Jump to content
Scratchtown

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that better gun regulation is aimed 95% at the relatively 'regular' citizens who either commit suicide or end up murdering someone because of ease of access combined with escalating disputes.

 

Ignore the ISIS extremists and the gang members for a second.

 

 

 

 

The majority of people killing with guns, believe it or not, are "for the most part" people like you and me. The guns are a tool. Think of a scenario where you would use any other tool for a job. Let's say 1 million people want to build a deck and need a hammer. If the hammer is laying right next to them, it's easy. If they don't have a hammer and have to pay $50, well a few thousand of them won't have the money, a few thousand more will be too lazy and decide that they have better things to do, and they'll give up on the pursuit. Then, if they have to drive an hour to go get a hammer, well, that weeds out several thousand more who don't have enough conviction to go through with the necessary process.

 

Gun regulation is the idea of putting good, sensible filters in the way of easy, careless and thoughtless acquisition of serious, lethal weapons. The people that really want them still completely have the means to get them, but you put a number of deterrents in the way that make those ill-equipped or careless have to really work hard and/or earn the ability to get their hands on one. It doesn't stop everyone, especially crazed extremists or people absolutely committed to going on a rampage, but it does filter out a lot (or at least more than we do now) of people that probably or definitely shouldn't be having guns.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

 

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

 

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

 

Guns are a huge problem.

 

People are a huge problem.

 

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

 

 

Guns are not the problem!

 

The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!

 

However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.

 

Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.

 

 

It'd have to involve a massive ship-building operation by ISIS, after they capture a few ports, and then mass training of their fighters as naval personnel, then the fleet sailing through the Mediterranean unstopped, past Gibraltar somehow, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic while the American Navy is (apparently?) distracted by something shiny, a landing on American shores where they can safely debark their troops while the Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Marines are tied up in a back room, Lassie is unable to go get help, and Chuck Norris is otherwise occupied.

 

In this scenario, the Air Force doesn't exist, because I can't figure out how they don't bomb the whole fleet to smithereens.

 

After that all happens - which is likely, you have to admit - at that point, Joe Average Citizen, America!, is going to have to drive those radical Muslims from our sacred shores.

 

I guess.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

 

 

B.S.

So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.

 

 

It'd have to involve a massive ship-building operation by ISIS, after they capture a few ports, and then mass training of their fighters as naval personnel, then the fleet sailing through the Mediterranean unstopped, past Gibraltar somehow, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic while the American Navy is (apparently?) distracted by something shiny, a landing on American shores where they can safely debark their troops while the Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Marines are tied up in a back room, Lassie is unable to go get help, and Chuck Norris is otherwise occupied.

 

In this scenario, the Air Force doesn't exist, because I can't figure out how they don't bomb the whole fleet to smithereens.

 

After that all happens - which is likely, you have to admit - at that point, Joe Average Citizen, America!, is going to have to drive those radical Muslims from our sacred shores.

 

I guess.

 

 

I do not know if Redux was really stating (believe that to be true) there was going to be a invasion? While I don't entertain the idea that ISIS has the ability to carry out a mass invasion, let's not be so naive to think that they can't inflict a lot of carnage with our lackadaisical border policies. They have proven that their sleeper cells are in fact in the US of A and they have the ability inflict at will in most cases, painful outcomes to which the gun policy comes to the forefront!

 

I would rather have and not need, than to need and not have! But it's "not for everyone" and "shouldn't be" either!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

 

You can't tell me that wasn't hilarious.

 

 

 

Also, I was responding to this, which if you didn't mean an invasion of American shores, it sure came across that way....

 

 

 

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.

Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?

The other edge is the "fantasy" as you so eloquently put it.

 

You honestly think ISIS isn't capable or willing to mass attack us? You honestly think the general public would be better off unarmed in that scenario? Now who is fantasizing...

 

It's unlikely ISIS ever amasses a force so grand that civilians have to take to arms to defend themselves. But it's certainly not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that was really funny :D

 

In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.

 

If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I merely laid out a scenario.

 

I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun violence in communities, on our own soil, is far more rampant than acts of terrorism from Muslim extremists on our soil.

 

23, 344 shooting incidents have happened in 2016 so far in the U.S. Almost 6,000 of those involved someone dying.

 

I'm not trying to downplay the dangers of terroristic acts against America, but we have a bigger problem neighbor to neighbor than anything else.

 

Edit - I had to adjust some numbers there as they were off. Should be accurate now.

This, right here.

 

I merely laid out a scenario.

 

I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.

What *is* your scenario, though? I mean, you said knapp twisted it. So what is the actual scenario where:

 

WE NEED GUNS --> Or else ISIS might do this.

 

If the argument is that civilian gun ownership is America's insurance against terrorism, then please make the case for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

You can't tell me that wasn't hilarious. Also, I was responding to this, which if you didn't mean an invasion of American shores, it sure came across that way....

 

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?
The other edge is the "fantasy" as you so eloquently put it.You honestly think ISIS isn't capable or willing to mass attack us? You honestly think the general public would be better off unarmed in that scenario? Now who is fantasizing...It's unlikely ISIS ever amasses a force so grand that civilians have to take to arms to defend themselves. But it's certainly not impossible.

So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that was really funny :D

 

In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.

 

If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.

 

I'm on that train as well. Guns are a "want," not a "need." America needs to collectively come to terms with this, and then we can make progress.

 

I understand that we have to make significant changes to our society before people will be willing to give up their guns, and that's going to take generations. But we can get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question on banning guns.

 

It is correct that we have some cities that have banned hand guns....correct? Also, it is correct that some of these cities have the highest murder rates and gun crime rates in the nation. NO....I'm not correlating the two. BUT....if the guns are banned, why don't police get the guns off the streets?

 

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?

You really need to explain this better, because nothing short of a Red Dawn type of invasion is going to require Joe America to get his AR-15 out of the gun cabinet to defend hearth & home.

 

Or maybe I just have more faith in our boys & girls in uniform than some people.

 

VF1p5XN.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?

Um ... yes?

 

What's the alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question on banning guns.

 

It is correct that we have some cities that have banned hand guns....correct? Also, it is correct that some of these cities have the highest murder rates and gun crime rates in the nation. NO....I'm not correlating the two. BUT....if the guns are banned, why don't police get the guns off the streets?

 

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

 

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

 

City-wide gun bans don't work because all you have to do is step five feet outside the city limits to get a gun. Those laws are largely window dressing. For such laws to work they would have to be nation-wide.

 

But the reality is, we're not going to get rid of guns unless the vast majority wants to. Look at Prohibition - it didn't work because the people still clearly wanted their liquor & cigarettes. Unless the vast majority are behind different gun laws, they'll never work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

 

B.S.

So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.

 

 

 

Okay obviously I shouldn't have to spell out that if I say "nobody" that doesn't actually literally mean that there isn't a single person living in our country who might hold that position. But no legislators are fighting for making guns illegal. There are no laws being drafted towards this end. There are no conversations about banning guns entirely. You either hang out with the weirdest people on the planet or you're full of sh#t with your 9/10 claim, whereas I was being slightly hyperbolic because I didn't find it necessary to spell out, "The majority of the population and also the majority of our elected officials are not at all talking about the idea of making guns illegal"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let's not be so naive to think that they can't inflict a lot of carnage with our lackadaisical border policies.

 

lacksadaisical huh?

 

 

wh_blog_refugee_workflow_1125.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

if you guys want to seriously talk about the potential of ISIS doing damage on American soil, then what you need to be talking about is censoring and controlling internet access, where US citizens are being exposed/indoctrinated into ISIS sympathy. Stop talking about them loading up the active troops from the Middle East to get over here, because it just aint happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no chance that they are already here? No chance they have been coming in for years under false identities? No possible way they could go undetected then unite together to go on a mass killing spree?

 

K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

 

 

B.S.

So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.

 

Okay obviously I shouldn't have to spell out that if I say "nobody" that doesn't actually literally mean that there isn't a single person living in our country who might hold that position. But no legislators are fighting for making guns illegal

I was throwing out a quick stat, sorr I don't have the time to download and share white house charts and graphs.

 

And for the record, if the talks of removing guns were happening, we wouldn't know about it until the act was well under way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Okay, that was really funny :D

 

In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.

 

If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.

 

I'm on that train as well. Guns are a "want," not a "need." America needs to collectively come to terms with this, and then we can make progress.

 

I understand that we have to make significant changes to our society before people will be willing to give up their guns, and that's going to take generations. But we can get there.

 

 

Knapp, you recently brought up the "unicorn" as an example within a religious thread. Are you now bringing into the fold a "fairy"?

 

Because if you are not, good luck on getting rural america or past servicemen to agree to give up their arms, which I may add were used to protect the very rights of gun ownership along with other rights everyone seems to take for granted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

 

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

I'm not completely familiar with the Chicago situation. What happened after the landmark 2010 case that overturned their prior gun restrictions, in the wake of DC v. Heller?

 

...which highlights the thing that really chafes at me. Cities should be able to try things more freely. But they're hamstrung by the efforts of the NRA-ILA to overturn everything.

 

To the latter point, I guess what I'd say is you have to reduce the number of guns. If that isn't accomplished, I don't think you can make many real gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no chance that they are already here? No chance they have been coming in for years under false identities? No possible way they could go undetected then unite together to go on a mass killing spree?

 

K...

 

 

if you're actually genuinely asking the questions, why don't you do like 10 minutes of research for yourself? you'll find a few things out, such as the fact that the screening process is very effective but can never be 100%, that they are here, but that our government has flagged and stopped essentially any and all strategized terrorist attacks, and that pretty much all of the successful deaths at the hands of ISIS sympathizers came at the hands of american citizens

 

why you insist on spouting off these insane opinions, scenarios, and rhetorical questions without actually researching any of this is beyond me, but like zoogs I'm still waiting to hear about this "if we take guns away then ISIS invades" scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no chance that they are already here? No chance they have been coming in for years under false identities? No possible way they could go undetected then unite together to go on a mass killing spree?

 

K...

 

I hope you know I'm trying to inject a bit of humor in an otherwise dark conversation, and don't take it personally. If it's too inappropriate for anyone, I'll stop.

 

 

To answer your question, it's likely there are terror cells here in America. But I'm confident in our protectors, the police & armed services, to take care of the situation before it ever devolves into a situation where I personally need to take up arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

 

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

I'm not completely familiar with the Chicago situation. What happened after the landmark 2010 case that overturned their prior gun restrictions, in the wake of DC v. Heller?

 

...which highlights the thing that really chafes at me. Cities should be able to try things more freely. But they're hamstrung by the efforts of the NRA-ILA to overturn everything.

 

To the latter point, I guess what I'd say is you have to reduce the number of guns. If that isn't accomplished, I don't think you can make many real gains.

 

 

 

 

Chicago is a city. Chicago isn't a country. I live here, I've had enough conversations with law enforcement officers and city officials to know that the guns on the streets aren't guns that are coming from Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no chance that they are already here? No chance they have been coming in for years under false identities? No possible way they could go undetected then unite together to go on a mass killing spree?

 

K...

So is this a scenario where America has already been infiltrated en masse with ISIS terrorists, and we have no idea who or where they are?

 

1) In what sense are they being stopped, currently, by civilian gun ownership from causing another mass casualty public event?

 

2) Is it better or worse for Americans for these under-the-radar sleepers to probably be able to purchase all the firearms and ammunition they could want, legally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So there's no chance that they are already here? No chance they have been coming in for years under false identities? No possible way they could go undetected then unite together to go on a mass killing spree?

K...

 

 

if you're actually genuinely asking the questions, why don't you do like 10 minutes of research for yourself? you'll find a few things out, such as the fact that the screening process is very effective but can never be 100%, that they are here, but that our government has flagged and stopped essentially any and all strategized terrorist attacks, and that pretty much all of the successful deaths at the hands of ISIS sympathizers came at the hands of american citizens

 

why you insist on spouting off these insane opinions, scenarios, and rhetorical questions without actually researching any of this is beyond me, but like zoogs I'm still waiting to hear about this "if we take guns away then ISIS invades" scenario

You pretty much believe anything the government says huh?

 

And again, it was just an extreme scenario. But please keep being standoffish, just like the liberal handbook says to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has some of the toughest gun laws in existence and yet we have that mass shooting over there. Banning guns won't solve the problem.

 

What gets me is whether we have gunmen who are psyco (Sandy Hook, VT) or radicalized - in some many cases authorities knew something about them. Wt VT and Sandy Hook the psyco killers had known mental issues but the system didn't go far enough to either help them or detain them (until they were healed or in control of their mental condition ) In the case of San Bernardino, Boston, Orlando - authorities knew these people, had investigated them but just didn't have quite enough evidence to detain them. But when it comes to after the event, they can point to their 'due diligence' and say - "Well we weren't caught completely by surprise!". But what good is due diligence without some restraining action? Yes there is a fine line here between liberty and having a police state. Somehow the system is failing us in these cases. Yes, our investigations have stopped others and maybe we should consider ourselves fortunate that there haven't been a dozen more attacks.

 

One concern I have is that this will play into Trump's dialogue for the campaign (not that I want Hillary's dialogue to win out either). We could end up wt a benevolent dictator if the next president can't balance the liberty/security scales properly. Here is Trump's speech on the subject:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only took 1 ISIS sympathizer born in America to pullnoff the deadliest mass shooting in American History.

 

What do you think would happen if all the actual ISIS plants already here orchestrated an attack? I'm asking honestly because if you think it's outside the realm of possibility you'rr lying to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only took 1 ISIS sympathizer born in America to pullnoff the deadliest mass shooting in American History.

 

What do you think would happen if all the actual ISIS plants already here orchestrated an attack? I'm asking honestly because if you think it's outside the realm of possibility you'rr lying to yourself.

How are Americans having guns stopping them?

 

Why is the answer not making it more difficult for ISIS "plants" or perhaps, more likely, converts, to purchase guns? Why is it instead that we need the NRA to get their way with gun laws in this country, or else ISIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knapp, you recently brought up the "unicorn" as an example within a religious thread. Are you now bringing into the fold a "fairy"?

 

Because if you are not, good luck on getting rural america or past servicemen to agree to give up their arms, which I may add were used to protect the very rights of gun ownership along with other rights everyone seems to take for granted.

OK, those servicemen & women like their guns. I know tons of them. Just about all of them are gun aficionados. But that attitude can change, as long as people want to.

 

British servicemen & women carry weapons while enlisted, and gladly set them aside when their service is done. Same happens in France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Belgium, etc etc etc. Only in America, in our culture, do we have this desire to hold onto our weapons.

 

I consider it the same as a painter. He goes to work every day and uses his brush to do his job. But when he's done, he puts his brush down and goes home. Same with the guy using a jackhammer, driving a forklift, mowing a lawn. They use tools, and the gun is just a tool. When it's time to stop using the tool, you set it down.

 

That's the attitude we need with guns here. They're just tools, and we don't need them all day, every day. That's the SIMPLE answer to the problem, but how we get there involves societal changes galore, like some of the ones saunders has discussed earlier in the thread.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pretty much believe anything the government says huh?

 

 

 

The level of faith I put in something generally correlates with the amount of data available, as well as my own personal experience. Since A) there's tons of research and study and public information that suggests the insane lack of probability involved in massive ISIS infiltration of our country, and B) i haven't really seen any terrorist attacks in our country since 9/11 with the exception of individual mass shootings, then I believe we are safe.

 

You, on the other hand, believe in ghosts, lay out scenarios where ISIS soldiers are going to be at my doorstep if we give up our guns, apparently think made up numbers in your head are statistics, and then espouse pretty nutty conspiratorial phrases like, "If this happening, we wouldn't even know it until it already happened."

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

 

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

 

What if that's true?????

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has some of the toughest gun laws in existence and yet we have that mass shooting over there. Banning guns won't solve the problem.

 

 

Mass shootings aren't the problem we're trying to solve. Next.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has some of the toughest gun laws in existence and yet we have that mass shooting over there. Banning guns won't solve the problem.

For the eleventy-seventh time, nobody thinks changing America's view on guns will "prevent" or "stop" gun violence. We're trying to curb it, not stop it.

 

To further the French example, in 2012 France had 0.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people. The US had 3.43 per 100,000 people. France is doing something right, yeah?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You pretty much believe anything the government says huh?

 

 

The level of faith I put in something generally correlates with the amount of data available, as well as my own personal experience. Since A) there's tons of research and study and public information that suggests the insane lack of probability involved in massive ISIS infiltration of our country, and B) i haven't really seen any terrorist attacks in our country since 9/11 with the exception of individual mass shootings, then I believe we are safe.

 

You, on the other hand, believe in ghosts, lay out scenarios where ISIS soldiers are going to be at my doorstep if we give up our guns, apparently think made up numbers in your head are statistics, and then espouse pretty nutty conspiratorial phrases like, "If this happening, we wouldn't even know it until it already happened."

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

 

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

 

What if that's true?????

Way to keep the debate impersonal brah.

 

I respect your opinion and if you bothered to read all my comments here you would see I actually sympathize partly with the idea sh#t needs to change and availability is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

 

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

 

What if that's true?????

There isn't a ghost of a chance that's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

 

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

I'm not completely familiar with the Chicago situation. What happened after the landmark 2010 case that overturned their prior gun restrictions, in the wake of DC v. Heller?

 

...which highlights the thing that really chafes at me. Cities should be able to try things more freely. But they're hamstrung by the efforts of the NRA-ILA to overturn everything.

 

To the latter point, I guess what I'd say is you have to reduce the number of guns. If that isn't accomplished, I don't think you can make many real gains.

 

For the record, it's not just the NRA doing things because they're the NRA. It's actual citizens who are objecting to these laws. DC v Heller happened because citizens wanted to be able to protect themselves, and the District of Columbia had a handgun ban for regular citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It only took 1 ISIS sympathizer born in America to pullnoff the deadliest mass shooting in American History.What do you think would happen if all the actual ISIS plants already here orchestrated an attack? I'm asking honestly because if you think it's outside the realm of possibility you'rr lying to yourself.

How are Americans having guns stopping them?Why is the answer not making it more difficult for ISIS "plants" or perhaps, more likely, converts, to purchase guns? Why is it instead that we need the NRA to get their way with gun laws in this country, or else ISIS?
The answer IS to make it harder for those people to aquire guns, but your scathing stance on the issue ignored when I said that 2 pages ago. I do want better control and less availability. But you're hung up on the fact I said it would sure be nice to be able to protect myself if an invasion occured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

 

B.S.

So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.

 

 

 

Okay obviously I shouldn't have to spell out that if I say "nobody" that doesn't actually literally mean that there isn't a single person living in our country who might hold that position. But no legislators are fighting for making guns illegal. There are no laws being drafted towards this end. There are no conversations about banning guns entirely. You either hang out with the weirdest people on the planet or you're full of sh#t with your 9/10 claim, whereas I was being slightly hyperbolic because I didn't find it necessary to spell out, "The majority of the population and also the majority of our elected officials are not at all talking about the idea of making guns illegal"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let's not be so naive to think that they can't inflict a lot of carnage with our lackadaisical border policies.

 

lacksadaisical huh?

 

 

wh_blog_refugee_workflow_1125.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

if you guys want to seriously talk about the potential of ISIS doing damage on American soil, then what you need to be talking about is censoring and controlling internet access, where US citizens are being exposed/indoctrinated into ISIS sympathy. Stop talking about them loading up the active troops from the Middle East to get over here, because it just aint happening.

 

 

OK, Landlord, let me use your own words to express my thoughts, and I quote "Okay obviously I shouldn't have to spell out that if I say "nobody" that doesn't actually literally mean that there isn't a single person living in our country who might hold that position"

 

 

Yes our government body does screen to the best of their abilities, each person who "legally" attempts to enter the USA!

 

Got me there!

 

But those who come across by other means, meh, what can one person do right? (many more than one have entered the USA by other means)

 

Oh, and those who are sympathizers who travel abroad and return, meh, no worries, right!

 

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon. ~ Jeopardy song playing

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can agree that this was an act of Muslim terrorism, then we should be able to agree that the gun laws in Florida, or lack thereof, put the gun in the terrorist's hands quite easily AND legally.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

Stop this. The reason he used a gun is it's the most readily-accessible tool to kill mass amounts of people. It's easily transportable and easily acquired.

 

The gun is part of the problem. Let's stop pretending it isn't.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

France has some of the toughest gun laws in existence and yet we have that mass shooting over there. Banning guns won't solve the problem.

For the eleventy-seventh time, nobody thinks changing America's view on guns will "prevent" or "stop" gun violence. We're trying to curb it, not stop it.

 

To further the French example, in 2012 France had 0.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people. The US had 3.43 per 100,000 people. France is doing something right, yeah?

 

I don't disagree wt you on the need for reform Knapp. I probably overstated by using the word 'ban'. I think some curbs are needed but even wt that, the bad guys will still get theirs. So, we need to work on the processes that keep the bad guys off the streets - whether they are mental/psyco or radical terrorist bad guys. Even if all guns were banned, then the bad guys will use some other method to inflict horrific carnage. And yes, as Knapp says - a gun is the easiest form of weapon to obtain and create the havoc.

So, some kind of reform is needed - I for one am not sure where to start - since I don't own automatic or a semi-auto gun - I don't see the 'usefulness' for the ave citizen. Do we limit guns to hunting rife/shot guns and certain hand guns for protection??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

 

 

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a scenario I want to throw out there. Keep in mind it's just a scenario:

 

What if all of the gun manufacturers were actually members of ISIS, and without us knowing it, they put tiny little explosive implants in every single gun made, and are just waiting for the right combination of good weather and a lull in the news cycle to blow them all up at the same time, killing about half of the population?

 

What if that's true?????

There isn't a ghost of a chance that's true.

 

 

 

Dude chill, not saying it's true. Just laying out a scenario.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree wt you on the need for reform Knapp. I probably overstated by using the word 'ban'. I think some curbs are needed but even wt that, the bad guys will still get theirs. So, we need to work on the processes that keep the bad guys on the streets - whether they are mental/psyco or radical terrorist bad guys. Even if all guns were banned, then the bad guys will use some other method to inflict horrific carnage.

There will still be carnage if guns are banned, yes. Some inflicted by illegal guns, some by knives, bombs, cars, whatever. People will use sticks & stones to carry out murder if they have to. We know this, we can't prevent this. All we can do is try to curb the problem. That's a reasonable thing to do.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

 

 

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

 

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it. He was investigated by the FBI, but never accused or charged with anything. We don't strip people of their rights without due process, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, it's not just the NRA doing things because they're the NRA. It's actual citizens who are objecting to these laws. DC v Heller happened because citizens wanted to be able to protect themselves, and the District of Columbia had a handgun ban for regular citizens.

If DC citizens wanted those laws overturned, it is as easy as electing politicians to undo the handgun ban. The problem with DC v Heller is that this was the product of the NRA -- and the consequence of the landmark 5-4 decision is that now, when actual citizens maybe want gun control, they have to run up against the enormous weight of the law of the land saying their desired laws are unconstitutional.

 

 

How are Americans having guns stopping them?Why is the answer not making it more difficult for ISIS "plants" or perhaps, more likely, converts, to purchase guns? Why is it instead that we need the NRA to get their way with gun laws in this country, or else ISIS?

The answer IS to make it harder for those people to aquire guns, but your scathing stance on the issue ignored when I said that 2 pages ago. I do want better control and less availability. But you're hung up on the fact I said it would sure be nice to be able to protect myself if an invasion occured.

If we can agree that ISIS is an irrelevant appeal in the discussion of gun control, then I guess we just agree! :D I'm happy to agree, especially on the bolded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

 

 

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

 

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

Going back to our discussions on this yesterday -- there was a legal consensus. The NRA-ILA invested an enormous amount of effort over decades to reshape that legal consensus. And so Heller was the product of their gains.

 

Heller wouldn't have been decided that way in 1992, or 1982, or 1972. The NRA wanted this change, and they got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

 

 

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

 

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

 

Yeah, like I said, that's not it. It was a bad law even the ACLU fought, and wouldn't have done a thing in this instance.

 

Edit: ACLU's take: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×