Gun Control

[SaltyDawg]

So I'm seeing reports today that the Newtown school shooter left the assault rifle in the car, and it was not used in the attack. Instead, he used hand guns (more than 1). Not only that, but he tried to buy an assault rifle a few weeks before the school shooting and was denied.

Don't know how accurate it is, I saw it on Facebook, lol.

If it's true, then the proposed gun control laws wouldn't have done anything to stop the Newtown shooting.

Does this change anyone's stance on the proposed gun control regulations, assuming it's true?

[Beantown]

Well the problem is not that they do not have compassion but that they do not consider an unborn child a child. Keep in mind that the opinion on this widely differs.

As for me I am personally pro life but think that abortions should be legal. I am however against partial birth abortions and late term abortions. Partial birth abortions are an abomination in my opinion.

I agree with this.

[Stoked]

So I'm seeing reports today that the Newtown school shooter left the assault rifle in the car, and it was not used in the attack. Instead, he used hand guns (more than 1). Not only that, but he tried to buy an assault rifle a few weeks before the school shooting and was denied.

Don't know how accurate it is, I saw it on Facebook, lol.

If it's true, then the proposed gun control laws wouldn't have done anything to stop the Newtown shooting.

Does this change anyone's stance on the proposed gun control regulations, assuming it's true?

I am pretty sure that it is widely known that while he had both the rifle and handguns it was the rifle he used.

However he killed his own mother so that he would have uncontrolled access to the guns. So not the gun laws would not have changed this shooting.

He obtained them illegally already. Even if they had a 10 ammo limit he had handguns as well. He simply would have changed guns.

[Beantown]

Exactly the gun law could never ever stop the Newtown shooting. He was denied buying a gun and the guns he used were stolen.


You guys hear about that lady in Florida that is paying $60,000 a year to have a full time police officer in her sons elementary? Crazy but awesome.

[SaltyDawg]

I am pretty sure that it is widely known that while he had both the rifle and handguns it was the rifle he used.

However he killed his own mother so that he would have uncontrolled access to the guns. So not the gun laws would not have changed this shooting.

He obtained them illegally already. Even if they had a 10 ammo limit he had handguns as well. He simply would have changed guns.

MSNBC is saying it was 4 handguns, not the assault rifle:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

[Stoked]

MSNBC is saying it was 4 handguns, not the assault rifle:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

Interesting. That is new to me. Still would not have stopped the shooting.

[One Brow]

When I am threatened my general reaction is anger not fear. Also your question indicated that it has to be one or the other. That is a false assertion.

It's the fear that leads to anger. I'm presuming that when a toddler says they'll spank you, you get amused, not angry. T%hat's because the toddler poses no threat, so there is no fear to convert to anger.

As for the yelling at an NRA rally it depends on what they are yelling and why but you know all this. Is that crowd singling out someone present? Are they shouting slurs? Are they holding their weapons in an aggressive manner?

Only one of those three (slurs) applied to the Philadelphia incident, if you were trying to draw a parallel. So, if you go to an NRA rally, and you see people with guns yelling about "Communists" trying to take your guns, do you get fearful (sorry, angry)? I'd wager not.

Stop trying to play political games.

I haven't mentioned politics.

I care that they are members of a hate group, in full gear yelling racial slurs and brandishing weapons.

Is it important that the slurs be racial? Because outside of that, you're describing an NRA meeting.

You can argue semantics all you want ...

No semantics involved. Just perception.

[One Brow]

Does this change anyone's stance on the proposed gun control regulations, assuming it's true?

Unless you limit the number of guns a person can own (and no one is proposing that), I agree there is nothing that could be done to stop a situation exactly like Newtown. However, since future situations will not be exactly like Newtown, I think we can make a few changes to reduce the damage that can be done.

[SaltyDawg]

Unless you limit the number of guns a person can own (and no one is proposing that), I agree there is nothing that could be done to stop a situation exactly like Newtown. However, since future situations will not be exactly like Newtown, I think we can make a few changes to reduce the damage that can be done.

Well since it was Newtown that prompted these changes, if the changes wouldn't have prevented it then there is no reason to consider them.

[Stoked]

It's the fear that leads to anger. I'm presuming that when a toddler says they'll spank you, you get amused, not angry. T%hat's because the toddler poses no threat, so there is no fear to convert to anger.



Only one of those three (slurs) applied to the Philadelphia incident, if you were trying to draw a parallel. So, if you go to an NRA rally, and you see people with guns yelling about "Communists" trying to take your guns, do you get fearful (sorry, angry)? I'd wager not.



I haven't mentioned politics.



Is it important that the slurs be racial? Because outside of that, you're describing an NRA meeting.



No semantics involved. Just perception.

I can see that you are in one of your moods and truly have no desire to debate. Your goal at this point is simply to twist words to suit your purpose. For that you must find another poster.

Good day.

[Hartsock]

So are we for or against guns?

[One Brow]

Your goal at this point is simply to twist words to suit your purpose.

Good flounce. Very impressive.

My goals are/were:
1) Expose the double standard in your statements, possibly even one day getting you to see them yourself, and
2) Amuse myself in the process

It's only natural that you would see 1) as "twisting words". That's the only way you can see it while holding that double standard.

[One Brow]

Well since it was Newtown that prompted these changes, if the changes wouldn't have prevented it then there is no reason to consider them.

So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.

[SaltyDawg]

So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.

Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.

If I have a heart attack and then change my eating habits, chances are I would have never had the heart attack if I had changed my diet sooner. In this case, the proposed gun control laws would not have done a damn thing to prevent the Newtown shooting, no matter how early they were enacted. Further, we now know that the existing laws did their job and denied the shooter the opportunity to buy his own gun shortly before the shooting. And we also know that he, as criminals often do, found a way to get them anyway (illegally).

This gun control crap has now been exposed to be an over reaction. It's time to move on and forget about it.

[One Brow]

Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.

Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".

I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?