such laws. Any concealed weapon permit holders, if there were any in the audience, would have likely had their weapons in their cars because the theater is a designated gun free zone.
I hear plenty of ridiculous arguments against people carrying concealed weapons in this and other forums, but the reality is that there are very few cases where those permit holders are the cause of trouble. When the issue was up for vote here, the anti-gun folks were predicting a descent into chaos with Wild West shootouts happening all over if people were allowed to carry concealed pistols. It just hasn't happened. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 03:42:48 PM · #207 |
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 03:46:22 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
And if drugs were legal they wouldn't feel the need to "protect" their assets. Although I'm sure they'd come up with something else to fight about pretty quickly, it just seems to be our nature as a species. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 03:53:38 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
Yup. And think of all the innocent kids that are killed each year in drive by shootings. The little boy who was shot while sleeping in his grandmother's house because of a stray gang bullet in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago. I think he was 6. If they want to kill each other with knives, there's less collateral damage.
Seriously -- are you guys saying that everyone needs and should have access to semi-automatic assault type rifles? That's what the second amendment is about?
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates has said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene of the shooting in suburban Denver. Oates said such a weapon was capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute.
His gun jammed, otherwise more people would be hurt. More people would be dead.
I don't care if people want a gun in their house for protection. I don't care if they are hunters. But I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons. If this guy wasn't able to waltz right in and legally buy these weapons -- 78 lives would be different right now. And if the semi-automatic firearms were taken away, perhaps less than 10 people would have their lives severely affected.
50-60 rounds per minute?
Just think about it. Why does it make some people feel proud that we do this? It should make everyone feel sick. :(
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 15:54:11.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:05:42 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If gun control laws worked and criminals did indeed obey gun control laws, that nutjob in Aurora would have obeyed the law and left his guns in his vehicle. |
Of course he violated the law when he took the guns into the theater, and when he opened fire on the crowd as well.That was illegal
However in the 60 days before the murders he bought AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and 2 .40 caliber Glock handguns at local gun shops. And through the Internet, he bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition: more than 3,000 rounds for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks, and 300 rounds for the 12-gauge shotgun. All that was bought legally.
The sudden desire to own so much ammunition and weaponry never raised a flag that this person might be a risk to the public. Until gun owners are willing to be allow greater regulation that might actually work to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, we can expect these sorts of massacres to happen every few months. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:08:27 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MarkB:
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
Yup. And think of all the innocent kids that are killed each year in drive by shootings. The little boy who was shot while sleeping in his grandmother's house because of a stray gang bullet in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago. I think he was 6. If they want to kill each other with knives, there's less collateral damage.
Seriously -- are you guys saying that everyone needs and should have access to semi-automatic assault type rifles? That's what the second amendment is about?
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates has said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene of the shooting in suburban Denver. Oates said such a weapon was capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute.
His gun jammed, otherwise more people would be hurt. More people would be dead.
I don't care if people want a gun in their house for protection. I don't care if they are hunters. But I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons. If this guy wasn't able to waltz right in and legally buy these weapons -- 78 lives would be different right now. And if the semi-automatic firearms were taken away, perhaps less than 10 people would have their lives severely affected.
50-60 rounds per minute?
Just think about it. Why does it make some people feel proud that we do this? It should make everyone feel sick. :( |
Wendy, did you really just indirectly say that I should be ashamed of myself for not believing that all evil will disappear once guns are illegal? Or that once guns are illegal criminals won't use them for killing people?
Yes, if the only options are all guns are illegal, or everyone should have a fully automatic assault rifle, I actually am advocating a fully automatic assault rifle in every house, but of course, I would also advocate a few other things to go with that rifle (anger management counseling, weapons safety training, legal training, and a variety of other things, including a college degree)....
In reality though, I'm actually advocating common sense, and trying to illustrate the point that even if you take guns entirely out of the equation, this shit will still happen...
And while I do absolutely agree about knives having lower collateral damage, I also would like to point out that they don't jam.
And.. Just for the record, the very best of luck in trying to, as you said "take away" my semi-automatic weaponry. LOL, actually I'd just give it up, largely because I don't really need guns to defend myself (although, they do help, kinda like I don't need a knife to eat a steak), and the simple fact that I know that I'll never have a problem buying or making as many weapons as I desire, no matter what the laws are. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:16:59 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MarkB:
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
Yup. And think of all the innocent kids that are killed each year in drive by shootings. The little boy who was shot while sleeping in his grandmother's house because of a stray gang bullet in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago. I think he was 6. If they want to kill each other with knives, there's less collateral damage.
Seriously -- are you guys saying that everyone needs and should have access to semi-automatic assault type rifles? That's what the second amendment is about?
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates has said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene of the shooting in suburban Denver. Oates said such a weapon was capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute.
His gun jammed, otherwise more people would be hurt. More people would be dead.
I don't care if people want a gun in their house for protection. I don't care if they are hunters. But I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons. If this guy wasn't able to waltz right in and legally buy these weapons -- 78 lives would be different right now. And if the semi-automatic firearms were taken away, perhaps less than 10 people would have their lives severely affected.
50-60 rounds per minute?
Just think about it. Why does it make some people feel proud that we do this? It should make everyone feel sick. :( |
Wendy, did you really just indirectly say that I should be ashamed of myself for not believing that all evil will disappear once guns are illegal? Or that once guns are illegal criminals won't use them for killing people?
Yes, if the only options are all guns are illegal, or everyone should have a fully automatic assault rifle, I actually am advocating a fully automatic assault rifle in every house, but of course, I would also advocate a few other things to go with that rifle (anger management counseling, weapons safety training, legal training, and a variety of other things, including a college degree)....
In reality though, I'm actually advocating common sense, and trying to illustrate the point that even if you take guns entirely out of the equation, this shit will still happen...
And while I do absolutely agree about knives having lower collateral damage, I also would like to point out that they don't jam.
And.. Just for the record, the very best of luck in trying to, as you said "take away" my semi-automatic weaponry. LOL, actually I'd just give it up, largely because I don't really need guns to defend myself (although, they do help, kinda like I don't need a knife to eat a steak), and the simple fact that I know that I'll never have a problem buying or making as many weapons as I desire, no matter what the laws are. |
Nope. Read careful. Even though I'm not a gun person and would love them all to disappear. All I'm saying is that the people who advocate that automatic assault rifles be available to anyone who wants one should be ashamed of what they've wrought. Except in war, and the streets of the United States don't qualify as that (if you think so, you need to spend some time in other countries and see what real war is like). Except in war, assault weapons should have no place in the public. The public has no need to kill or wound 50-60 people per minute. If we start getting these off the street, then things of this magnitude would not happen. Will deaths still occur -- yes. Would it cut down on casualties, absolutely.
I'm hoping that you're a reasonable person and can see how incredibly ridiculous it is to have made these things available to the public to begin with. I know many people with guns in their household, mostly because they're military, some because they're hunters. None of the people I know, pro gun or anti gun, think that assault type weapons are a necessity and a right.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 16:17:34.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:18:18 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If gun control laws worked and criminals did indeed obey gun control laws, that nutjob in Aurora would have obeyed the law and left his guns in his vehicle. |
Of course he violated the law when he took the guns into the theater, and when he opened fire on the crowd as well.That was illegal
However in the 60 days before the murders he bought AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and 2 .40 caliber Glock handguns at local gun shops. And through the Internet, he bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition: more than 3,000 rounds for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks, and 300 rounds for the 12-gauge shotgun. All that was bought legally.
The sudden desire to own so much ammunition and weaponry never raised a flag that this person might be a risk to the public. Until gun owners are willing to be allow greater regulation that might actually work to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, we can expect these sorts of massacres to happen every few months. |
And here is some regulation that I would readily agree with... But, then again, what solution would you propose? Put the guy in jail for buying the weaponry? Stop selling him guns? Investigate? What possible action could you take to "cut the fuse" on this? My take is that if he had been prevented from buying the weapons he may very well have started thinking and done something far more devastating and deadly.
Frankly I think that the guns are a boon, because they offer an unreliable solution that requires expertise, and it's arguable that this "easy" solution keeps offenders like this from really thinking about what will really result in the largest number of casualties.
Frankly, if he was able to get in through the back door, and no-one stopped him, who's to say that he couldn't easily have just walked in with a huge-ass firebomb? Frankly I think that would have done more damage than the weapons.
In the end, it's just a horrible event, but I don't know that focusing on the weaponry of choice will help at all, given that weapons are something we as humans simply excel at making and using. Instead, it's far more valuable to try to figure out what created the real weapon here (the psychotic human who perpetrated this attack), and how we can stop the production of these "weapons" as they are really the root cause of these types of incidents. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:19:19 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If gun control laws worked and criminals did indeed obey gun control laws, that nutjob in Aurora would have obeyed the law and left his guns in his vehicle. |
Of course he violated the law when he took the guns into the theater, and when he opened fire on the crowd as well.That was illegal
However in the 60 days before the murders he bought AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and 2 .40 caliber Glock handguns at local gun shops. And through the Internet, he bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition: more than 3,000 rounds for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks, and 300 rounds for the 12-gauge shotgun. All that was bought legally.
The sudden desire to own so much ammunition and weaponry never raised a flag that this person might be a risk to the public. Until gun owners are willing to be allow greater regulation that might actually work to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, we can expect these sorts of massacres to happen every few months. |
I've made similar types of purchases, particularly ammunition, it's much cheaper in bulk...what's your point? Is that more than you think I need, therefore it shouldn't be allowed?
The point is that people think that all we need to do is to outlaw guns and the criminals will magically obey those laws while breaking countless others. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:32:58 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MarkB:
I'm going off of memory here but in the neighborhood of 80% of gun related deaths are committed by people not permitted to own a gun, 8% are by the police in the line of duty, another 8% are by registered owners defending themselves, suicides and hunting accidents account for 3% and the remaining 1% are by registered owners in an illegal way.
The crux of the problem is those 80% and I don't think I am off base in assuming a large percentage of those are gang bangers taking each other out to protect thier drug turf. If they didn't have guns they would use something else to remove the competition. |
Yup. And think of all the innocent kids that are killed each year in drive by shootings. The little boy who was shot while sleeping in his grandmother's house because of a stray gang bullet in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago. I think he was 6. If they want to kill each other with knives, there's less collateral damage.
Seriously -- are you guys saying that everyone needs and should have access to semi-automatic assault type rifles? That's what the second amendment is about?
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates has said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene of the shooting in suburban Denver. Oates said such a weapon was capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute.
His gun jammed, otherwise more people would be hurt. More people would be dead.
I don't care if people want a gun in their house for protection. I don't care if they are hunters. But I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons. If this guy wasn't able to waltz right in and legally buy these weapons -- 78 lives would be different right now. And if the semi-automatic firearms were taken away, perhaps less than 10 people would have their lives severely affected.
50-60 rounds per minute?
Just think about it. Why does it make some people feel proud that we do this? It should make everyone feel sick. :( |
In Switzerland, every able bodied man was required to own a and maintain a military assault rifle (capable of fully automatic fire, not just semi-automatic) and a stock of ammunition. That only changed in 2007 when the government stopped issuing the ammunition.
Overall, your post displays a remarkable ignorance about how guns operate and what they're used for. Many people, myself included use semi-automatic firearms, including AR style rifles, for both hunting and competition.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:33:11 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
... Except in war, assault weapons should have no place in the public. The public has no need to kill or wound 50-60 people per minute. If we start getting these off the street, then things of this magnitude would not happen. Will deaths still occur -- yes. Would it cut down on casualties, absolutely.
I'm hoping that you're a reasonable person and can see how incredibly ridiculous it is to have made these things available to the public to begin with. I know many people with guns in their household, mostly because they're military, some because they're hunters. None of the people I know, pro gun or anti gun, think that assault type weapons are a necessity and a right. |
I am reasonable, but I don't think it's reasonable to trade everything in return for what MAY be a reduction in risk. Arguably, you can make guns illegal, but I promise you I will still be able to buy them, frankly, as it is today, I can buy guns that are illegal for less money and faster than I can buy legal weaponry. The only reason I choose not to is because I would rather pay the money than take the risk.
Sorry, but if you really do think the military or the cops will defend you when some mad man has a gun in your face, you will be sorely disappointed.... Then again, if a mad-man has a gun in your face, I'd suggest not attempting to draw your weapon, that would just get you killed anyway, this would be a situation where martial arts training is about the only useful tool if you want to attempt to defend yourself.
I don't care how good of a person you are, whether you realize it or not, someone is perfectly willing to kill you for a variety of reasons, usually nothing more than some insignificant personal gain. The scary part is that you've probably been within 20ft of one of these people sometime in the last month.
Besides all of that, your argument is that I don't NEED to fire 50-60 rounds per minute... Well, ok, I agree, I don't NEED to do so, no more than you NEED to drive a car, frankly, you are destroying the entire planet each time you drive, which is arguably a far more evil act in the long-term, as you're killing much more than just people.
Yet, you do drive don't you? And I'm betting that although you don't even need to drive, just like I don't NEED a gun, you probably enjoy driving more than 10mph right? Because, you know, if all vehicles were limited to 10MPH, I'm pretty sure we'd save FAR more lives than outlawing guns.
My point? Risk has it's rewards, being an American is almost defined (historically) by us being risk takers. Personally, I'm all for more risk and more rewards - you on the other hand, can continue to drive around at 10mph if you'd like... (although, just like the gun issue, if you think driving on the interstate at 10mph makes you safer, then you may need more help than I can provide)
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 16:35:50. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:43:37 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Is that more than you think I need, therefore it shouldn't be allowed?
The point is that people think that all we need to do is to outlaw guns and the criminals will magically obey those laws while breaking countless others. |
I think you are probably fine to own your guns, I trust everyone that I know who owns weapons to take proper care with them. We as a country produce a wash of guns and ammunition, and we have very few controls over where they go. If there was one third of the regulations on guns are there is on building construction, there would be many fewer guns in the hands of criminals. When someone talks about putting the same sorts of oversights that we have on driving hazardous waste, or any other activity that puts the public at risk, and using those sorts of restrictions to try to tighten up the gun supply, there is a predictable back lash, lead by the notion that "they" are trying to take our guns.
Gun control is not a digital issue. I'm sure that some small minority want to see all guns eliminated, but most non-gun owners would like to see a reasonable level of oversight, the same kind we have on driving a car or running a nail salon. One that might recognize the difference between owning a breach load double barrel shot gun, and an AR-15 in the same way we recognize the difference between driving a sedan and a semi-trailer.
The assumption that gun laws will not cause criminals to give up their guns is of course true, but we can make them harder to get, harder to keep and more expensive, without making guns illegal. We can do a better job that we are doing. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 04:57:32 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Is that more than you think I need, therefore it shouldn't be allowed?
The point is that people think that all we need to do is to outlaw guns and the criminals will magically obey those laws while breaking countless others. |
I think you are probably fine to own your guns, I trust everyone that I know who owns weapons to take proper care with them. We as a country produce a wash of guns and ammunition, and we have very few controls over where they go. If there was one third of the regulations on guns are there is on building construction, there would be many fewer guns in the hands of criminals. When someone talks about putting the same sorts of oversights that we have on driving hazardous waste, or any other activity that puts the public at risk, and using those sorts of restrictions to try to tighten up the gun supply, there is a predictable back lash, lead by the notion that "they" are trying to take our guns.
Gun control is not a digital issue. I'm sure that some small minority want to see all guns eliminated, but most non-gun owners would like to see a reasonable level of oversight, the same kind we have on driving a car or running a nail salon. One that might recognize the difference between owning a breach load double barrel shot gun, and an AR-15 in the same way we recognize the difference between driving a sedan and a semi-trailer.
The assumption that gun laws will not cause criminals to give up their guns is of course true, but we can make them harder to get, harder to keep and more expensive, without making guns illegal. We can do a better job that we are doing. |
I agree with your premise about regulations, the only difference is that the lack of regulation has led to a situation where this is now like trying to regular the flu, once it's out there, getting everything back into the "right"(very subjective word there huh?) hands is nearly impossible.
The biggest problem with regulation is the cost it incurs... Effectively I'm not OK with them being more expensive, that's not a solution.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 16:58:12. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 05:14:11 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
The public has no need to kill or wound 50-60 people per minute. If we start getting these off the street, then things of this magnitude would not happen. Will deaths still occur -- yes. Would it cut down on casualties, absolutely.
I'm hoping that you're a reasonable person and can see how incredibly ridiculous it is to have made these things available to the public to begin with. I know many people with guns in their household, mostly because they're military, some because they're hunters. None of the people I know, pro gun or anti gun, think that assault type weapons are a necessity and a right. |
Wendy, I'm sure you're familiar with the VT incident, as am I (all too familiar, sadly). I believe that incident still holds the record for deaths in a single incident. The gunman only had a .22 handgun and a 9mm handgun, but that made him no less deadly than the Aurora shooter.
There was also a national assault weapons ban in the US from 1994 to 2004. It was allowed to expire because the ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence", per a National Research Council panel review.
Most of us agree to reasonable gun control, such as background checks and training for concealed permits. However, the issue is - who makes those decisions as to where to draw the line? What is "reasonable" to you, may be viewed as infringing upon my rights. Britain underwent a period where they were trying to get guns under control, and had everyone register their weapons. Turns out that was only 'step one' towards abolishing them altogether.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 17:22:40. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 05:22:38 PM · #220 |
| ...Aaaaaannd we're done here. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 05:31:44 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 05:31:44 PM EDT.
|
