| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 |
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsA1012
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
What led to more deaths in the last 30 years? 911 and the Oklahoma city bombing combined OR the deaths from the these lone shooter tragedies? If anyone has the statistics, I would be curious to look at them.
I will give you the facts. Shooting sprees are very much a statistical anomaly. The "#" of deaths does not tell the story though.
All deaths are not equal.
There are 20 dead six year olds in CT. They were sacrificed to someone else's psychoses or ideology, exactly like 9/11, just on a smaller scale. That is correct.
But if your point is the only one that matters, the "data point" of relevance being tied to #, then you are telling me that those 20 kids' deaths will not matter unless and until the way they died goes up in # so as to be statistically relevant. I refute that.
|
Posted 1/11/13 10:24 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsA1012
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
What led to more deaths in the last 30 years? 911 and the Oklahoma city bombing combined OR the deaths from the these lone shooter tragedies? If anyone has the statistics, I would be curious to look at them.
here is something that Mother Jones put together. I don't have the brain power to add them all up right now.
but they are looking at 62 spree shooting since 1982.
I think the key difference though in any comparison between 9/11 and OKC would be the measures taken after to ensure public safety, vs the measures taken (or rather, not taken) after any one of these 62 shootings.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:27 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Posted by MrsA1012
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
What led to more deaths in the last 30 years? 911 and the Oklahoma city bombing combined OR the deaths from the these lone shooter tragedies? If anyone has the statistics, I would be curious to look at them.
I will give you the facts. Shooting sprees are very much a statistical anomaly. The "#" of deaths does not tell the story though.
All deaths are not equal.
There are 20 dead six year olds in CT. They were sacrificed to someone else's psychoses or ideology, exactly like 9/11, just on a smaller scale. That is correct.
But if your point is the only one that matters, the "data point" of relevance being tied to #, then you are telling me that those 20 kids' deaths will not matter unless and until the way they died goes up in # so as to be statistically relevant. I refute that.
I wasn't drawing any conclusions or making any statements. I just wanted to know more about the statistics.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:30 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsA1012
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
I don't know if you are referring to my post. If you are, read it carefully. I clearly say that we should NOT give up and it is prudent to do more to keep guns out of the hands of certain members of the population. However, I have serious doubts about whether such action will do much to stop violence given man's drive towards it. Essentially, when there is a will there is a way. For example, Israel has some of the most sophisticated intelligence/security in the world and they have historically been plagued by constantly attack from suicide bombers. It doesn't mean you stop fighting, but I am not too hopeful about the outcome.
ETA: My argument doesn't concern what action should be taken. I agree that changes have to be made. I am speaking more to my thought about a potential decrease in violence/ my hopes for changes in human behavior.
no, I was not speaking specifically to your post but rather the argument that has basically been put forth over and over again.
I would agree with you that where there is a will, there is a way, no matter how that way takes it's form.
I am sure people are aware that the same day of the Newtown massacre, a man in China attacked school children with a clever. He injured just about the same amount of people that the Newtown shooter killed.
some people may see it as apples and oranges but I would rather a knife and a fighting chances at survival than the carnage that Maria described. All of those children in China lived AND you now have to registered your large knives there. every day cooking utensils. they are keeping tabs on them.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:32 PM |
| |
|
My2Girlz11
LIF Adolescent
Member since 1/11 785 total posts
Name:
Corrie
|
The argument is not
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:43 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsA1012
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
What led to more deaths in the last 30 years? 911 and the Oklahoma city bombing combined OR the deaths from the these lone shooter tragedies? If anyone has the statistics, I would be curious to look at them.
here is something that Mother Jones put together. I don't have the brain power to add them all up right now.
but they are looking at 62 spree shooting since 1982.
I think the key difference though in any comparison between 9/11 and OKC would be the measures taken after to ensure public safety, vs the measures taken (or rather, not taken) after any one of these 62 shootings.
Thanks for posting. I will take a look.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:53 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would agree with this. I've yet to see a valid reason from someone that warrants them necessitating an assault rifle. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you should or even need one.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:58 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:58 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:59 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I did the math on the Mother Jones timeline, over the last 30 years 973 people have been the victims of a spree shooter (either dying or being injured)
OKC had 168 killed and about 650 injured. 19 babies were also killed.
9/11- 2996 deaths, over 6000 injured.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:00 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
Interesting point.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:01 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Nor the Aurora shooter.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:01 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
I would love a total gun ban. maybe one day we will get there.
but there can be justifications for a hand gun. there are certainly justifications for rifles and shot guns (hunting, rural living and wild animals etc).
There is not ONE justification in my mind for an AR.. not one. I don't consider "but it's my hobby" as a justification, either.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:03 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would agree with this. I've yet to see a valid reason from someone that warrants them necessitating an assault rifle. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you should or even need one.
We don't need a lot of things in life, including alcohol and swimming pools, but yet more children die as a result of alcohol related car accidents and accidental drownings in pools than at the hands of ARs. (Of course that comparison will be considered nonsense because public opinion will be that they use alcohol and their pools responsibly.)
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:05 PM |
| |
|
My2Girlz11
LIF Adolescent
Member since 1/11 785 total posts
Name:
Corrie
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by Chatham-Chick
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
I would love a total gun ban. maybe one day we will get there.
but there can be justifications for a hand gun. there are certainly justifications for rifles and shot guns (hunting, rural living and wild animals etc).
There is not ONE justification in my mind for an AR.. not one. I don't consider "but it's my hobby" as a justification, either.
There still has not been a valid response why to have one
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:05 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun? 
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:06 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by Chatham-Chick
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
I would love a total gun ban. maybe one day we will get there.
but there can be justifications for a hand gun. there are certainly justifications for rifles and shot guns (hunting, rural living and wild animals etc).
There is not ONE justification in my mind for an AR.. not one. I don't consider "but it's my hobby" as a justification, either.
I agree. I just can't wrap my brain around it. Why is this being overlooked? I feel like its a blanket "because I can" mentality.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:07 PM |
| |
|
My2Girlz11
LIF Adolescent
Member since 1/11 785 total posts
Name:
Corrie
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would agree with this. I've yet to see a valid reason from someone that warrants them necessitating an assault rifle. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you should or even need one.
We don't need a lot of things in life, including alcohol and swimming pools, but yet more children die as a result of alcohol related car accidents and accidental drownings in pools than at the hands of ARs. (Of course that comparison will be considered nonsense because public opinion will be that they use alcohol and their pools responsibly.)
You are arguing different issues. The issue is banning AR. Each subject has to be looked at separately.
Message edited 1/11/2013 11:09:07 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:08 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would agree with this. I've yet to see a valid reason from someone that warrants them necessitating an assault rifle. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you should or even need one.
We don't need a lot of things in life, including alcohol and swimming pools, but yet more children die as a result of alcohol related car accidents and accidental drownings in pools than at the hands of ARs. (Of course that comparison will be considered nonsense because public opinion will be that they use alcohol and their pools responsibly.)
alcohol and swimming pools were created with a purpose that has nothing to do with the deaths that are caused with them.
AR is a weapon to kill. the comparison is nonsense b/c it makes no sense to compare them.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:09 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
childrens hands, chunks of their faces, whole sides of their heads were BLOWN OFF by this ammunition.
every person I know that knows about guns will admit that this particular weapon with this ammunition produces a very particular and more brutal type of destruction.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:12 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
A shotgun requires loading the shells each time. A revolver can hold what, five or six? A handgun, nine or ten? Automated rifles can fire off more ammunition in far less time than any of those other guns. The ease of the automated weapons to me is what was capable of creating that kind of destruction. In my mind that is what makes a ban on assault rifles necessary.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:13 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
Now I don't know a thing about guns but I don't think a handgun would have ripped off the limbs and faces of those children. Did you look at the size of the bullet in the OP? They exploded in the children. One child (at least) had ELEVEN of these mini missles EXPLODE into his tiny little 6 year old body. Something that I believe a handgun or shotgun wouldn't have done.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:15 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
DISCLAIMER: these are NOT my personal views ,but here are some arguments as to why people want to own assault rifles:
- if the government has them, they want them too ( be prepared to defend themselves if the government becomes a dictatorship, seeks to crush people's rights)
- criminals will get them illegally even with a ban, so people feel that a law abiding citizen has a right to them. They want to know their weapons are equal to those possessed by the "bad guys"
- gun enthusiasts and collectors want them as part of their collection. They enjoy using them/shooting them for recreation. It is a kind of sporting tool
- a general belief is that is unfair to punish lawful, responsible gun owners for the actions of the few.
- the 2nd amendment allows for guns, it doesn't specify which ones. Thus, it is a constitutional right to own the legal fire arm of one's choice.
- if you ban these types of weapons where does the ban stop..
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:21 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
i think the answer is a big fat NO
Message edited 1/11/2013 11:30:07 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:29 PM |
| |
|
LittleBlueBug
Happy Mommy
Member since 9/06 4074 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I think this situation requires a multi-step approach.
I agree...there is NO REASON for anyone to own a gun with that kind of capacity. I don't believe it goes against 2nd amendment to ban assult weapons. People can have guns, but there needs to be some limits. 1) The capacity needs to be limited 2) There should be the same background checks that police officers have to go through to get their guns (they can not associate or live with anyone with a criminal hx that may have access to a gun) 3) Psych hx for owner and all with known possible access should be completed.
I think what people are affraid of is that if the government starts putting limitations on them, they fear "well, where will it stop?". There is also a slew of unreliable propaganda on youtube and the such that discuss this and take parts of quotes, etc and twist it or mis-interpret it. A little information can be a dangerous thing sometimes cause it causes people to panic. You woundn't believe how many times I've heard "well what if things happen like that show revolution...", yes, people say this!
As far as other methods of killing, etc. Yes, I agree with this too. If someone wants to do something horrendous, it's really not hard to believe they would find a way. Although maybe Adam Lanza wouldn't have gotten something off the black market, which we can only say in theory, who's to say some other psycho wouldn't have? That doesn't mean that we should just let it be either. These kinds of weapons should not be as attainable as a six pack either. However, maybe bomb making 101 should not be allowed on the internet either...but that's a different amendment...
The other reason I think people like to debate this is because it IS NOT as cut and dry as gun control and I think some people think that people are just pointing fingers and trying to do quick fixes. I think what needs to be emphasized, especially by our law makers, if that not only are we going to reform our gun laws, but we are going to do something about our very broken mental health system, which I haven't heard as much emphasis on. TBH, I think this is equally, if not more important. There needs to be better identity and treatment of people who are mentally ill, more access to care, and support and education for families of ill patients.
I would love to never see this ever happen again. I would also love to see as much passion for mental health reform as there is for gun reform. If someone kills one person, it's one person too many. So someone mentally ill with violent tendencies with a knife would be just as concerning to me as one with a gun if I was the one standing in front of them in a closed room (I can guarantee I would not be thanking God for the knife or calculating the probability that I would survive the attack). We need to treat these sick people, as well as take their means of hurting others away.
Message edited 1/11/2013 11:49:39 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:45 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 |
