You can't have my guns.

[desertdweller]

your fucking nuts.

if you think you need to do ANYTHING to deserve getting your home broke into or worse .. thats just insane.

He is projecting. He embodies the paranoia that he keeps insisting is characteristic of someone who owns a gun.

Just in case he doesn't understand what projecting means.... http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_7.htm

 

[Sho'Nuff]

First things first, I abhor violence in all respects. Particularly when it targets helpless children. But no gun law could prevent the horrible acts that occurred last week, nor should an anti-gun law be passed in response to such acts. Governing the masses based on what a very few, very disturbed individuals choose to do is having the cart drive the horse. It simply doesn't make sense.

Case in point: Like guns, automobiles are dangerous, portable, readily accessible, and capable of killing large numbers of people. If Adam Lanza stole his mother's car, drove to her elementary school, and ran over 20 kids at recess . . . everyone would call him a nut. Everyone would feel the same grief that they do today. Everyone would recognize the act for what it was . . . a horrible, disgusting, pathetic act of violence that was carried out by a coward who took his own life after robbing 20 kids and 6 adults of theirs. No one would suggest that it was the "cars fault" that the act occurred, or that the act only occurred because Lonza had access to a car. No one would say that cars (which kill lots of people every year), should be more highly regulated than they are today. And certainly, no one would suggest that car ownership should be limited any more than it already is.

The fact of the matter is that this act occurred because ADAM LANZA was. . . insane, crazy, evil . . .[insert your desired descriptor] . . . whatever. No other reason.

It always amazes me how members of this generation are so willing to give up their freedoms. To give up the rights our ancestors literally fought and died for. Those same individuals might base their positions on arguments that rebelling against the government is inconceivable, and simply never will happen. My response to them is the populace of this country has rebelled against "the" government at least twice, once in the revolutionary war, and once in the civil war. In both instances, firearms were used to great effect to ultimately forge the country into something greater than it was before. In this way, gun ownership was and is woven into the very fabric of U.S. history. It is a literal safety valve against tyranny. And it should not be mitigated, more highly regulated, or eliminated.

 

[SheHateMe]

Case in point: Like guns, automobiles are dangerous, portable, readily accessible, and capable of killing large numbers of people. If Adam Lanza stole his mother's car, drove to her elementary school, and ran over 20 kids at recess . . . everyone would call him a nut.

I didn't know cars were sold as weapons, thanks for clarifying this for the Forum.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I didn't know cars were sold as weapons, thanks for clarifying this for the Forum.

No, but they can be utilized to kill by any deranged person. It's a question of sanity and physics.

 

[mikeymikec]

What is your statistically gleaned and scientifically verifiable evidence you have to this inconvenient truth that you haven't mentioned?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

 

[zinfamous]

Do you have mental problems like past couple of mass murderers who killed people for no apparent reason? Did you obtain your weapons illegally?

If not we don't want your damn weapons. We want a way to prevent mentally imbalanced people from getting them.

yes, except the problem with that is no amount of such metal health-based regulation would have prevented this fuckstain from obtaining his mother's guns and murdering 20 children and 6 adults.

I'm at the point now where I think there is no other choice but to take away OP's guns.

restrict all from owning guns. hmmm.

damn, maybe I don't give a shit any more, but I honestly know is that I really don't give a shit about the OP and his guns, if his not owning guns is the side-effect of at least 1 child not being murdered by guns.

fuck it. and fuck the cocksuckers at the NRA.

 

[zinfamous]

No, but they can be utilized to kill by any deranged person. It's a question of sanity and physics.

how easily would he have driven the car into a classroom and continue murdering kids?

well...can't believe I'm entertaining this sad, cliche'd, completely useless argument that gun nuts continue to make, but honestly: think about your idiotic comparisons for but 3 seconds before you repeat them again.

it's sad, and every one one of you sounds like a drooling idiot when you make such baseless analogies.

 

[eits]

guns with magazines should be outlawed. revolvers, pump/break action shotguns, muzzle loaders, and bolt action rifles only.

 

[TallBill]

guns with magazines should be outlawed. revolvers, pump/break action shotguns, muzzle loaders, and bolt action rifles only.

I have a k98 Mauser. It has a 5 round internal magazine. Omg looks like an another fucking moron doesn't understand firearms and is suggesting legislature. Actually I have 2 mausers.. save the children!!!! Weeeeeee

 

[Angry Irishman]

how easily would he have driven the car into a classroom and continue murdering kids?

well...can't believe I'm entertaining this sad, cliche'd, completely useless argument that gun nuts continue to make, but honestly: think about your idiotic comparisons for but 3 seconds before you repeat them again.

it's sad, and every one one of you sounds like a drooling idiot when you make such baseless analogies.

Well I have the same opinion...I can't believe I have to restate what is a fairly easy logic to follow. If a Genie magically took away all the guns in the world a sick demented shithead would figure out another way to inflict harm without guns. If you think a Mac truck or bus or even car given the right circumstances couldn't kill even more than was inflicted continue to feel sad but you'll also remain ignorant to a harsh reality.

Your counter argument in my mind smacks of that of a pack of drooling idiots. I hate to break it to you it's not a useless anology; it's just not what you want to hear and it doesn't support your motives.

Focus on the operator of the firearm or any other object. Guns don't fire themselves nor do motor vehicles operate themselves. I do agree more stringent background checks need to be in place but even this won't stop crazy behavior.

What's truly disgusting is the media in my opinion who have latched on to this story and are playing it out for all its worth...the murder got exactly what he wished for.

The fact remains that the Constitution protects the right of an Amercan to bear arms....don't like it start voting that way or run for Congress and sway enough votes to change the second amendment. You probably won't have any opposition from the executive branch.

This is a very emotional time for everyone. Don't blame good citizens for someone else's actions. I don't have the same thoughts or trust that the big and powerful federal government always has my best interests in mind....neither did our founding fathers. Old fashioned? Maybe? Given the trend of the government taking roles that have no place within the federal government....I'd rather keep my rights intact. I don't want the unwelcome assistance.

 

[Angry Irishman]

guns with magazines should be outlawed. revolvers, pump/break action shotguns, muzzle loaders, and bolt action rifles only.

Nope....false logic.

 

[Veliko]

Well I have the same opinion...I can't believe I have to restate what is a fairly easy logic to follow. If a Genie magically took away all the guns in the world a sick demented shithead would figure out another way to inflict harm without guns. If you think a Mac truck or bus or even car given the right circumstances couldn't kill even more than was inflicted continue to feel sad but you'll also remain ignorant to a harsh reality.

And we're back to this bullshit again.

Comparing cars with guns simply means you don't possess the necessary sense of perspective for this debate.

 

[shortylickens]

And we're back to this bullshit again.

Comparing cars with guns simply means you don't possess the necessary sense of perspective for this debate.

Not understanding how they are related means YOU dont have the necessary perspective.

And theres no such thing as "sense of perspective". Thats some bullshit you just made up. This isnt college, quit fluffing your papers.

 

[Angry Irishman]

And we're back to this bullshit again.

Comparing cars with guns simply means you don't possess the necessary sense of perspective for this debate.

That's a very empty statement. I can just as easily say the same of your perspective.

Perhaps you should actually read my original comments. It's really simple...a car, toaster or gun are all mindless objects, it's the person who operates the object that should be focused on.

I fail to see what is so complicated or how this logic lacks perspective.

 

[edro]

From my cold dead hands...

 

[edro]

Guns make it exponentially easier to carry out mass homicide.
No one really believes that a car is as deadly as an assault rifle with a 30rd magazine... do you?

I am pro gun, but at least understand anti-gunner's mindsets.

If you are a sociopath and want to execute a large number of people, guns are the easiest way.
No other methods are nearly as efficient.
Cars: Lose momentum in crowds and probably only kill a few people
Bombs: hard to make one large enough, and hard to acquire ingredients
Knives: Can easily be disarmed and slash wounds are easier to treat
Poison: tough to deliver to large number of people and hard to acquire large enough doses without proper license
Airliner kamikaze: obviously more difficult due to 9/11

AR-15 with 5 fully loaded 30rd magazines: Visit your nearest gun store/ gun show with ~$800 in hand

 

[Angry Irishman]

Guns make it exponentially easier to carry out mass homicide.
No one really believes that a car is as deadly as an assault rifle with a 30rd magazine... do you?

I am pro gun, but at least understand anti-gunner's mindsets.

If you are a sociopath and want to execute a large number of people, guns are the easiest way.
No other methods are nearly as efficient.
Cars: Lose momentum in crowds and probably only kill a few people
Bombs: hard to make one large enough, and hard to acquire ingredients
Knives: Can easily be disarmed and slash wounds are easier to treat
Poison: tough to deliver to large number of people and hard to acquire large enough doses without proper license
Airliner kamikaze: obviously more difficult due to 9/11

AR-15 with 5 fully loaded 30rd magazines: Visit your nearest gun store/ gun show with ~$800 in hand

I partially agree although I still don't think this justifies abolishing or further controlling gun ownership. Although I would rather see this concept applied in a positive way....where there is a will there is a way. Guns or not sick people will do sick things. This is true especially if someone intends to kill themselves during or after their intentions are met.

Background checks and determining mental stability is key but certainly not a guarantee of the end of this sick behavior.

 

[Veliko]

That's a very empty statement. I can just as easily say the same of your perspective.

Perhaps you should actually read my original comments. It's really simple...a car, toaster or gun are all mindless objects, it's the person who operates the object that should be focused on.

I fail to see what is so complicated or how this logic lacks perspective.

That's because you're a simpleton, and it's why people refer to the NRA lot as gun nuts; because you're nuts.

If a gun is exactly the same as a car and a toaster, then a flame thrower or a nuclear warhead is the same as a gun, and there is no reason why everyone can't have one.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's because you're a simpleton, and it's why people refer to the NRA lot as gun nuts; because you're nuts.

If a gun is exactly the same as a car and a toaster, then a flame thrower or a nuclear warhead is the same as a gun, and there is no reason why everyone can't have one.

You know people can own flamethrowers right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower Rant fail.

 

[Angry Irishman]

That's because you're a simpleton, and it's why people refer to the NRA lot as gun nuts; because you're nuts.

If a gun is exactly the same as a car and a toaster, then a flame thrower or a nuclear warhead is the same as a gun, and there is no reason why everyone can't have one.

Well you've just opted to take the easiest path and instead of engaging in a conversation you have degenerated to delivering insults....who is the simpleton?

Again, stop reading what you want because it doesn't meet your motives. I never said what you are stating or made the comparisons you have said.

Try to listen and understand....it's the person not the object it's the person that constitutes the threat.

I keep hearing the same parrot like statements from your point of view as I'm sure you are hearing from me. I also keep hearing a lot of should and coulds...nothing based in law and not offering concrete and realistic options.

 

[edro]

You know people can own flamethrowers right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower Rant fail.

I need this! ...for protection of my house.

 

[edro]

I partially agree although I still don't think this justifies abolishing or further controlling gun ownership.

I agree.

Gun laws save lives. No one can argue that point. Even if a gun law limits 1 sociopath from a murder, anti-gunners would argue it was worth it.
Anti-gunners don't understand gun ownership or the right to defend yourself. They believe that is a function of the police and justice system.

The ultimate question is how much gun control is enough to limit homicide but still enable citizens to defend themselves.

 

[edro]

The most recent slayer used STOLEN GUNS, so no amount of background checks or psychoanalysis would have prevented this.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I find it very interesting how big of a role emotions play in politics. We tend to assign every possible positive emotion and attribute to "us" and our positions, while assigning every possible negative emotion and attribute to "them" and their positions.

Liberal/Democrat View:
- We are just thinking of the children when calling for gun bans.
- They are just gun nuts who want to kill people.
- We just want everyone to have affordable healthcare.
- They want the poor to die.

Conservative/Republican View:
- We are for preserving everything that made this nation great.
- They want to destroy the country.
- We want prayer in school for the morality of the nation.
- They don't want prayer because they don't have any morals.

Do we not see how ridiculous this is? In an argument, generally, both sides have some merit. The opposing view point is not evil and those people aren't trying to destroy you and/or this country for the fun of it. Ultimately, most people are just trying to do what they think is right, but they let too much emotion get into it. We need to examine everything logically, especially in high stakes politics.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I find it very interesting how big of a role emotions play in politics. We tend to assign every possible positive emotion and attribute to "us" and our positions, while assigning every possible negative emotion and attribute to "them" and their positions.

Liberal/Democrat View:
- We are just thinking of the children when calling for gun bans.
- They are just gun nuts who want to kill people.
- We just want everyone to have affordable healthcare.
- They want the poor to die.

Conservative/Republican View:
- We are for preserving everything that made this nation great.
- They want to destroy the country.
- We want prayer in school for the morality of the nation.
- They don't want prayer because they don't have any morals.

Do we not see how ridiculous this is? In an argument, generally, both sides have some merit. The opposing view point is not evil and those people aren't trying to destroy you and/or this country for the fun of it. Ultimately, most people are just trying to do what they think is right, but they let too much emotion get into it. We need to examine everything logically, especially in high stakes politics.

Agreed....although I don't personally align with either party. I believe in the Constitution as written which seems to be taboo for both parties these days.