Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion

[packs]

This is a thread about gun rights so I am talking about gun rights and specific guns that I feel are better off not for sale to the public, for specific reasons. If you want to talk about car accidents start your own thread. It has no place here and is only a strawman tactic to divert attention away from a meaningful discussion we were having before you resorted to name calling.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

This is a thread about gun rights so I am talking about gun rights and specific guns that I feel are better off not for sale to the public, for specific reasons. If you want to talk about car accidents start your own thread. It has no place here and is only a strawman tactic to divert attention away from a meaningful discussion we were having before you resorted to name calling.

Yes this thread is about gun rights and, according to the 2nd Amendment, we have a RIGHT to do so. So if it is our RIGHT, why the discussion to begin with?

[packs]

As I've said in nearly all of my posts, I agree with the right to own guns. As I've pointed out in nearly all of my posts, you can still own guns while not being able to purchase other guns. So your right is protected under the current laws and when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place.

Also I have not called you one single name or insulted your intelligence. That really pissed me off.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Also I have not called you one single name or insulted your intelligence. That really pissed me off.

Childish is asking someone a question, them giving you an answer and then diverting a question when it is asked in return.

Yes, your ridiculous questions insult my intelligence.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You also want to spew your opinion when you don't even know facts. That, too, insults my intelligence. Do you even know the definition or characteristics of an assualt rifle? Name them!

[packs]

Yeah ok. I asked you why you wanted something because I wanted to understand your perspective. You could just apologize for getting heated up and insulting a stranger during a discussion. But something tells me you're a going down the with ship kind of a guy.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by packs

I can't think of a single mass car murder or mass ladder murder. Please point one out to me so I can make an informed decision. For the last time, my opinion is driven by mass murder events. Not the number of total gun deaths. Not figures that have to do with gun violence. My opinion is driven by mass shootings. That's very specific.

Would it make you feel better if they was all pushed outta windows?
-Archie Bunker

Seriously though, do you not remember the Boston Marathon bombing? They had guns and instead chose to use a bomb! Oklahoma City - bomb! 9/11 - airplanes.

I don't mean to be rude but you're really demonstrating some extremely narrow-minded thinking. You have your opinion and no form of persuasive argument will change your mind. Your opinion is based on only those selected mass murder events that fit your apparently ingrained indoctrination. Frankly, people like you scare me way more than anyone who owns an assault rifle.

Look, think about it logically: If you want to kill a bunch of people and you can't get one type of gun, wouldn't you just use a different kind or come up with a different method? You don't honestly believe outlawing one type of deadly weapon will prevent anyone seriously bent on mass murder from using another method do you? That's just insane. Your only real logical argument is to ban all guns. At least admit that that's what you really favor. Because I'd bet if you could vote to ban all guns, you'd do it.

Here's a novel idea: Instead of banning these weapons so only the bad guys have them, how about giving one volunteer at each public high school access to one along with extensive training. That, my friend, would do more to end mass murders at schools than anything anyone like you could ever come up with.

[packs]

Well in response all I can say is that we don't really have a bombing problem in this country. Bombings like the Boston bombing and Oklahoma City are very rare. And a 9/11 event even rarer. What we do have in this country is a higher than usual rate of mass shootings.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Well in response all I can say is that we don't really have a bombing problem in this country. Bombings like the Boston bombing and Oklahoma City are very rare. And a 9/11 event even rarer. What we do have in this country is a higher than usual rate of mass shootings.

Yes, and we also have a high rate of DWI related deaths. You said you asked your question to understand my persepctive. I'm trying to understand yours, and those that think like you. Given the high rate of DWI deaths (something that could absolutely be avoided), where is your outrage over that? And don't give me your chicken chit answer that this thread is about gun control and blah, blah, blah...

[packs]

You are someone I will never engage with again, either in conversation or otherwise. You insulted me twice now for no reason and I won't tolerate your antics.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

You are someone I will never engage with again, either in conversation or otherwise. You insulted me twice now for no reason and I won't tolerate your antics.

You asked me a fair question because you wanted to understand my thought proces. I asked you a fair question because I wanted to understand yours. You couldn't answer my question.

[porkchops]

It's unfortunate that topics like this have to(usually)end in accusations
and name calling. Perhaps a "poll" would be a better way to express
our opinions on important topics of the day ? At least , we could
see which way the wind blows ........... here at net54 .
Ken

[steve B]

Well, lets give this a try for packs.

I'm not a gun owner.
I have ADD and even before being diagnosed I knew I had a tendency towards being a bit disorganized. That to my mind is something that doesn't combine well with any sort of firearms.

But I do occasionally shoot, since friends have some.

It's challenging and yes, it's fun. I've tried pistol, maybe 4-5 different? small and medium rifles and skeet shooting. All different , all fun and challenging. I'm an ok shot, not what I'd call "good" but I can get all the shots on the target, and hit about half the birds. I figure that's pretty good for someone who might get to a range once every couple years or maybe a bit less often.
(Feel free to laugh gun guys )


I think the entire definition of "assault rifle" is a silly fiction made up by politicians as a typical knee jerk reaction to something they couldn't legislate.
It's basically banning things based on how they look. As someone else pointed out there are a number of non-"Assault rifles" that are essentially identical in function, and some that are far more powerful. One of the most popular larger rifles for hunting and target shooting was actually a military weapon when it was new. It's not banned. With the right ammunition there's not a lot of stuff that would make good cover.

If I ever do own a firearm, one of the things that would be part of my choice would be that many of them are fantastic bits of very well made machinery. Taking one apart and seeing how stuff was done mechanically is really amazing. (Yes, I've done that. I'm guessing the group of no gun owners who have taken one apart is pretty small. )

Now, you might wonder why the bad stuff always seems to be done with the same piece of hardware. The answer is to me a simple one. It has nothing to do with whether it was the best choice. It's about image. To use the car analogy - there are stereotypes about different cars and their drivers. Like some cars are more often bought by people who are more prone to speeding or acting superior for some reason. Show a movie scene where the guy in a sleeveless shirt says "Hey, don't lean on the Camaro!" And everyone just smiles and laughs because we've all seen that guy. Not all Camaro owners are, but enough that it's a common image. Same as the BMW driver who thinks he's better than everyone because his car is nice or the Prius driver who looks down on the people wrecking the planet with normal cars. In the same way, something like an AR-15 is more attractive to the nuts than many other bits of hardware. Only a small number of owners are nuts, many are very serious responsible people. But the nuts get the attention.

Some stuff does need to change, firstly a return to reasonableness on both sides. (Some controls do work, full auto has been tightly regulated since I think 1938 and last time I checked there had been exactly 0 crimes committed with a legally owned machine gun) Those rules are probably too strict to be practical for anything else.

Personally I feel that if a person can show they're responsible, safe and respect other people enough in general to not shoot them without a very good reason (Like "he was raving and running at me with a big knife") There shouldn't be any restriction.

If someone demonstrates a lack of those traits then they should get nothing.

If they are going through something that might make them temporarily irresponsible or untrustworthy maybe there should be a system that lets them store the stuff away until they get their stuff back together. currently the only options are " nearly everything is ok" or " you cant have that stuff anymore so we're taking it"

Yes, the middle ground is full of gray area and pitfalls and trying to get that right is much harder than a simple yes/no set of rules. But it would be worth doing.
The current societal "me first and sometimes only" attitude extends to so much and is so hard to change I don't think we'll make much progress if any.

Steve B

[egri]

As an aside, does the term "gun control" remind anyone else of the 'this is my rifle and this is my gun' scene from Full Metal Jacket? (won't post it here in case it violates forum rules; just do a YouTube search for it and you'll see what I mean) That's always the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear someone talk about the need for "gun" control.

[2dueces]

Here is my take on the CHL's. I own and carry a hand gun 90% of the time. I have a Texas CHL and it is honored in 37 states. I understand that certain venues do not allow CHL's. But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

Here is my take on the CHL's. I own and carry a hand gun 90% of the time. I have a Texas CHL and it is honored in 37 states. I understand that certain venues do not allow CHL's. But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

It makes sense what you are saying...and I agree with it. But let me ask you this: how many accidental injuries/deaths have occurred since people have been allowed to carry firearms? I don't know statistics, but I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount...more to offset the good reasons to carry one? Who knows, but I also feel like I hear of more people shooting people over non issues too. In theory, carrying one for protection sounds fabulous, just not sure it works out that way half of the time.

I'm not totally against guns, I just don't see where guns are a positive outside of the military. Sure, they make for a great sport and practice, but outside of that, they just seem dangerous for the most part. We have to admit, even though most of the time it's the people that are the issue, they always get into the wrong hands and people always die when they shouldn't have. In reality, this will never end and people will always have guns, but that doesn't mean I have to say guns are cool and the Constitution gives me enough backing to say they are ok (we have evolved)...yes, guns are a necessary evil in some areas, but are too risky for any random joe to be walking around with one. Just my opinion...

One more thing...the cars/guns comparison doesn't carry any weight. Anyone could pick up a butter knife and go on a killing spree...anyone could ram their car into another car. A car's purpose isn't to kill, but to travel. A gun's purpose is to destroy something...anything if one desires

[RedlegsFan]

You'll never need a gun twice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

It makes sense what you are saying...and I agree with it. But let me ask you this: how many accidental injuries/deaths have occurred since people have been allowed to carry firearms? I don't know statistics, but I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount...more to offset the good reasons to carry one? Who knows, but I also feel like I hear of more people shooting people over non issues too. In theory, carrying one for protection sounds fabulous, just not sure it works out that way half of the time.

I'm not totally against guns, I just don't see where guns are a positive outside of the military. Sure, they make for a great sport and practice, but outside of that, they just seem dangerous for the most part. We have to admit, even though most of the time it's the people that are the issue, they always get into the wrong hands and people always die when they shouldn't have. In reality, this will never end and people will always have guns, but that doesn't mean I have to say guns are cool and the Constitution gives me enough backing to say they are ok (we have evolved)...yes, guns are a necessary evil in some areas, but are too risky for any random joe to be walking around with one. Just my opinion...

One more thing...the cars/guns comparison doesn't carry any weight. Anyone could pick up a butter knife and go on a killing spree...anyone could ram their car into another car. A car's purpose isn't to kill, but to travel. A gun's purpose is to destroy something...anything if one desires

In the hands of an untrained person guns are as dangerous as an unskilled driver. I'm 59, have carried for 28 years and have never once pulled it or shot it besides at the range. My girls were all trained on the dangers of guns. They knew and respected the power both inside my house and at their friends house. Trained to know that they are not toys and are not to be fooled with. But I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it. And as a side, I am not a gun enthusaist.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

In the hands of an untrained person guns are as dangerous as an unskilled driver. I'm 59, have carried for 28 years and have never once pulled it or shot it besides at the range. My girls were all trained on the dangers of guns. They knew and respected the power both inside my house and at their friends house. Trained to know that they are not toys and are not to be fooled with. But I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it. And as a side, I am not a gun enthusaist.

It definitely makes sense! One big reason we own guns is to defend ourselves from people that have ill intent...protect from people with guns. In the end, owning a gun is a huge responsibility and now that any ol joe can carry one, we are asking for more issues IMO.

[packs]

I know what you're insinuating: that if someone had a gun they would have shot him. But that is assuming a lot out of a person who has never been in that situation. And besides, if you arm people like security guards at high schools, you're going to be at the mercy of that person's sanity.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by packs

I know what you're insinuating: that if someone had a gun they would have shot him. But that is assuming a lot out of a person who has never been in that situation. And besides, if you arm people like security guards at high schools, you're going to be at the mercy of that person's sanity.

If we took every senerio with a car, baseball bat or gun we'd live under rocks. Name a security guard, armored car guard or a bank guard that has gone insane and shot people dead. Ok name a terrorist, robber, car jacker that has shot innocent people. Which list do you think is longer and who do you want with you when crime happens? Would you put your hands in front of your face and say "don't shoot" or would you pull your gun and defend your family?

[packs]

Every time I make a post I feel like your instinct is: he thinks we shouldn't have any guns! But that is so far from what I'm saying that I don't understand the reaction. Because of the propensity of weapons from the Federal Assault Weapon Ban being used in mass shootings, all I've said was that the type of guns available for sale to the public should be amended. And that's because in most cases, the weapons I'm talking about taking off the market are bought legally.

Here are some security guard articles I think you should read that demonstrate the dangers of arming security people that I discussed in the post you quoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/sec...stomer/vDPdpG/

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/14/ho...e-parking-lot/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...hood-security#

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-storie...id_27193.shtml

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...blow-up-school

[vintagetoppsguy]

In case anyone overlooked it, Steve made a great point in post #63. I'm only copying part of it, but you can go back and read it in its entirety if you like.

"Now, you might wonder why the bad stuff always seems to be done with the same piece of hardware. The answer is to me a simple one. It has nothing to do with whether it was the best choice. It's about image. To use the car analogy - there are stereotypes about different cars and their drivers. Like some cars are more often bought by people who are more prone to speeding or acting superior for some reason. Show a movie scene where the guy in a sleeveless shirt says "Hey, don't lean on the Camaro!" And everyone just smiles and laughs because we've all seen that guy. Not all Camaro owners are, but enough that it's a common image. Same as the BMW driver who thinks he's better than everyone because his car is nice or the Prius driver who looks down on the people wrecking the planet with normal cars. In the same way, something like an AR-15 is more attractive to the nuts than many other bits of hardware. Only a small number of owners are nuts, many are very serious responsible people. But the nuts get the attention."

I've never considered the "image" aspect of it, but it makes a lot of sense. A lot of these people are "society's rejects" - they never fit in, they were picked on in school, bullied, etc. Mass shootings are their way "get back" at society.

I honestly think that if you gave one of these nuts the choice between a slingshot and an AR-15 and told them that each would kill the same number of people, they would choose the AR-15 because, just as Steve said, the image that it projects. They fill empowered with an assault rifle over other weapons of choice. They want to go out in a blaze of glory. After all, there are certainly other ways to kill a large number of people besides an assault rifle. The assault rifle give them the power or respect (or so they think) that they never had before.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by packs

Every time I make a post I feel like your instinct is: he thinks we shouldn't have any guns! But that is so far from what I'm saying that I don't understand the reaction. Because of the propensity of weapons from the Federal Assault Weapon Ban being used in mass shootings, all I've said was that the type of guns available for sale to the public should be amended. And that's because in most cases, the weapons I'm talking about taking off the market are bought legally.

Here are some security guard articles I think you should read that demonstrate the dangers of arming security people that I discussed in the post you quoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/sec...stomer/vDPdpG/

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/14/ho...e-parking-lot/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...hood-security#

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-storie...id_27193.shtml

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...blow-up-school

I think it's great that we can have an adult conversation that states our views in a civil way. I don't get the assault rifle fixation but then again I don't get paying 20k for a PSA 10 when you can buy a 9 for $200 and cannot see the difference. I agree with your statements and I've seen those headlines. Problem is the crazies don't need a license to get a gun, just a few hundred bucks. And as I type this someone is shooting up a theater in Louisiana. Geez

[clydepepper]

I do not normally involve myself with this type discussion, but recent events have made it more important for me to do so...in the hopes that it will help someone else sort things out.

For years, I was my own worst enemy, loosing jobs, friends, and lovers along the way. Thank goodness, I realized my limitations, if not a solution at the time, and never sought to purchase a weapon.

About fifteen years ago, when I had just lost another job and was well on the way to loosing the true love of my life, a friend gave me some good advice...I wound up going to a psychologist who diagnosed me as suffering from depression. He put me on a prescription and my life has never been the same. Almost overnight, my family notice the difference and reached out to get closer than we had ever been before.

Now. I have bored you with my story to send a clear message that someone will get something out of:

I strongly urge everyone who may even consider the possibility that they are depressed, to get help immediately.

One person I knew growing up never got the right assistance when he should have...and the results showed up on Thursday night in a movie theatre in Lafayette, LA.

He never should have been able to arm himself, but he did.

Do not be ashamed or afraid to speak up for yourself or someone you know and get the help before it is too late.

I sincerely hope that this helps someone because the price has already been paid for this free advise.

-Raymond

[packs]

Another mass shooting today in San Bernadino. Pretty telling quote from Obama:

The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there’s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently, common-sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks and, you know, for those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can’t get on planes but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

this is wrong, guns don't deter crimes and shootings with all the studies having been done. all i know is there's a weekly mass shooting across the country, and i read about how some dude just killed a waitress because he couldn't smoke inside the waffle house??? now another mass shooting in san berdune which hits a little too close to home.

this country is effed with no cure in sight. i don't feel safe going to the mall, i don't feel safe going to the theater, i don't feel safe sending my kids to school, and i certainly don't feel safe at work as some mentally disturbed individual can just go off on the rest of us because HR looked at them wrong. i'm actively looking for a transfer to my home country or might even consider canada at this point...y'all have fun with the assault rifles and open carries.

p.s.oh yea and i'm not white so i gotta watch my back for the po-po also....

[packs]

Guns used in this attack were AR-15s, the same AR-15s that would have been banned and illegal to sell under the previously held Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Guns used in this attack were AR-15s, the same AR-15s that would have been banned and illegal to sell under the previously held Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

So an assault weapon ban would would eliminate these type shootings? Is that what you're saying? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your comment.

Assault weapons are banned in France too. That didn't stop the terrorists. 129 people dead.

They're banned in Norway as well. That didn't stop Breivik. 69 people dead.

[packs]

I guess we should sell them to whoever wants them and just wait around to see what they do with them. That's a better idea than taking them off the market and allowing people to possess other weapons not on the ban.

Also your mention of France and Norway is actually counter intuitive to your point, seeing as France and Norway do not have mass shootings in their countries that out number the days of the year like we do. So I would say not selling them in France and Norway does indeed impact the number of mass shootings in the country in which assault weapons are used.

Lastly, if your argument is that making something illegal doesn't mean you can't get it, that's obvious to everyone. But I don't see why you don't think there's a difference between something being legal to buy and illegal to buy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess we should sell them to whoever wants them and just wait around to see what they do with them. That's a better idea than taking them off the market and allowing people to possess other weapons not on the ban.

Ok, I'll bite. So, let's say that an assault weapons ban is re-instated. Going forward, no more sell (or trade or barter in any way) of assault weapons, the ammo they shoot, high capacity magazines, accessories (flash compressors, folding stocks, etc.) etc.

What about the ones already in the hands of individuals?

So, my question once again (since you failed to answer it the first time), would that (meaning a ban) eliminate these types of shootings?

Edited for clarification.

[packs]

No one is talking about a singular solution to this problem. The thing you're not grasping is that if something is illegal, that makes it harder to get. In almost every instance, an assault weapon that was previously banned was purchased legally by a person who then carried out a mass shooting. Very rarely are they not purchased legally. That's because they're easy to get. They chose that weapon specifically, not by chance.

So, once again, if you have a group of people in this country who are choosing to buy a specific type of weapon to carry out mass shootings, how is it not in the public's best interests to remove that weapon from store shelves?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

The thing you're not grasping is that if something is illegal, that makes it harder to get.

Like drugs?

Originally Posted by packs

how is it not in the public's best interests to remove that weapon from store shelves?

You keep avoiding my question. Here it is, real simple. Even if a ban was imposed today, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS? Do you let them keep them? Do you confiscate them? What?

[packs]

Your question changes every time a point you make is refuted. There's nothing to gain from having a conversation with you.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Your question changes every time a point you make is refuted. There's nothing to gain from having a conversation with you.

My question has been the same from the beginning. I just keep wording it differently thinking maybe you'll comprehend it. Obviously not.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So an assault weapon ban would would eliminate these type shootings?

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What about the ones already in the hands of individuals? So, my question once again (since you failed to answer it the first time), would that (meaning a ban) eliminate these types of shootings?

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS? Do you let them keep them? Do you confiscate them? What?

Your inability to answer the question shows your lack of intelligence. Thanks for playing along.

[packs]

Those are two different questions. One is about eliminating shootings and the other is about past weapon sales. It's obvious to me that past sales have nothing to do with banning future sales, which is what I'm talking about. Like I said, nothing you say is constructive or interesting or pertinent to anything at hand.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Those are two different questions. One is about eliminating shootings and the other is about past weapon sales. It's obvious to me that past sales have nothing to do with banning future sales, which is what I'm talking about. Like I said, nothing you say is constructive or interesting or pertinent to anything at hand.

You are your usual self. I've come to expect it from you. The questions are very much related. Since you obviously can't answer them, I will.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So an assault weapon ban would eliminate these type shootings?

No. Why? Because there are millions already in the hands of individuals.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What about the ones already in the hands of individuals?

There's nothing you can do about that.



Now, how hard was that?

[packs]

So then you've made zero points as demonstrated by your own answering.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

So then you've made zero points as demonstrated by your own answering.

Ummm, no. Your confusing points with solutions. I've made zero solutions. I have made a point.

There are no solutions. You can ban all guns, not just assault rifles, and these tragedies will still occur. Because, like I've said, there are already millions in the hands of individuals. And, even when people don't have the means to access guns, they will still find a way to carry out mass killings.

The point I made is there is nothing that can be done.

[packs]

Well if that's really true then how come no other country on earth has the amount of shootings the US has? More mass shootings this year than days.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Well if that's really true then how come no other country on earth has the amount of shootings the US has? More mass shootings this year than days.

Because most of them had gun confiscations along with gun bans. There's a difference between a confiscation and a ban. Ok, impose a ban! Big deal? That doesn't eliminate the millions that are already in the hands of individuals. That's my point. Now, if you want to impose a confiscation, that's a different story. It would be a civil war in this country - literally.

[packs]

These shootings are a blight on America. We should be disgusted with them. Clearly banning weapons is an effective way to reduce gun violence. Just look at Britain. Don't be obtuse and suggest there are no solutions to curbing mass shootings. Even if someone uses a different weapon and kills just one less person, that one less person is worth saving. You're uncomfortable with someone telling you that you can't have something. That doesn't mean more people need to die just because you don't like being told no. Get a different type of gun and move on.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Clearly banning weapons is an effective way to reduce gun violence. Just look at Britain.

That's a blanket statement without all the facts. Of course it stands to reason that the US has more gun violence than Britain - because we have MORE guns. Duh! They have less guns because they started enacting gun legislation in the early 1900's. America did not. If Britain had the amount of firearms in their hands that the US has, they would have a gun violence problem as well.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Another question for you. I'm sure you'll ignore this one too as you always do, but I'll ask anyway.

If banning drugs doesn't resolve the drug problem, how would banning guns resolve the gun problem?

It seems to me that if someone wants to use drugs, they have no problem finding them. Don't you think if someone wanted to get a gun (for the sake of argument, let's just assume they're all banned), do you think they would have a a problem finding one? It's always been my experience that if someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it - illegal or not.

[packs]

If its your position that if a law can be broken it shouldn't be a law, then why do we have laws at all? Every law has been broken. So does that make them senseless?

Also, I don't need to be the one to come up with some singular solution so I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say when you keep asking me questions and expecting me to have some end all solution. Your line of thinking and reasoning is inherently flawed and that makes you incapable of having a meaningful conversation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

If its your position that if a law can be broken it shouldn't be a law, then why do we have laws at all? Every law has been broken. So does that make them senseless?

No, that's not my position. I'm just smart enough to know that banning guns isn't a solution and doesn't eradicate the problem. It doesn't address the millions of guns that are already in the hands of individuals. You just keep spewing your stupid rhetoric and refuse to address that point.

[packs]

What point? That something that occurred in the past occurred in the past? What are you even saying? My point is that today a person can waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 legally without hassle. That's what I'm trying to change. You keep bringing up the past. What does that have to do with increasing gun restrictions and banning the sale of certain types of weapons? I'm concerned with how easy it is to buy guns, not with the fact that people have bought guns before.

Like I said before, it's impossible for you to have anything pertinent or constructive to say.

[packs]

Double post.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

My point is that today a person can waltz into a store and buy an AR-15 legally without hassle. That's what I'm trying to change.

Again with the stupid rhetoric, but no answers. Okay, let's say that is changed. Let's say that ALL guns are banned. You got your way. Now, what do you do about the ones already in the hands of individuals? What is to keep those out of the hands of the bad guys?

[packs]

You're the only one talking about banning all guns. It has no place in the discussion, which is centered around banning the sales of assault weapons previously banned, while not restricting your access to other types of weapons.