DrewEckhardt 0 #101 December 3, 2008 QuoteRegardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. The only way to make society completely safe is to lock every individual up in a padded room where they can't hurt anyone else. Making it illegal to be in public without wearing a "kill switch" device like the remote controlled stun belts criminals get to wear in court would be a start. We can then apply biometrics to automatically detect potential perpetrators, activate their incapacitation devices, and dispatch the police when thought crime is detected. We could ease people into it, starting with requiring the devices for commercial air travel and progressing to public transport. If it saves one life, it'll be worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #102 December 3, 2008 QuoteFACT - CURRENT Laws do not prevent illegal gun purchases. Nor will they ever. CURRENT Laws don't prevent anything for that matter. Simple. Really. No REALLY! Agreed - but that is a problem with the current laws and the gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #103 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteFACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really. More tap dancing? Sure it was clearly not in reality a gun free zone. But according to LAW it was a gun free zone meaning it was illegal to carry there. So now you're coming to realize that there IS a difference between reality and what is claimed. I guess you're making progress, slowly. REALITY is that the current laws are ineffective, and effective law proposals get knee-jerk opposition from the gun lobby.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #104 December 3, 2008 QuoteIn order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly. Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #105 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteIn the states that do register, it makes sense to remove the waiting period for a second gun purchase. In order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly. Solid studies have shown the uselessness and futility of waiting periods anyway. I've posted them on here before. It's just a dumb "feel good" idea. John, read the part in bold. I said that in the states that are already registering anyway, it makes sense to remove waiting periods for second guns. They already know you have a gun. Yes, waiting periods are probably largely useless in practice. I agree with you, but they're probably constitutional. I don't like it, but I don't have a constitutional argument against it, because waiting a couple of days for a gun could probably meet strict scrutiny if the law is written carefully enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #106 December 3, 2008 Quote Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #107 December 3, 2008 QuoteThe problem is that it's virtually impossible to eliminate random wacko violence (gun or otherwise). If you take away guns, all you see is fertilizer bombs being used instead, or sarin gas attacks in subways, or some other variety of wacko-ness. I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. While I agree, it's the ease of acquiring the items in question that is a primary enabler of the episode. It would take a substantially longer time period than the infamous three days to acquire and construct a fertilizer bomb weapon capable of taking out, for instance, 12 of your bosses and co-workers at the post office. I seriously doubt the average person could construct a viable sarin gas weapon without killing himself in the process. Compare that to going to a gun show, picking up the weapon and bullets and showing up to work on Monday morning. Look at the Columbine incident. The home made weapons didn't work at all. All of the guns did. Quote I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. Again, this supposes that all guns will be taken away if some sort of new AWB goes into effect. To date, I don't think anybody in the Obama camp is even suggesting that.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #108 December 3, 2008 Quote Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. Because lots of governments (foreign and domestic) have changed their minds about what sort of guns the people are allowed to have and forced people to surrender their guns. When you live in a country where people riot during disasters, the police are under no obligation to protect you during those riots, and have a government that holds people on secret charges and sends them to foreign countries to be tortured you might not want to risk that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #109 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #110 December 3, 2008 Quote I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. Yes, we should have more effective laws to make it much more difficult for wackos to get guns. Current laws are toothless. Quote Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. . I seriously doubt that a wacko could obtain sarin.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #111 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Although Supreme Court justices get old, retire, die, and get replaced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #112 December 3, 2008 >I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've >got sarin gas in the subways. I think the argument "give em an easier way to kill people so they don't try a harder way" is a non-starter. Timothy McVeigh had a lot of guns; didn't stop him from making an ANFO bomb and killing 168 people. The Aum Shinrikyo terrorist group certainly had weapons; they assassinated people with them. That didn't stop them from releasing Sarin in the Tokyo subways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #113 December 3, 2008 Quote Look at the Columbine incident. The home made weapons didn't work at all. All of the guns did. Gun free safe zone. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #114 December 3, 2008 Quote If it were up to me, I'd scrap the patchwork quilt of inconsistent existing laws and start over from scratch. What would be the first three laws you'd propose? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,500 #115 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. Yes, we should have more effective laws to make it much more difficult for wackos to get guns. Current laws are toothless. Quote Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. . I seriously doubt that a wacko could obtain sarin. They can in Japan - not just obtain it, but make it. (Though obviously this requires a certain class of wacko)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #116 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteFACT - CURRENT Laws do not prevent illegal gun purchases. Nor will they ever. CURRENT Laws don't prevent anything for that matter. Simple. Really. No REALLY! Agreed - but that is a problem with the current laws and the gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws. There is no such thing (law)when it comes to wacko's. In any senario you can come up with. period! Even a total and absolut ban would not do what you want. AND Law and/or the NRA have absolutly NOTHING to do with what you say here. It is your feeling. but that is all it is. The proof lies on the other side. Sorry you cant seem to see that....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #117 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteFACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really. More tap dancing? Sure it was clearly not in reality a gun free zone. But according to LAW it was a gun free zone meaning it was illegal to carry there. So now you're coming to realize that there IS a difference between reality and what is claimed. I guess you're making progress, slowly. REALITY is that the current laws are ineffective, and effective law proposals get knee-jerk opposition from the gun lobby. Again sir kallend. There never has been, there are none now, nor will there ever be a "law" that does what you want or hope for. sorry....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #118 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteIn order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly. Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. Registration is the first step toward confiscation. Look at history in other countries if you do not beleive me. Also, the gov has no right (IMO) to know that I own a constitutionally protected tool."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #119 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. You may think so, but the fact that it actually happened in California (SKS) in the past decade shows once again that you are wrong. And since you're always concerned with theft of guns, having a nice list of homes with expensive weapons seems like a step in the wrong direction. The illegal actions in New Orleans during Katrina is yet more evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites futuredivot 0 #120 December 3, 2008 Quote I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Which can be overturned by another decision-We've already lost "shall not be infringed" by cowards arguing semantics. Really the only people deathly afraid of guns are untrained, uninformed, or brainwashed. Or just people certain they don't have a chance in hell of winning a gunfight. But, like I've kinda said before-if you and/or your loved ones are under attack by a thug with a tire tool-do you want to see a candy ass dialing 911 or me with my unregistered firearm and willing to give up my freedom for your life?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,028 #121 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. Yes, we should have more effective laws to make it much more difficult for wackos to get guns. Current laws are toothless. Quote Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. . I seriously doubt that a wacko could obtain sarin. They can in Japan - not just obtain it, but make it. (Though obviously this requires a certain class of wacko) I doubt the average US postal worker can synthesize sarin in his garage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,028 #122 December 3, 2008 Quote Quote I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Which can be overturned by another decision-We've already lost "shall not be infringed" by cowards arguing semantics. ? Like Antonin Scalia Quote But, like I've kinda said before-if you and/or your loved ones are under attack by a thug with a tire tool-do you want to see a candy ass dialing 911 or me with my unregistered firearm and willing to give up my freedom for your life? On the whole, I consider Americans with guns to be more of a risk to me and my family than thugs with tire irons, given that some 75% of homicides (and robberies) are committed with guns. (Source www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide /multiple.htm) I have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #123 December 3, 2008 Quote It would take a substantially longer time period than the infamous three days to acquire and construct a fertilizer bomb weapon capable of taking out, for instance, 12 of your bosses and co-workers at the post office. I seriously doubt the average person could construct a viable sarin gas weapon without killing himself in the process. The waiting period wasn't designed to prevent mass murder. It was supposed to force a cooling off period so someone wouldn't buy a gun in rage and then use it. Of course, it also has the effect of leaving a would be victim defenseless for the same time. The 3 day period more recently for the NICs check was to give sufficient time to check for flags against purchase, reduced to near instant when the computers were fully linked. Quote Look at the Columbine incident. The home made weapons didn't work at all. All of the guns did. so let's play the what-if game. What if the boys did not illegally obtain weapons from a friend, and their bomb under the cafeteria did not function. Without the guns as an alternate choice, they likely try to fix the bomb. Scenario 1) they fix it, cause far more deaths and injuries than they did with guns. 2) They try to fix it, are caught in the process. Best outcome. 3) They try to fix it, set it off in the process, kill themselves and the lunch lady, since it's not lunchtime. 4) They fail to fix it, nothing happens, they retreat and plan for another day. Could lead to scenario 1, 2, 3, or 4, or 5. 5) They give up and become good, well adjusted boys. (least likely outcome) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #124 December 4, 2008 I was directly responding to Tom's points about larger weapons, not gun in general. Quote The waiting period wasn't designed to prevent mass murder. It was supposed to force a cooling off period so someone wouldn't buy a gun in rage and then use it. If a person is slowed from committing a single victim crime of passion that also applies to multiples. In the particular case of Columbine, it wouldn't have mattered at all, but speaking to Tom's point about multiple victims, the guns absolutely were the effective weapons and not the home made ones.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #125 December 4, 2008 Quote If a person is slowed from committing a single victim crime of passion that also applies to multiples. I think the issues behind mass shootings are beyond a mere cooling period, with the possible exception of workplace firings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 5 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
FallingOsh 0 #114 December 3, 2008 Quote If it were up to me, I'd scrap the patchwork quilt of inconsistent existing laws and start over from scratch. What would be the first three laws you'd propose? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #115 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. Yes, we should have more effective laws to make it much more difficult for wackos to get guns. Current laws are toothless. Quote Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. . I seriously doubt that a wacko could obtain sarin. They can in Japan - not just obtain it, but make it. (Though obviously this requires a certain class of wacko)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #116 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteFACT - CURRENT Laws do not prevent illegal gun purchases. Nor will they ever. CURRENT Laws don't prevent anything for that matter. Simple. Really. No REALLY! Agreed - but that is a problem with the current laws and the gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws. There is no such thing (law)when it comes to wacko's. In any senario you can come up with. period! Even a total and absolut ban would not do what you want. AND Law and/or the NRA have absolutly NOTHING to do with what you say here. It is your feeling. but that is all it is. The proof lies on the other side. Sorry you cant seem to see that....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #117 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteFACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really. More tap dancing? Sure it was clearly not in reality a gun free zone. But according to LAW it was a gun free zone meaning it was illegal to carry there. So now you're coming to realize that there IS a difference between reality and what is claimed. I guess you're making progress, slowly. REALITY is that the current laws are ineffective, and effective law proposals get knee-jerk opposition from the gun lobby. Again sir kallend. There never has been, there are none now, nor will there ever be a "law" that does what you want or hope for. sorry....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #118 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteIn order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly. Please don't freak out on me here. I am asking an honest question not trying to stir anything up. Why are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. I don't understand what the problem is with that. When talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. Registration is the first step toward confiscation. Look at history in other countries if you do not beleive me. Also, the gov has no right (IMO) to know that I own a constitutionally protected tool."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #119 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. You may think so, but the fact that it actually happened in California (SKS) in the past decade shows once again that you are wrong. And since you're always concerned with theft of guns, having a nice list of homes with expensive weapons seems like a step in the wrong direction. The illegal actions in New Orleans during Katrina is yet more evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #120 December 3, 2008 Quote I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Which can be overturned by another decision-We've already lost "shall not be infringed" by cowards arguing semantics. Really the only people deathly afraid of guns are untrained, uninformed, or brainwashed. Or just people certain they don't have a chance in hell of winning a gunfight. But, like I've kinda said before-if you and/or your loved ones are under attack by a thug with a tire tool-do you want to see a candy ass dialing 911 or me with my unregistered firearm and willing to give up my freedom for your life?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #121 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos. Yes, we should have more effective laws to make it much more difficult for wackos to get guns. Current laws are toothless. Quote Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. . I seriously doubt that a wacko could obtain sarin. They can in Japan - not just obtain it, but make it. (Though obviously this requires a certain class of wacko) I doubt the average US postal worker can synthesize sarin in his garage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #122 December 3, 2008 Quote Quote I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Which can be overturned by another decision-We've already lost "shall not be infringed" by cowards arguing semantics. ? Like Antonin Scalia Quote But, like I've kinda said before-if you and/or your loved ones are under attack by a thug with a tire tool-do you want to see a candy ass dialing 911 or me with my unregistered firearm and willing to give up my freedom for your life? On the whole, I consider Americans with guns to be more of a risk to me and my family than thugs with tire irons, given that some 75% of homicides (and robberies) are committed with guns. (Source www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide /multiple.htm) I have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 December 3, 2008 Quote It would take a substantially longer time period than the infamous three days to acquire and construct a fertilizer bomb weapon capable of taking out, for instance, 12 of your bosses and co-workers at the post office. I seriously doubt the average person could construct a viable sarin gas weapon without killing himself in the process. The waiting period wasn't designed to prevent mass murder. It was supposed to force a cooling off period so someone wouldn't buy a gun in rage and then use it. Of course, it also has the effect of leaving a would be victim defenseless for the same time. The 3 day period more recently for the NICs check was to give sufficient time to check for flags against purchase, reduced to near instant when the computers were fully linked. Quote Look at the Columbine incident. The home made weapons didn't work at all. All of the guns did. so let's play the what-if game. What if the boys did not illegally obtain weapons from a friend, and their bomb under the cafeteria did not function. Without the guns as an alternate choice, they likely try to fix the bomb. Scenario 1) they fix it, cause far more deaths and injuries than they did with guns. 2) They try to fix it, are caught in the process. Best outcome. 3) They try to fix it, set it off in the process, kill themselves and the lunch lady, since it's not lunchtime. 4) They fail to fix it, nothing happens, they retreat and plan for another day. Could lead to scenario 1, 2, 3, or 4, or 5. 5) They give up and become good, well adjusted boys. (least likely outcome) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #124 December 4, 2008 I was directly responding to Tom's points about larger weapons, not gun in general. Quote The waiting period wasn't designed to prevent mass murder. It was supposed to force a cooling off period so someone wouldn't buy a gun in rage and then use it. If a person is slowed from committing a single victim crime of passion that also applies to multiples. In the particular case of Columbine, it wouldn't have mattered at all, but speaking to Tom's point about multiple victims, the guns absolutely were the effective weapons and not the home made ones.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #125 December 4, 2008 Quote If a person is slowed from committing a single victim crime of passion that also applies to multiples. I think the issues behind mass shootings are beyond a mere cooling period, with the possible exception of workplace firings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
