Jump to content


Parkland, FL High School Shooting


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, mrandyk said:

I suggest we should all lose our freedom to own a gun. As long as these things are relatively easy to purchase for some, they'll be accessible to all. I think the only answer is to take a hard line against firearms. Their cost to society far outweighs their benefit.

It depends on how you look at it.   A person that lives in a big metropolitan city really has no use for a gun other than for protection.  A person that lives in a rural area will use a gun for hunting, which provides food for them, and for protection.  

 

 

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Don't be that guy, you know what he was implying.

Calm them...

 

He said freedoms. So, it's open to interpretation. If he meant ban any civilian ownership than I disagree. If he meant something like a car where you need to be continually licensed, insured, and subject to inspection then I tend to agree.

 

The difference between those we call on when s#!t hits the fan and an average civilian is that they are trained regularly, disciplined, and have access to psychiatric/medical help.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I'm not either. It's a question a lot of us are having trouble with. But that doesn't even matter. Could we at least start working on the answer to how to make there be even slightly less mass shootings? Say, even 10% less? Could we start there and then work our way towards stopping? No. Apparently we cannot.

 

Also nobody is suggesting that you should give up your freedom to own a gun. That's not something you need to worry about as it's not something that anyone is trying to take away.

 

The bolded part, I'm not convinced you're correct...


 

Quote

 

For the gun-control side, the unspoken belief is that nothing short of all out confiscation will have an appreciable effect on decreasing gun deaths. Then again, it’s not that unspoken—gun-control advocates just prefer tergiversation to clarity.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-they-want-to-take-your-guns-away

 

 

Then there's this...

 

http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/hollywood-calls-for-gun-control-florida-high-school-shooting-1202699481/

 

Now does anyone in the link above explicitly say, "Take away everyone's guns?"  Admittedly, no. 

 

However, I'm not sure how they intend to accomplish their goals of gun control without taking away people's guns.  Maybe I'm just too paranoid here, but it seems that gun control and taking away people's guns will go hand in hand.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

The bolded part, I'm not convinced you're correct...


 

 

Then there's this...

 

http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/hollywood-calls-for-gun-control-florida-high-school-shooting-1202699481/

 

Now does anyone in the link above explicitly say, "Take away everyone's guns?"  Admittedly, no. 

 

However, I'm not sure how they intend to accomplish their goals of gun control without taking away people's guns.  Maybe I'm just too paranoid here, but it seems that gun control and taking away people's guns will go hand in hand.  

Yes, some people's guns will be taken away. That would kind of be the point of gun control. Those that shouldn't have guns won't be allowed to have them any longer. We seriously need to stop with this boogyman dreamt up by the NRA and GOP that they are after every gun that every citizen owns... I think we've seen how nothing gets accomplished to talking in extremes.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Calm them...

 

He said freedoms. So, it's open to interpretation. If he meant ban any civilian ownership than I disagree. If he meant something like a car where you need to be continually licensed, insured, and subject to inspection then I tend to agree.

 

The difference between those we call on when s#!t hits the fan and an average civilian is that they are trained regularly, disciplined, and have access to psychiatric/medical help.

 

The exact suggestion was we should all lose freedom to bare arms as in nobody should be able to have one.

 

Don't word it to fit a different narrative. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

The exact suggestion was we should all lose freedom to bare arms as in nobody should be able to have one.

 

Don't word it to fit a different narrative. 

Well, instead of focusing on the extremist view to lose all freedoms to bear arms, why don't we discuss what we could do.

 

Based on the actual text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", one idea I've had is to split the well regulated militia and the individual right. For example, we could only allow multiple shot weapons to those who are part of a well regulated militia, with the militia bearing some legal responsibility for the acts performed by their members. And separately, only allow individuals to own weapons that have to be reloaded after every shot (or every 2 or 3 shots). My thinking is that the militia would house the semi- and full-auto weapons with a firing range and have some system for signing them in and out, and since individuals won't have weapons that can cause mass shootings, it would at least reduce the number that are happening. And if someone is signing a more deadly weapon out of an armory, then perhaps someone can notice their behavior and either prevent release of the weapon or contact the authorities.

 

It's far from a fool-proof idea, but I think it's a start.

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, ZRod said:

Yes, some people's guns will be taken away. That would kind of be the point of gun control. Those that shouldn't have guns won't be allowed to have them any longer.  We seriously need to stop with this boogyman dreamt up by the NRA and GOP that they are after every gun that every citizen owns.. I think we've seen how nothing gets accomplished to talking in extremes.

 

  • So who decides who's allowed to have guns and who's not? 
  • Is it a state by state thing? 
  • Or is there a national panel that decides for everyone? 
  • Who would be on this panel? 
  • What would qualify them to be on such a theoretical panel?

 

And the notion that there are people who absolutely want to take away everyone's guns is not the "boogeyman" scenario you mock.  It is most definitely a very real concern because there are people out there who want to do exactly that.  I believe if they were completely honest, people like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, lots of people in Hollywood (reference the tweets in the links I posted), and others would absolutely want every gun in America confiscated and taken away.  Of course the elites, people I just mentioned, their bodyguards and protection details would be armed--probably heavily.  

 

No one outside of a psychopath or sociopath wants to see a mass shooting occur.

 

But looking back on history, lots of things can happen when a populace is disarmed, and hardly any of them are good. 

 

Edit...I have a personal story to share as to why I have the stance I do here, just not certain I want to divulge it. 

 

Edited by Making Chimichangas
Link to comment

I think those "elitest" you mention probably couldn't careless if guns we're banned. Because they have never,or extremely infrequently, use them. They also are a minority of the population. Just like a minority of the population wants unrestricted access to guns. So, let's stop talking extremes and start talking reality. 

Edited by ZRod
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Redux said:

 

The exact suggestion was we should all lose freedom to bare arms as in nobody should be able to have one.

 

Don't word it to fit a different narrative. 

I apologise, I misread what he posted. The point still stands about the level of training and certification compared to the average citizen.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...