guns

[cachsux]

Now that's brilliant.

I didn't want to be mean so I made him a business proposition. He does love the money.

 

[bbsam]

You mean to tell me a lunatic crazy enough to commit such a crime would have just thrown his hands up and said "oh well, gotta go back to normal life" if he could not have gotten his hands on a gun? He seems pretty adept at building explosives, and perhaps he would have used that skill instead of firearms and killed many more by blowing up the entire theater. No law can stop someone like this. They have to be stopped before committing the act, and this has no bearing on the how many or few liberties the general population has because liberty cannot be traded for security, it is only lost in the supposed name of it.

So you tell me. Why do the lunatics always use guns? If bombs are so effective, why guns? I think it's because guns are easy. What do you think?

 

[Returntosender]

So you tell me. Why do the lunatics always use guns? If bombs are so effective, why guns? I think it's because guns are easy. What do you think?

you can make bombs with the proper household goods. Google arizona flashlight bombs.

 

[klein]

you can make bombs with the proper household goods. Google arizona flashlight bombs.

Yeah, but these legal gun owners, love to use guns.
Besides much more thrill !

 

[brett636]

So you tell me. Why do the lunatics always use guns? If bombs are so effective, why guns? I think it's because guns are easy. What do you think?

You missed my point completely. First off they don't always use guns. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use any guns, the attempted genocide in Rawanda in the mid 90s was carried out by machetes. If guns aren't available these lunatics will find another way to carry out their malicious plans. You're just naive enough to believe they won't if we just have one more gun control law on the books.

 

[soberups]

So you tell me. Why do the lunatics always use guns? If bombs are so effective, why guns? I think it's because guns are easy. What do you think?

Guns are more efficient tools for killing people than bombs are. That fact is indisputable. It is also irrelevant to the core question of whether or not our 2nd Anendment rights had anything to do with the tragedy in Colorado.

12 died and 56 were wounded, which is horrific. But nationwide, over the last 48 hours, more people than that were killed and injured as a result of drunken driving. On an annual basis, far more people die as a direct result of alcohol than die as a result of gunfire, and a large percentage of firearm fatalaties are also alcohol related. Yet despite that, I never seem to hear the Kleins or the TOS's of the world calling for prohibition or background checks or waiting periods for alcohol purchases as they do for guns. My guess us that they would regard such a level of government intrusion into their lives as being wholly unacceptable. In their view, overbearing nanny- state regulations are fine as long as they only apply to things (like guns) that other people want.

 

[klein]

Hey smarty !
How many people drink and drive with the intention to kill someone or themselves ?
"Oh, I'm going to the bar to have a few beers, then drive and have an accident on purpose" Yup, like that happens.

But, people with guns take them intentionally to schools, campuses, work places, ex wives, malls, theatres, or to enemies, etc.
They have a plan in place ! (to kill or rob) !!!!

I would think that makes quite a bit of difference !

 

[soberups]

I would think that makes quite a bit of difference !

Not to the people they kill.

Dead is dead.

 

[bbsam]

You missed my point completely. First off they don't always use guns. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use any guns, the attempted genocide in Rawanda in the mid 90s was carried out by machetes. If guns aren't available these lunatics will find another way to carry out their malicious plans. You're just naive enough to believe they won't if we just have one more gun control law on the books.

Nope. No more gun laws, You tell me which ones and how to enforce them to prevent the easy masacre. I think you are naive to think more guns would be a deterent. Were more machetes a deterent in Rawanda? Less regulation would just give more lunatics with a score to settle.

 

[bbsam]

Well, Sober, we can't really act like alcohol isn't regulated and what I hear from brett and some others around here is a call fore some kind of wild west society. You have presented yourself as a very thoughtful, careful, and considerate gun owner and I have noreason to believe there aren't millions just like you. But that is no reason to make the efficient killing machines even more easily accessible to the lunatic elements of society.

 

[The Other Side]

Guns are more efficient tools for killing people than bombs are. That fact is indisputable. It is also irrelevant to the core question of whether or not our 2nd Anendment rights had anything to do with the tragedy in Colorado.

12 died and 56 were wounded, which is horrific. But nationwide, over the last 48 hours, more people than that were killed and injured as a result of drunken driving. On an annual basis, far more people die as a direct result of alcohol than die as a result of gunfire, and a large percentage of firearm fatalaties are also alcohol related. Yet despite that, I never seem to hear the Kleins or the TOS's of the world calling for prohibition or background checks or waiting periods for alcohol purchases as they do for guns. My guess us that they would regard such a level of government intrusion into their lives as being wholly unacceptable. In their view, overbearing nanny- state regulations are fine as long as they only apply to things (like guns) that other people want.

But this is a second amendment issue SOBER. The intention of the 2nd was for defense of the state, not personal protection from each other nor mass shootings. Would you have us believe that the founders would accept this current death rate of citizens by guns? Do you believe they would allow guns to be kept if this was going to be the outcome?

Do you for 1 second feel that the founders could have imagined a person using something in the consitution to facilitate a terrorist act upon unarmed citizens? The founders were concerned with foreign invaders and not our neighbors. The founders created the Militia act, not for people to have guns in their homes eventually used to kill wives and children, or settle traffic disputes, but for defense of the country.
The Militia Act of 1792

The fact remains, because of the 2nd amendment in its current interpretation, idiots like james holmes can walk into any retail gun store and buy an assault rifle, and that gun store owner, oblivious to RED FLAGS that were apparent, sells thousands of rounds, magazines, guns and a drum mag that can hold more than 100 rounds, and that gun store owner doesnt notify anyone that this much weaponry was sold?

Why is it that gun store owners feel no guilt when they sell this much weaponry to a nut job, and when people get killed, those same gun store owners ignore the deaths and claim they did "their" jobs so they dont have to worry about it.

If they had ANY morals or character, they would shut the stores down and find a new line of work, but instead, they will ARM the next nutjob and wait for the next massacre.

So many guns in such a short period of time, to a college kid, in country that is plagued by school shootings, and NOT ONE RED FLAG ALARM went off with ANY of the gun stores who sold him guns and ammo. Even online, sellers sell craploads of bullets to people to whom they have no idea who they are. The biggest nutjobs in the country can buy whatever because people insist on having guns for sale.

After each one of these horrific occasions, GUN owners come out and stand up for the gun, and they would rather see events like this play out year after year, as long as they dont have to give up their guns.

NO GUN OWNER cares about the lives of innocent americans caught in crossfires.

Its a small sacrifice that needs to be in order to maintain a selfish desire.

Peace

TOS

 

[texan]

Well, Sober, we can't really act like alcohol isn't regulated and what I hear from brett and some others around here is a call fore some kind of wild west society. You have presented yourself as a very thoughtful, careful, and considerate gun owner and I have noreason to believe there aren't millions just like you. But that is no reason to make the efficient killing machines even more easily accessible to the lunatic elements of society.

I am not challenging you sir, nor Sober. What in a detailed answer would be your answer to stop or curb this?
Both of you demonstrate great post and thoughts.

If you had your way, what would the answer be?
Regards to both bbsam and soberups. I respect both your thoughts and input.
teaxn

 

[soberups]

Nope. No more gun laws, You tell me which ones and how to enforce them to prevent the easy masacre. I think you are naive to think more guns would be a deterent. Were more machetes a deterent in Rawanda? Less regulation would just give more lunatics with a score to settle.

I can think of no rational gun laws, or method of enforcement of those laws, that would have materially effected the outcome of the Colorado massacre.

By all accounts, the lunatic spent months meticulously planning and preparing his attack. He bought the guns well ahead of time... he passed a background check and had no criminal record....he obtained body armor and tear gas grenades.... and he booby-trapped his apartment with explosives to the point that it might take days for a robot to deactivate them all.

Waiting periods... background checks... registrations... serial numbers on bullets...you could throw the entire cournicopea of feel- good nanny- state restrictions at this tragedy and not one of them would have (or did) make a damn bit of difference.

The onlyway to have effected the outcome would have been for someone else with a gun to kill him first. And given the fact that he was wearing body armour and firing a rifle in a dark and crowded theater...the odds that someone with a legally concealed handgun could have taken him out are slim at best. However... the odds that an unarmed person could have done so are none I will take slim over none any day of the week.

 

[brett636]

Nope. No more gun laws, You tell me which ones and how to enforce them to prevent the easy masacre. I think you are naive to think more guns would be a deterent. Were more machetes a deterent in Rawanda? Less regulation would just give more lunatics with a score to settle.

The statistics prove that more guns equals less crime. Its not about being naive, its about being aware of the facts.

 

[bbsam]

I can think of no rational gun laws, or method of enforcement of those laws, that would have materially effected the outcome of the Colorado massacre.

By all accounts, the lunatic spent months meticulously planning and preparing his attack. He bought the guns well ahead of time... he passed a background check and had no criminal record....he obtained body armor and tear gas grenades.... and he booby-trapped his apartment with explosives to the point that it might take days for a robot to deactivate them all.

Waiting periods... background checks... registrations... serial numbers on bullets...you could throw the entire cournicopea of feel- good nanny- state restrictions at this tragedy and not one of them would have (or did) make a damn bit of difference.

The onlyway to have effected the outcome would have been for someone else with a gun to kill him first. And given the fact that he was wearing body armour and firing a rifle in a dark and crowded theater...the odds that someone with a legally concealed handgun could have taken him out are slim at best. However... the odds that an unarmed person could have done so are none I will take slim over none any day of the week.

So get rid of all gun laws?

 

[klein]

The statistics prove that more guns equals less crime. Its not about being naive, its about being aware of the facts.

With the USA having more guns than population, it should be the safetest country on earth, with the least murder and crime rate, right ?
But, it's actually quite the opposite !

 

[bbsam]

The statistics prove that more guns equals less crime. Its not about being naive, its about being aware of the facts.

And you believe that if you allow everybody to own and carry whatever weapon they want in, say, downtown Chicago, all would be well? Crime would go down? Is that what the statistics really show the facts to be?

 

[soberups]

Well, Sober, we can't really act like alcohol isn't regulated and what I hear from brett and some others around here is a call fore some kind of wild west society....

1: Alcohol causes far more deaths than guns yet it is freely available at any corner store with no background checks, registrations, waiting periods, fingerprinting or other nanny-state restrictions.

2: What you perceive as being a "wild west" society is simply law-abiding people like myself demanding the right to have some level of parity with the armed criminal. Unilateral disarmament of the law-abiding...which is the Holy Grail of the gun- ban crowd...simply is NOT a viable crime-prevention strategy. You dont make our streets safer by legally granting criminals a monopoly on the availability of lethal weapons.

 

[bbsam]

I am not challenging you sir, nor Sober. What in a detailed answer would be your answer to stop or curb this?
Both of you demonstrate great post and thoughts.

If you had your way, what would the answer be?
Regards to both bbsam and soberups. I respect both your thoughts and input.
teaxn

Honestly, I don't have an answer. What I would like to see is a rational dialogue on gun control that doesn't degrade instantly into "They want to take our guns," or "If everyone had guns, the lunatic would be afraid to do this". That's part of being a lunatic. They aren't afraid. It's an easy suicide.

What is sensible? I am trying to hear from the NRA supporters what they think is logical. We won't prevent all the lunacy and I don't believe guns should or would be outlawed, but there has to be something to be done. Don't tell me we just have to sit by and hope next time the lunatic only kills five.

 

[soberups]

So get rid of all gun laws?

I didnt say that.

You are looking for some combination of laws or enforcement of laws that will, in your words, "prevent the easy massacres".

All I said...was that there probably isntany realistic way to prevent a determined lunatic with premeditated intent from perpetrating such a massacre.

As a society, we tend to want quick and easy feel- good solutions to our problems. In this case...there arent any.