Driver kills 50 and injures 50+ (hyperbole)

a reply to: thov420

I really don't feel like this an apt comparison considering the uses guns are used for versus the uses cars are used for. For one, cars aren't routinely used to kill other lifeforms as one of its primary functions.

a reply to: georgeglass

Thank you for the apology.

There is definately something wrong in the US to cause all these mass shootings. I don't know how to fix it but I do know attacking the object instead of the subject isn't going to fix anything.

I thought my OP was fairly subjective, or at least more so than nutty, but thanks for the criticism.

a reply to: georgeglass

The bottom line is something needs to change, I doubt many will argue.

I am happy to argue.

There is no LOGICAL reason to restrict guns or have stricter laws that what already exist. In fact there are plenty of laws that already 'infringe' on the rights to own and purchase a gun.

Only an emotional appeal seems to get people excited about changing gun laws. This is because the facts don't support new laws or imply any additional efficacy they would create.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: georgeglass

I think you may have 'understood' too quickly and forgot to read the whole thing.
hyperbole is in the title for crying out loud.
Sheesh..

Okay....and I apologized.

Move on.

a reply to: georgeglass

How about a couple jets used as weapons in 2001? Or maybe a couple pressure cookers and backpacks?

Outlaw backpacks now!

a reply to: georgeglass

What I suggest is to follow the laws of the US. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? Taking rights away from law abiding citizens because a small percentage will abuse them is wrong.

Unfortunately people have, do, and will continue to die regardless of the laws on the books. I'm not any happier about it than you or anybody else. But I'm not willing to infringe on people's right to defend themselves from the bad element in society.

a reply to: Metallicus

Besides hunting what reason is there for the average person to own a weapon?

Self defense?

Are you comfortable pulling a weapon out and shooting another person?

Think about it for a moment....

The person you just killed has or had a mother and a father who may or may not love the person.
Children could be wondering why the person is never coming home.
A spouse may be preparing a meal for the person you just killed.

Why?

Why did you feel the need to shoot the person? Did the person cut you off while you were on your way to work, the store, to pick up your child, or to go to church?

Maybe the person stole your purse or backpack......is it right for you to kill that person?

Just saying I don't think the average person needs to carry a weapon.

jmho.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right, it's a far stretch between the two. It wasn't really meant to be a literal comparison but I get where you're coming from.

Guns are made to kill and cars are made for transport. That fact isn't up for debate. Most guns aren't used to kill other people either but some want to limit everybody's rights because some people use guns to kill others.

originally posted by: georgeglass
Okay I apologize for calling the op a moron.

The bottom line is something needs to change, I doubt many will argue.

I defend the rights of the second amendment but we are all on the U.S. government goon's radar.

People are passionate but if you take it back a notch or two you appear to be less like a nut.

Appearance is everything.

You've obviously been taught this little ditty by the media. I know, I hear it all the time on broadcast media---"Brand X will make your business look more professional." or "Brand X will make you look more appealing." It's very sad.
The bottom line is that something needs to change----a lot needs to change. The swamp known as Washington DC needs to be drained and the scum inhabiting said location needs to be exposed to sunlight to wither and die. The entire structure is corrupted by a single party system that parades as a "choice." The military-industrial-petrochemical-transnational fascists need to be shipped out to their just rewards---a small cell where they see daylight for only one hour a day. But because many citizens, like you, believe that appearance is everything and so the criminals in DC put up a good appearance and that's all that matters. They spend millions with the media to create that appearance to deceive us. Very sad indeed because it obviously works.

a reply to: georgeglass

If I may jump in, I would never be comfortable taking another's life. I've never been in that position and I hope I never am. I would feel horrible for the exact reasons you mentioned, but if it's him/her or me? I'm going with me every time. Cutting someone off in traffic is not reason enough to shoot somebody, neither is stealing a purse/wallet in my eyes but I'm not about to judge someone who feels their lives are in danger.

Cut to armed robbery or breaking and entering and things take a whole new twist. The criminal isn't just stealing but violating your sanctity at that point. Deadly force is definitely on the table but again it's up to the individual on how they want to defend themselves and their families.

The 2nd doesn't demand anyone do anything, it just allows those who choose, to bear arms to defend themselves.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: georgeglass
Okay I apologize for calling the op a moron.

The bottom line is something needs to change, I doubt many will argue.

I defend the rights of the second amendment but we are all on the U.S. government goon's radar.

People are passionate but if you take it back a notch or two you appear to be less like a nut.

Appearance is everything.

You've obviously been taught this little ditty by the media. I know, I hear it all the time on broadcast media---"Brand X will make your business look more professional." or "Brand X will make you look more appealing." It's very sad.
The bottom line is that something needs to change----a lot needs to change. The swamp known as Washington DC needs to be drained and the scum inhabiting said location needs to be exposed to sunlight to wither and die. The entire structure is corrupted by a single party system that parades as a "choice." The military-industrial-petrochemical-transnational fascists need to be shipped out to their just rewards---a small cell where they see daylight for only one hour a day. But because many citizens, like you, believe that appearance is everything and so the criminals in DC put up a good appearance and that's all that matters. They spend millions with the media to create that appearance to deceive us. Very sad indeed because it obviously works.

Wow! How do you really feel?

Just wondering if there is anything with which you are angry?

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Guns are made to kill and cars are made for transport. That fact isn't up for debate. Most guns aren't used to kill other people either but some want to limit everybody's rights because some people use guns to kill others.

But see this is the biggest hangup that most people have. Regardless if most guns aren't used to kill humans, the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things. Even doing target practice is just practicing for the real thing of shooting another living being. Now when it comes to hunting, I understand 100%. I like meat just as much as the next guy (especially venison).

The problem arises from the few who see an easily accessible tool made for killing and use it to achieve their violent agendas. I really DON'T want to punish all gun owners for the few bad apples; thus my solution is to merely tighten up the rules to buy a gun. Most people would still qualify and anyone who owns a gun before the tightening of the rules would obviously still be able to continue owning it since that isn't a gun ban.

But see, at the end of the day we already have laws on the books that say that killing someone is illegal. It carries with it the maximum legal penalties a crime can have in our judicial system. Using a firearm while committing a crime comes with ADDITIONAL charges as well. Yet people are still killing others with guns. I understand that there is no way to prevent criminals from killing each other, but if we make it a bit harder for them to go about doing their crimes then maybe we can reduce our violent crime statistics.

Now if this solution involves not letting people buy guns on the no fly list, then I am FIRMLY for developing better federal oversight for who gets put on and taken off of that list. It is too porous as it is now.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not against the No Fly- No Buy thing, as long as the federal government actually provides said list and a process for appealing being on it at all. Without that, it's just going to be another list of names that removes rights without due process.

I'm not sure how we could actually tighten up rules for buying guns without limiting private transactions. All guns sold through a store/pawn shop/gun shop have to go through a background check and registering of said firearm. All guns sold across state lines require an FFL dealer to run a background check before the weapon can be turned over. Any individual who thinks their buyer isn't allowed to buy firearms is not allowed to sell to them. What more can we actually do besides violating HIPPA laws?

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not against the No Fly- No Buy thing, as long as the federal government actually provides said list and a process for appealing being on it at all. Without that, it's just going to be another list of names that removes rights without due process.

I like that idea too actually. A public no fly list with appeal permissions for those on it would be a FANTASTIC idea.

I'm not sure how we could actually tighten up rules for buying guns without limiting private transactions. All guns sold through a store/pawn shop/gun shop have to go through a background check and registering of said firearm. All guns sold across state lines require an FFL dealer to run a background check before the weapon can be turned over. Any individual who thinks their buyer isn't allowed to buy firearms is not allowed to sell to them. What more can we actually do besides violating HIPPA laws?

Try to remove the gun show loop hole for one. Maybe institute a federally defined waiting period and background check for gun purchases across the country (that way you have consistency across the country and someone can't skip the boarder of his tight gun control state to a state with lesser laws to buy said gun). I'm just spit balling here though.

Silly op,cars where built to drive from point a to b, i borrowed my neighbors gun and tried to go to mexico but it dint work.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As I stated earlier, the gun show loophole is not a loophole. Most vendors at gun shows are manufacturers and gun shops. They are both required by federal law to run a background check on their buyer. The only people at gun shows who can sell without the background check are private sellers, which is selling less than a certain number of firearms per year. Now allowing private sellers to access the federal background check database would be awesome, since they can't currently access it as a private individual. But forcing them to do background checks every time a private firearm is passed from 1 person to the next is a little ridiculous.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Star for ... wit I guess?

Thanks anyways.

a reply to: georgeglass
So when I say I think it is very sad indeed that our system has been corrupted by greed for power and money, you equate that with being angry? When I say that I am sad that a whole generation of people have been trained to look only at appearances, you equate that with anger? Perhaps you have need of a dictionary?
I got over my anger many, many years ago---LBJ cured me of being angry. Now I work to make things better for those in my community and am eternally sad to see others doing the same and being thwarted at every turn by government agencies who only see money and power as a goal, not the uplifting of their fellow citizens.
LBJ and Nixon also cured me of the believing the idea that switching the administration from one party to the other party would make any real difference. There is only one cure for crookedness---incarcerate them away from civil society.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Star for ... wit I guess?

Thanks anyways.

Dude your comparing a thing built for killing to a thing built for transportation, i know its to sell your silly ideal, but hey i guess at last you tried lol.

a reply to: thov420

Regardless of what it is, this is still possible in this country.

It took us 38 minutes to walk out of a gun shop with a death machine.

Just two days after Omar Mateen used a semi-automatic rifle to murder 49 innocent people and injure dozens more, we were able to purchase an AR-15 — a rifle similar to Mateen’s that has been used in several other mass shootings on American soil — in less time than it takes to buy a cart full of groceries.

We would have been locked and loaded within five minutes, but the gun shop employee we spoke to said the queue on background checks was longer than usual because people were scrambling to buy AR-15s in the wake of the shooting. That’s both terrifying and unsurprising — gun sales often skyrocket after mass shootings.

What kind of efficient background check gets completed in five minutes?

The answers that I'm pitching aren't going to be easy to come up with and implement, but first we need to have an honest discussion, minus the hyperbole, about how easy it is to obtain these things. If for once someone could offer up gun control and the person against it didn't immediately label that person as a "gun grabber" would be the greatest day in America.