Hey, I'm not sure if you heard about this, but a little over a month ago, someone with an Assault Rifle went into a school and killed a whole bunch of kids, they were like 6 years old.
Also, maybe you didn't hear about this one either, but about a year or so ago, some guy pulled out an assault rifle in a movie theater and shot and killed a whole bunch of people.
pretty interesting stuff eh?
You make it sound like this happened only because they had assault rifles. These guys were both disturbed and would have found a way to kill people regardless of if they had an assault rifle or not. Without the assault rifle they may have killed less people, maybe figured out a way to kill more people...we'll never know. The US will reform their gun laws, and pass new laws, especially with the tragedies that have been occuring there lately. But it won't help much...the real issues are their issues with society/curlture down there. They need to focus more on the "why" these things are happening instead of the "how". You can take the guns away but it doesn't solve the "why"...they will just figure out a different way to do the "how".
You make it sound like this happened only because they had assault rifles. These guys were both disturbed and would have found a way to kill people regardless of if they had an assault rifle or not. Without the assault rifle they may have killed less people, maybe figured out a way to kill more people...we'll never know. The US will reform their gun laws, and pass new laws, especially with the tragedies that have been occuring there lately. But it won't help much...the real issues are their issues with society/curlture down there. They need to focus more on the "why" these things are happening instead of the "how". You can take the guns away but it doesn't solve the "why"...they will just figure out a different way to do the "how".
They need to focus more on the "why" these things are happening instead of the "how".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
wrong.
I guess we can stop charging people for drunk driving or beating their wives right this instant. Let 'er ride! Instead, let's only try to address "why" they do that crap.
(I realize that's not an apples to apples comparison, but I couldn't help it. )
In a more serious note, why does it have to be one or the other? Why not look into both more deeply.
Nobody cares that drones might be legal to use against US citizens.
US citizens engaged in military actions against US troops. I don't see the problem, your passport shouldn't be a shield when you've decided to take up arms.
I guess we can stop charging people for drunk driving or beating their wives right this instant. Let 'er ride! Instead, let's only try to address "why" they do that crap.
(I realize that's not an apples to apples comparison, but I couldn't help it. )
In a more serious note, why does it have to be one or the other? Why not look into both more deeply.
I actually agree with you, and I didn't actually say to only focus on the "why", but they don't really focus on that at all. I did mention I believe they will pass new gun laws that will make it harder for people to own certain kinds of guns and maybe even ban some...maybe. I Don't object to those laws, but I just think those laws by themselves will really help...
And no-one can tell me that those tragedies wouldn't have happened if those guys didn't have the weapons they had. One does not plot and plan to kill his family and then decide he can't do it just because he can't buy an assault rifle.
US citizens engaged in military actions against US troops. I don't see the problem, your passport shouldn't be a shield when you've decided to take up arms.
So as long as the US goverment says you were 'taking up arms' thats fine? the reason we ask our goverment to meet a burdon of proof is because there are times when they have been known to lie, I am not suggesting the passport should be a sheild, I am suggesting that there should be some form of accountable due process, one of those terrorists they targeted was a 16 year old kid and none of them were an immedieate threat to anyone, it was just easier to kill them.
I only made it halfway through that video... it was painful to watch that stupidity.
It made me realize that when George Carlin said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that" he was probably talking about gun control.
I was watching some of Piers Morgan last night and he was in Texas talking to some Republican gun fanatics, but near the end of the show Ted Nugent was going to be on.
So they were having the expected conversation, and Ted came out with the "an armed society is a polite society" statement. piers asked him if he knew what the 2 mosted heavily armed countries were. Ted guessed US and Switzerland, but Piers said it was US and Yemen, then he asked if Ted thought Yemen was a polite society. I laughed.
Theres your problem right there. No wonder you're so anti-gun. Piers is just awful, he just ignores all the facts and bases all his arguments on emotion.
Theres your problem right there. No wonder you're so anti-gun. Piers is just awful, he just ignores all the facts and bases all his arguments on emotion.
Canadian and US police have guns, the british don't. I wonder why.
I'm curious what the anti-firearm people here stance is on police having guns.
From what i heard after the UK gun ban patrol officers stopped carrying pistols in hopes that criminals wouldn't arm themselfs in fear of being shot during a simple robbery..etc. polls show that people feel just as safe without the officers carrying as well.
But if something serious goes down the bobbys have lots of guns, they have "armory" vehicles every few blocks and the big cities have huge tac squads.
As for the question, I would rather have a trained cop with a gun if it means saving an innocent life from some nutcase. but I certainly don't want to see a cop armed with machine guns on every corner which is what the NRA would love.
So I like the idea of forcing gun owners to buy insurance if they purchase firearms.
Personally I think you take it a step further and have to purchase a $50,000 do no harm bond if you purchase or have a fire arm in your house that is refundable if you sell your gun back to the dealer that sold it to you.
I think if you buy a military grade weapon then the bond doubles.
That way if you stupidly shoot someone by mistake you can cover their health care or funeral costs.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Theres your problem right there. No wonder you're so anti-gun. Piers is just awful, he just ignores all the facts and bases all his arguments on emotion.
Can you cite some of the facts he is ignoring please, give me 2 or 3.
And when you say he bases his arguments on emotion, I encourage you to go back and watch his interview with Alex Jones. That reminds me, at one point Alex was squealing something about Piers using his factoids in the discussion, maybe he does use facts, and you just overlook it.
Anyways, I will wait for your examples.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
Can you cite some of the facts he is ignoring please, give me 2 or 3.
And when you say he bases his arguments on emotion, I encourage you to go back and watch his interview with Alex Jones. That reminds me, at one point Alex was squealing something about Piers using his factoids in the discussion, maybe he does use facts, and you just overlook it.
Anyways, I will wait for your examples.
I'm just not sure how you can trust a fraud like Piers Morgan. What bothers me is he gets the most extreme guests on his show to further his anti-gun agenda. What is Piers trying to prove? He was wrong on the amount of gun murders in the UK, he claimed there were 35 gun murders in 2011. Britain actually had 59 gun related murders. I'l just let you watch the video, Ben Swann destroys Piers logic.
)
