OT: 27 Killed, 18 elementary school students shot dead CON

[johnnywishbone]

Semi-automatics are legal.. the only way to get rid of them is to go into people's homes and destroy them...and not sure how you destroy guns out on the street...do you go around asking gangs to give up their arms?...same with other criminals...it is impossible....banning the second amendmet will only end up hurting normal regular citizens.

These guys who are going crazy and shooting people are not gang members. They are mentally ill people who would not have access to these kinds of weapons without it being legal.

If the guy in Aurora went into the hood to buy a semi-automatic weapon the only thing that would happen is he'd get robbed of whatever money he had on him. The only reason he had access to them was because he could either order it online or walk into a gun store and purchase one.

It amazes me that grown men are more worried about their right to play army than they are about the public's safety. And hiding behind the second amendment to justify that "right" is so transparently obvious it just makes you look more ridiculous. And this nonsense about "well there is nothing we can do about it" is complete bull. Why don't we make land mines and surface to air missiles legal? Wouldn't they just show up on the "black market" anyway? Most of these weapons are registered - you don't turn them in you go to jail. How easy is that?

[Moose]

Banning guns won't work, but what could possibly work is obligatory periodic mental health tests for everyone already owning or willing to purchase a firearm. They do it for example in Poland and they're planning to do it in the Netherlands after the Alphen shooting.

As long as the tests are legit and can't be corrupted this can make some sense....but the main problem is insane people or people of violence still getting guns illegally....that will always be, no matter if the second amendment exists or not.

[CU_NY09]

Not trying to sound like a jacka.ss or piss people off but why do people need guns? I'm going to sound naive/sheltered but no one I know owns a gun so all this "let people have their guns" talk sounds foreign and completely whack to me.

[johnnywishbone]

Banning guns won't work, but what could possibly work is obligatory periodic mental health tests for everyone already owning or willing to purchase a firearm. They do it for example in Poland and they're planning to do it in the Netherlands after the Alphen shooting.

And who is going to pay for that? Do you know how many psychiatrists that would require for a country the size of the US?

Here is my test - do you need a weapon that's only purpose is to kill as many human beings in as little time as possible?

Answer: Yes.

Result: You failed.

It's a catch-22

[ibraheim718]

The story will always remain the same... no one wants to sacrifice to help each other or to prevent these type of things to happen. If I don't have a problem NOT owning a gun and am willing to welcome any cop to come into my house and search it I don't see why any caring, compassionate citizen would. I'd love to hear someone tell one of these fathers that just lost their innocent child that the constitution is more important than his little girl or boys life.

[johnnywishbone]

Not trying to sound like a jacka.ss or piss people off but why do people need guns? I'm going to sound naive/sheltered but no one I know owns a gun so all this "let people have their guns" talk sounds foreign and completely whack to me.

There are legitimate applications. Home protection, hunting and sport shooting to name a few. The rub with me is that you don't need a machine gun to do any of those things. If you do than you are the kind of person that shouldn't own a gun to begin with.

[CU_NY09]

Semi-automatics are legal.. the only way to get rid of them is to go into people's homes and destroy them...and not sure how you destroy guns out on the street...do you go around asking gangs to give up their arms?...same with other criminals...it is impossible....banning the second amendmet will only end up hurting normal regular citizens.

These guys who are going crazy and shooting people are not gang members. They are mentally ill people who would not have access to these kinds of weapons without it being legal.

If the guy in Aurora went into the hood to buy a semi-automatic weapon the only thing that would happen is he'd get robbed of whatever money he had on him. The only reason he had access to them was because he could either order it online or walk into a gun store and purchase one.

It amazes me that grown men are more worried about their right to play army than they are about the public's safety. And hiding behind the second amendment to justify that "right" is so transparently obvious it just makes you look more ridiculous. And this nonsense about "well there is nothing we can do about it" is complete bull. Why don't we make land mines and surface to air missiles legal? Wouldn't they just show up on the "black market" anyway? Most of these weapons are registered - you don't turn them in you go to jail. How easy is that?

Sounds like you pretty much nailed it.

[Moose]

The story will always remain the same... no one wants to sacrifice to help each other or to prevent these type of things to happen. If I don't have a problem NOT owning a gun and am willing to welcome any cop to come into my house and search it I don't see why any caring, compassionate citizen would. I'd love to hear someone tell one of these fathers that just lost their innocent child that the constitution is more important than his little girl or boys life.

Dude....you would let a cop search your house without a warrant?

Wow...I just don't get it...why not just live under a dictatorship? ....they would love you, and from how you sound, you would love them.


I also love how people that want to keep the 2nd amendment, or not let cops into their homes aren't caring and compassionate.

[Thugger HBC]

Not trying to sound like a jacka.ss or piss people off but why do people need guns? I'm going to sound naive/sheltered but no one I know owns a gun so all this "let people have their guns" talk sounds foreign and completely whack to me.

For me it's part of job. without that I probably wouldn't have any. My wife also is licensed to carry and she has been permitted even before I met her.

Her take on gun control is just same as the drug game......illegal and still is highly successful in availability and use.

Really cant argue with that mindset.

I did show her this thread, and she has a lot to say, she wants to chime in sometime tomorrow.

Sent from my Asus TR700T-B1-GR using Xparent Sky Blue Tapatalk 2

[NyKnicks1714]

Semi-automatics are legal.. the only way to get rid of them is to go into people's homes and destroy them...and not sure how you destroy guns out on the street...do you go around asking gangs to give up their arms?...same with other criminals...it is impossible....banning the second amendmet will only end up hurting normal regular citizens.

These guys who are going crazy and shooting people are not gang members. They are mentally ill people who would not have access to these kinds of weapons without it being legal.

If the guy in Aurora went into the hood to buy a semi-automatic weapon the only thing that would happen is he'd get robbed of whatever money he had on him. The only reason he had access to them was because he could either order it online or walk into a gun store and purchase one.

It amazes me that grown men are more worried about their right to play army than they are about the public's safety. And hiding behind the second amendment to justify that "right" is so transparently obvious it just makes you look more ridiculous. And this nonsense about "well there is nothing we can do about it" is complete bull. Why don't we make land mines and surface to air missiles legal? Wouldn't they just show up on the "black market" anyway? Most of these weapons are registered - you don't turn them in you go to jail. How easy is that?

Perfect post. I'll add one more thing though, in response to the commonly used argument that getting rid of guns would leave law-abiding citizens much more vulnerable to criminals, because criminals would have all the guns.

Do people really think that the chance an average citizen might have a gun is holding criminals at bay?

[Little Italia]

Semi-automatics are legal.. the only way to get rid of them is to go into people's homes and destroy them...and not sure how you destroy guns out on the street...do you go around asking gangs to give up their arms?...same with other criminals...it is impossible....banning the second amendmet will only end up hurting normal regular citizens.

These guys who are going crazy and shooting people are not gang members. They are mentally ill people who would not have access to these kinds of weapons without it being legal.

If the guy in Aurora went into the hood to buy a semi-automatic weapon the only thing that would happen is he'd get robbed of whatever money he had on him. The only reason he had access to them was because he could either order it online or walk into a gun store and purchase one.

It amazes me that grown men are more worried about their right to play army than they are about the public's safety. And hiding behind the second amendment to justify that "right" is so transparently obvious it just makes you look more ridiculous. And this nonsense about "well there is nothing we can do about it" is complete bull. Why don't we make land mines and surface to air missiles legal? Wouldn't they just show up on the "black market" anyway? Most of these weapons are registered - you don't turn them in you go to jail. How easy is that?

Perfect post. I'll add one more thing though, in response to the commonly used argument that getting rid of guns would leave law-abiding citizens much more vulnerable to criminals, because criminals would have all the guns.

Do people really think that the chance an average citizen might have a gun is holding criminals at bay?

Well they say a Criminals worst fear is a armed victim. They would think twice about it. Though if a guy who is carrying a concealed handgun and a criminal see's that he's carrying one, the criminal could call a few of his buddies cause most likely he'll need help. Therefore the guy with the ccw would be outnumbered and most likely get killed.

[Moose]

Perfect post. I'll add one more thing though, in response to the commonly used argument that getting rid of guns would leave law-abiding citizens much more vulnerable to criminals, because criminals would have all the guns.

Do people really think that the chance an average citizen might have a gun is holding criminals at bay?

Yes ....if I am a criminal who commits burglaries, I would have a lot less to fear. Same goes with jumping a person on a train platform or elsewhere...no fear....criminals will have illegal guns the same way they do now....but now good citizens will not...So crime would increase just based on that.

If you feel stricter laws prevent crimes, then that is relateable ...fear and consequence ...so you can relate it to that.


And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

[CU_NY09]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

Seriously? Wow.

[Rasho Brezec]

How can anyone seriously compare gun regulation to war on drugs or alcohol prohibition? Two of those things hurt only the individual using them and the other one kills everyone around. And the argument about taking away liberties and protecting yourself from government is just laughable.

If the evil regimes really wanted to opress you and you threatened them with a gun, they'd just send drones or some other high technology military equipment that's being developed with your taxpayer's money. But, yeah, keep scoring high in every crime and violence statistics imaginable, as long as you get to keep your toys.

[johnnywishbone]

Semi-automatics are legal.. the only way to get rid of them is to go into people's homes and destroy them...and not sure how you destroy guns out on the street...do you go around asking gangs to give up their arms?...same with other criminals...it is impossible....banning the second amendmet will only end up hurting normal regular citizens.

These guys who are going crazy and shooting people are not gang members. They are mentally ill people who would not have access to these kinds of weapons without it being legal.

If the guy in Aurora went into the hood to buy a semi-automatic weapon the only thing that would happen is he'd get robbed of whatever money he had on him. The only reason he had access to them was because he could either order it online or walk into a gun store and purchase one.

It amazes me that grown men are more worried about their right to play army than they are about the public's safety. And hiding behind the second amendment to justify that "right" is so transparently obvious it just makes you look more ridiculous. And this nonsense about "well there is nothing we can do about it" is complete bull. Why don't we make land mines and surface to air missiles legal? Wouldn't they just show up on the "black market" anyway? Most of these weapons are registered - you don't turn them in you go to jail. How easy is that?

Perfect post. I'll add one more thing though, in response to the commonly used argument that getting rid of guns would leave law-abiding citizens much more vulnerable to criminals, because criminals would have all the guns.

Do people really think that the chance an average citizen might have a gun is holding criminals at bay?

I totally agree. I do believe that having a gun (like a handgun or a rifle) in your home (provided it's in a safe with the thumb scan lock) is a reasonable request. But the idea that we all need to be walking around strapped is something straight out of Monty Python. There is a reason we have professional law enforcement. The average person doesn't have the training to help in a situation like this. They would just create more danger not less.

Will we capture all the weapons? No. Will there be incidences of gun violence regardless? Of course. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this guy in Connecticut like the guy in Colorado would have been unable to do what he did without the laws being written the way they are.

And even if the trade was that we save one life in exchange all the "gun enthusiasts" lose access to what is basically toys for adults I would take it.

[Grinditout]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

You seem kinda paranoid about the government huh?

[Moose]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

Seriously? Wow.

I know you may be a bit naive and all that, but governments don't always remain good for the people ...don't be so smug and cozy....things can slip away quickly...or methodically and unknowing.

[Grinditout]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

Seriously? Wow.

I know you may be a bit naive and all that, but governments don't always remain good for the people ...don't be so smug and cozy....things can slip away quickly...or methodically and unknowing.

Even if you did have guns to "protect yourself" from the government. It's the friggin government, they'll have more guns than you and more ways to make you disappear. No amount of firearms will help you unless you seclude yourself secretly in an underground bunker and live off the grid.

[Moose]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

You seem kinda paranoid about the government huh?

No, but we don't know the future and these decisions shouldn't only be based around one event or one time period.

In 200 years, the US may be much less Democratic and need change....sometimes change happens through revolt ....perhaps through war...dictatorships don't allow their citizensto have weapons for a reason.

Let's not be so naive ...nations fall and change, the USA may be no different.

[johnnywishbone]

And if we ever need to defend ourselves against a corrupt governent, we would need guns...

In the words of dictator fidel castro to his cuban people, 'guns, for what?'

Seriously? Wow.

I know you may be a bit naive and all that, but governments don't always remain good for the people ...don't be so smug and cozy....things can slip away quickly...or methodically and unknowing.

And what would you do about it? The defense budget is north of 700 billion dollars a year. Do you really think that if a dictator took over the USA they would be at all afraid of militia men?