You can't have my guns.

[Engineer]

End result is the same, lives lost.

Makes no difference. One is made for killing, the other is not. There may be accidental deaths from it but that's not the primary purpose.

I'm not for banning guns (well, maybe assault weapons) but you're just trying to justify their use/existence because you want them. Nothing more.

 

[pontifex]

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.

Virginia Tech shooter. history of mental issues

Same with the person who shot and injured and killed people in Az. including a U.S. Senator

Same with the shooter who attacked a midnight screening.

Apparently initial information seems to point to mental issues with the Connecticut shooter.

Unless you are mentally unbalanced you'll see that there is a problem...

if people are obtaining guns illegally now, how are more laws going to help?

 

[pontifex]

This is a great time for a big STFU for the proactive pro-gun interests.

same could be said for the proactive anti-gun interests

 

[Farmer]

Right, because nobody but me can see the fucking threads on this tragedy and the comments about people aren't going to give up their guns.

Emotional banter? I'm sorry, its just that my heart is broken that small children have become the latest victims of yet another shooting in which LEGALLY purchased weapons were used to murder....and yet again, the gun crowd tries to absolve guns of responsibility. Remember, Guns don't kill people. It's great to hear that yet again, you guys don't give a shit and never will. Can't wait to see who the next group of victims are.


My bad.

No logic at all.

So your objective is to save every little 5 year old in the world? End hunger? Cure cancer?

You ASSUME that strict gun control will stop these things, while providing little evidence of the fact (and, no, don't cite other countries: you will find as many examples of effective gun control as ineffective gun control). I find it unimaginable that whenever something bad comes on the news, we always find the most convenient thing to blame it on.

 

[Geosurface]

but you're just trying to justify their use/existence because you want them. Nothing more.

Word?

Is that why I do not own and never have owned a firearm of any kind despite being trained in their use by the navy and living at all times in my 32 year life in states which allowed gun ownership (Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, and now Connecticut) and having never given any law enforcement anywhere any reason to even know who I am?

I am passionate about freedom. Period. Same reason I want pot and all drugs legal despite never having been even so much as buzzed in my life.

My concerns go beyond my own sphere and are consistent and immune to knee jerk and emotion.

 

[BUTCH1]

At least let's get serious about assault rifles with 50 round clips, yes, you can whack someone in the head with a toaster and kill him/her or run someone over, ect, ect. Point is an assault rifle with a large clip represents the current state-of-the-art for killing mass amounts of people, if we could at least ban these it would be a start..

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Nothings going to change and most importantly people don't want change. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Farmer]

I'm not for banning guns (well, maybe assault weapons) but you're just trying to justify their use/existence because you want them. Nothing more.

That's just the thing. What is wrong with wanting them, or more importantly, wanting the individual liberty to have one if you so choose? And why is the first reaction to very tragic, very rare events always to trade individual liberty for what is assumed to be increased public safety?

It's a slippery slope.

At least let's get serious about assault rifles with 50 round clips, yes, you can whack someone in the head with a toaster and kill him/her or run someone over, ect, ect. Point is an assault rifle with a large clip represents the current state-of-the-art for killing mass amounts of people, if we could at least ban these it would be a start..

There are magazine capacity restrictions in many states. Such a restriction was also part of the '94 Clinton/Feinstein "Assault Weapons" ban. It really didn't do anything for violent gun crime. It was, however, a regulation which deeply affected the vitality of the American gun industry, which employs more people than you think.

To be honest, a negligible portion of gun crime (which oddly occupies 90% of the media's attention) is committed with high capacity magazines. On the other hand, gun owners enjoy the individual freedom to own and use these high capacity magazines for their own purposes. If you're actually interested in reducing violent gun crime, it is an odd place to start.

As much as some would like to believe "the only purpose of guns is to kill people" (and those people, invariably, have never used a firearm and are in general are informed about them only via TV or other media), the vast majority of legally owned firearms is used to shoot at paper and animals.

 

[blankslate]

if people are obtaining guns illegally now, how are more laws going to help?

It'll make it more difficult for mentally ill people (who I would think sane people don't want to have easy access to firearms) to obtain a one if legal gun sellers could see that "hey this person has a history of mental problems and is still being treated maybe I shouldn't sell him one".

There is nothing wrong with trying at least to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. Four of the most horrific firearms massacres in the past few years involved someone who had a history of mental problems.

It seems like an obvious problem that should be addressed since most gun owners sane according to the manual that psychiatrists would use to diagnose mental illness.

or in other words

If morons with guns would stop committing horrific acts with their guns maybe people wouldn't mind letting you have them.

Better yet, maybe you should try selling your bullshit diatribe to one of the parents of a child who was murdered today. 20 fucking kids were killed... in seconds.

 

[TerryMathews]

It'll make it more difficult for mentally ill people (who I would think sane people don't want to have easy access to firearms) to obtain a one if legal gun sellers could see that "hey this person has a history of mental problems and is still being treated maybe I shouldn't sell him one".

There is nothing wrong with trying at least to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. Four of the most horrific firearms massacres in the past few years involved someone who had a history of mental problems.

It seems like an obvious problem that should be addressed since most gun owners sane according to the manual that psychiatrists would use to diagnose mental illness.

or in other words

That is already the case. Any mentally defective person will fail a NICS check if their doctor does their duty property.

 

[BladeVenom]

At least let's get serious about assault rifles with 50 round clips, yes, you can whack someone in the head with a toaster and kill him/her or run someone over, ect, ect. Point is an assault rifle with a large clip represents the current state-of-the-art for killing mass amounts of people, if we could at least ban these it would be a start..

The Colorado shooter had a large capacity magazine, and it jammed. They aren't as reliable. If he would have been using normal 20 or 30 round magazines, he would have killed more people. So your "solution" would have helped kill more people.

A start? Anti-gun politicians won't stop. Look at the UK, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea, or any other 3rd world dictatorship.

Unarmed criminals kill more people than assault weapons.

 

[Engineer]

That's just the thing. What is wrong with wanting them, or more importantly, wanting the individual liberty to have one if you so choose? And why is the first reaction to very tragic, very rare events always to trade individual liberty for what is assumed to be increased public safety?

I never said anything was wrong or not wrong with wanting them. I was simply saying that comparing an automobile to a gun is a silly justification compared to wanting/owning a gun.

 

[blankslate]

That is already the case. Any mentally defective person will fail a NICS check if their doctor does their duty property.

Then these procedures need to be re-evaluated. And loopholes that supposedly allow people to buy weapons at gun conventions without a check in some cases should be closed.

Because it happened 4 times too many in the past years. Instead of getting fucking defensive about gun ownership and suggesting that more people should own guns perhaps everyone should look at the real problem.

Which is the fact that mentally ill people somehow still obtained firearms and went on to commit horrible crimes.

 

[BladeVenom]

All those anti-drug laws have failed. Drug addicts still get drugs. All the Mexican drug cartels still get guns, no matter how many anti-gun laws they pass in Mexico.

 

[shortylickens]

Fear is why people trade freedom for perceived safety. Any decision made in fear on a national level is almost always a bad one.
Then theres the whole ignorance breeds fear breeds hate issue.

The worst part is both the government and private groups with an agenda are very good at manipulating fear to get what they want from the public. People cheered when the assault weapon ban was pushed through. They begged for protection from the government and that gave us the Patriot Act and the department of Homeland Security. Neither one of which is genuinely helpful with regards to their intended purpose, but both gave considerably more power to the government and eliminated a lot of checks and balances we used to have to keep powerful men from abusing the public.

I wonder if those same people also hate Wall Street and the upper class for having too much concentrated power.......

 

[BladeVenom]

Because it happened 4 times too many in the past years. Instead of getting fucking defensive about gun ownership and suggesting that more people should own guns perhaps everyone should look at the real problem.

Gun free zones. Almost every one of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones. It's like fish in a barrel. Lets fix that.

 

[SheHateMe]

Right, because having Guns has made the US the safest country in the World vs Countries that don't allow Civilians to carry.

Please tell me more about this.

 

[shortylickens]

All those anti-drug laws have failed. Drug addicts still get drugs. All the Mexican drug cartels still get guns, no matter how many anti-gun laws they pass in Mexico.

I think thats actually the point of the two pics. Both drugs and driving are heavily regulated in this country and look at all the problems we have with them.

 

[blankslate]

Gun free zones. Almost every one of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones. It's like fish in a barrel. Lets fix that.

Yes, let's do more to make sure that mentally imbalanced people aren't sold guns.

If necessary we might also have to look at ways of making sure that mental health professionals are more diligent about making sure potentially violent patients are flagged during a routine background check by a gun dealer.

 

[OverVolt]

Everyone knows that if you create enough laws it automatically makes society a utopia, we just haven't made enough laws yet.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Right, because having Guns has made the US the safest country in the World vs Countries that don't allow Civilians to carry.

Please tell me more about this.

More guns = safer. Fact can't be disputed.

 

[blankslate]

Everyone knows that if you create enough laws it automatically makes society a utopia, we just haven't made enough laws yet.

Everyone knows that more guns in the hands of everyone capable of holding one automatically makes society a safe place where no accidents or negligence happens. Obviously we must make sure everyone is provided a firearm at age 18.

 

[pontifex]

Then these procedures need to be re-evaluated. And loopholes that supposedly allow people to buy weapons at gun conventions without a check in some cases should be closed.

Because it happened 4 times too many in the past years. Instead of getting fucking defensive about gun ownership and suggesting that more people should own guns perhaps everyone should look at the real problem.

Which is the fact that mentally ill people somehow still obtained firearms and went on to commit horrible crimes.

the shooter in CT didn't buy the guns. He stole them from his dead mother, whom he killed.
how are more laws for the sale of guns going to help in that case?

the problem isn't guns. the problem is the mentally ill people using them.

 

[OverVolt]

the shooter in CT didn't buy the guns. He stole them from his dead mother, whom he killed.
how are more laws for the sale of guns going to help in that case?

We should outlaw murder, that will stop him cold in his tracks.

 

[tokie]

No gun lover will ever get over this simple fact: a nutjob with a gun is more deadly than a nutjob without a gun.

Yes, people kill people. Guns are just a tool, but they are a tool that allows mass killing with ease and no physical force. There is no intimacy in the attack, while something like a stabbing is a physically traumatizing thing to do and can not be done on the scale of these 10+ killing sprees.