The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Getting there. I am pulling for you.

 

This is why we have lawyers. Trust me you are more likely to be successful reining in police power and safer suing them than shooting it out with them.

 

Oh, just realize I have to be explicity with you. I meant you sounded like an idiot. But you are welcome.

 

O, I sound like you. Got it. Don't be ronery...take shower, come back later...

 

Yes Sir!

 

:grin:

You represent your folks well.

 

Asians don't take showers? Where did you get that from? Now I am really mad!

I am going to break down ...

 

I know my intelligence is not at your level but did you mean 'citing'? Anyway, the substance of your response was so hard hitting...you got anything else??

 

I need my AA12 and Anti-tank rifle just in case the ants and roaches get too big... Justifiable reason to me..

 

Care to explain why did you bring up Islamist radicals to this thread? Had I not googled and found your reference to the box cutters and 9/11 in a gun nut forum, I would not have guessed what you meant. Sounds like you have a fresh view on this. Enlighten me.

 

My point was made in my original post and echoed solid's post. Guns were not allowed on planes, yet the terrorists managed to murder 3000+ people. No form of legislation will stop people that are determined to carry out evil. Address the underlying problem, not the easiest thing to blame.

 

I dont necessarily disagree with you on that point. This is another way of saying people kill people, so the people are the underlying problem.

A quick and yet forceful response is that there are different types of criminals. Islamist radicals cannot be equated with the likes of Adam Lanza. Your facts dont support your conclusion that gun controls would not be effective whatsoever. There are going to be at least some benefits gained from stricter gun control to stop some people from comitting violence. Less guns = less gun violence, a point has been rehashed again and again in this thread. No one is arguing gun control is going to stop all violence in the society.

If you are truly concerned with the safety of the society and worried that the gun contorl measure might not be enough, why are you against stricter gun controls in specific manner to reduce gun availability to people like Adam Lanza? Even if Adam Lanza in an extreme alternative scenario conjured up some other way to commit his terror, why dont you not want to stop him from accessing assault weapon so easily? What is your concern of cost on the othe side of the equation?

 

"Enlighten me" he said. **** that. Let him enlighten himself since it appears he likes to do that on his own. Your just feeding the trolls. He ain't listenin. He doesnt get the fact that guns aren't the problem. Idiots with them are. He asks to give an honest answer why he should trust people with guns.. yet doesnt listen when you try and give him a explanation. The definition of troll.

 

This point has been addressed before and his a flawed argument. Yes psychotic people will find ways of killing people if they don't have guns but the lethal power of guns make it so much easier.

The 911 plot was one that was years in the making with extensive training by the plotters, an international network to support them and large financial resources. It was an act of war rather than the actions of a handful of psychos. All of these mass shootings are the actions of one or two mentally ill individuals who with relatively little money and in the case of the Loughner, Cho, and Holmes bought their guns legally. If you are argue that 911 was pulled off without guns you have to consider what went into 911 versus what went into pulling these mass shootings. They are not comparable in terms of the resources and planning that went into them.

So yes psychos will try to find a way to kill people if they don't have guns but the question is should we then just leave things as is where psychos are getting guns?

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VAlrMQTx5k4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This is not meant to attack any posters at all, but this column (with a dramatic title) is actually just a study of Bushmaster's lastest ad campaign, which is honestly pretty disappointing, all things considered.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/opinion/waldman-guns-manhood/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

From the column:

"... You may "Consider your Man Card reissued."

That's the message of ads the company has been running, along with a particularly ridiculous social media campaign. Until today -- the page has apparently been taken down, but parts of it are visible here -- you could learn on the "Man Card" section of Bushmaster's website that "In a world of rapidly depleting testosterone, the Bushmaster Man Card declares and confirms that you are a man's man." Then you could fill out a little form to bust on your buddies for not being manly enough, to "Revoke a Man Card." Just enter a brief description of the offense and put it into one of five categories: "Cry baby," "Cupcake," "Short leash," "Coward," or "Just unmanly." "

Appealing to insecure males is a tried and true advertising technique but kind of unfortunate for weapons of war, I would argue. Not that I want to control advertising, but if the message above works for their sales, it sheds some light on the issue. And know, I am not saying every Bushmaster owner is an insecure, socially awkward white dude. (I would just peg that at about 86% of them. )

 

The law should be you can own one any gun, but they are only manufactured in pink and are phallic-shaped. Well, that last part may appeal to those who buy guns because of their issues with their own masculinity.

 

The law should be that we can only have what we need such as food, water, shelter and air.
Get rid of everything else. If it save one live it is so worth it. Think of the children

 

Disagree of course. I want (my Dad) to have his rifles and shotguns and continue hunting and target practice. He also has a Browning pistol that has family heritage significance.

But here's a serious question that I have not seen answered: if we are okay with semiautomatics with 30-round magazines, why can't we also allow someone to have a tank with live ammo. If they get training and can find a location to safely go through target practice, shouldn't that be okay?

I actually think RM95's idea would do the most good of all. Must have unicorn, butterfly and flower decals as well. :grin:

 

Why do you think Asians dont take showers?