• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

Ranb said:
Not stupid at all. Many gun control laws are aimed primarily at law abiding persons and simply make gun possession a victimless crime. I only have to point to the AWB of 1994 as an example. It made mere possession of an assault weapon made after 1994 a crime unless you were one of those special people who were exempt.

If you said gun advocates just want to shoot people, I would ask you to prove it. So can you.

Ranb
Click to expand...

I'm not asserting that gun advocates just want to shoot people. You haven't given one iota of evidence that gun control advocates want to punish gun owners.
 
Ranb said:
Gun ownership is an individual right in the USA. If a person has to pay for a right, then it is no longer a right.

Since voter fraud is a problem, let's hear your proposal for registered voters to personally pay for fraud prevention measures to ensure the value of their vote is not diluted.

Ranb
Click to expand...


Voter fraud is not a problem, and it's irrelevant to the issue. It is interesting that it seems harder to vote in some states than to buy a gun legally.

People have always had to pay for guns. Placing a tax on those purchases is hardly diminishing a right.
 
tyr_13 said:
So guns become illegal in the US. Would this make it harder for gangs to get guns? No, in fact it would become another revenue stream for the gangs and empower them even more. Maybe you disbelieve this. Fine.
Click to expand...

This is just raw assertion. Other countries have banned guns for civilians, and for some reason, it made it much harder for gangs to get guns.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have a hard time thinking that gun owners at home are always holstered or armed, just waiting for a home invasion.
Click to expand...

As I sit here at my computer, within my easy reach are two .45 auto's -1 is 8+1 the other is 14+1 and the top (in the chamber) in each (chambered round) is a Black Talon and six feet away is one of the spears. . The only functional entry to the house (where functional means I won't know you are breaking in until the door pops open)is the front door. If the door breaks open, before an entrant can figure out what is happening at least three bullets will be moving toward him to say "Hi! Welcome in!"

No children and my wife also knows weapons so any room we are in much has another official greeter for the uninvited. The current weakest same is my old Taurus .357. Now, in all fairness, I do not grab for anything when the doorbell rings or I hear a knock, I do not spend any time looking out the windows for trouble (don't expect any and like most of my neighbors) don't jump when kids run through my yard.

BUT, I am ready if anything like that does occur. I also have fire extinguishers, medical supplies and a decent,but not close to insane (but, I do live in Florida) supply of non perishables and some freezer chests (saved our refrigerated stuff 3 times some years back). I tend to be prepared for stuff that has large or small liklihood of happening (and with small I always consider how bad the result can be if the low chance thing happens).
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
If you believe you should be running things, an unarmed civlian populace is a very attractive situation.

It goes the same for nuts on both sides, left and right.
Click to expand...

If you believe you should be running things, then you're part of the pseudo-left. But that's an entirely different thread.
 
Ranb said:
Not stupid at all. Many gun control laws are aimed primarily at law abiding persons and simply make gun possession a victimless crime. I only have to point to the AWB of 1994 as an example. It made mere possession of an assault weapon made after 1994 a crime unless you were one of those special people who were exempt.

If you said gun advocates just want to shoot people, I would ask you to prove it. So can you.

Ranb
Click to expand...

The 1994 AWB was an abomination and the first step toward my distrust of government (yes, I was 14...I was a weird kid). As I understood it possession was not a part of the ban when it was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill. Originally IIRC it included confiscation measures which were removed. The only reason possession of an "assault weapon" (the real thing was not affected by the law) made after 1994 would be illegal is because it was illegal to manufacture and import those weapons after 1994.
 
BStrong said:
TV news just stated the firearms used were registered to the mother he killed. 9mm Glock and SIG, some type of AR platform rifle, unknown if the rifle was used.
Click to expand...

I just know that the gun control freaks are going to on and on about the "military style" rifle that was involved in the attack and that this event means we need to further restrict them. No matter that if it was a semi-auto AR-15 that is not something the US military uses as their AR's are machine guns.

Ranb
 
fuelair said:
As I sit here at my computer, within my easy reach are two .45 auto's -1 is 8+1 the other is 14+1 and the top (in the chamber) in each (chambered round) is a Black Talon and six feet away is one of the spears. . The only functional entry to the house (where functional means I won't know you are breaking in until the door pops open)is the front door. If the door breaks open, before an entrant can figure out what is happening at least three bullets will be moving toward him to say "Hi! Welcome in!"

No children and my wife also knows weapons so any room we are in much has another official greeter for the uninvited. The current weakest same is my old Taurus .357. Now, in all fairness, I do not grab for anything when the doorbell rings or I hear a knock, I do not spend any time looking out the windows for trouble (don't expect any and like most of my neighbors) don't jump when kids run through my yard.

BUT, I am ready if anything like that does occur. I also have fire extinguishers, medical supplies and a decent,but not close to insane (but, I do live in Florida) supply of non perishables and some freezer chests (saved our refrigerated stuff 3 times some years back). I tend to be prepared for stuff that has large or small liklihood of happening (and with small I always consider how bad the result can be if the low chance thing happens).
Click to expand...

Would you consider yourself a typical gun-owner? I wouldn't.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm not asserting that gun advocates just want to shoot people. You haven't given one iota of evidence that gun control advocates want to punish gun owners.
Click to expand...

What do you think was the purpose of the AWB then? It was obvious to the most casual observer that it was not intended to reduce crime. It banned guns by features that had little or nothing to do with how lethal they were. All it did was drive up the price of standard capacity mags and the "pre-ban" guns and make it a crime to attach those "evil" cosmetic features after 1994.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
What do you think was the purpose of the AWB then? It was obvious to the most casual observer that it was not intended to reduce crime. It banned guns by features that had little or nothing to do with how lethal they were. All it did was drive up the price of standard capacity mags and the "pre-ban" guns and make it a crime to attach those "evil" cosmetic features after 1994.

Ranb
Click to expand...

It was intended to reduce crimes, like this one. You can argue about the effectiveness of it, but that was the intention. Punishing gun owners is not part of the gun control agenda.
 
thaiboxerken said:
This is just raw assertion. Other countries have banned guns for civilians, and for some reason, it made it much harder for gangs to get guns.
Click to expand...

Well one, gun trafficking is already a nice business for gangs in the US. And secondly, what country that had a lot of guns and space banned guns for civilians and it decreased the gang violence? Seriously, which one? Did any of them have appreciable gang violence in the first place?

The US isn't like a lot of places. That's kind of the point. There are already a ton of guns, with a spread out populace, who knows how to produce guns even if they are taken away, with two countries with HUGE boarders who haven't outlawed guns, and already has gang problems. That's without the cultural aspects to boot.

Do you contend that the cost of banning guns would be minor? I find it hard to believe that anyone would give it serious thought and conclude it so.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Voter fraud is not a problem, and it's irrelevant to the issue. It is interesting that it seems harder to vote in some states than to buy a gun legally.

People have always had to pay for guns. Placing a tax on those purchases is hardly diminishing a right.
Click to expand...

I haven't always had to pay for guns. I used to get them for free. :)

Some of the taxes I pay on some of my guns are more than they are worth, but you think I should pay more? Can you name any other item that is taxed by the federal government at a higher rate than firearms? How much poll tax are you willing to pay?

Ranb
 
I always liked the bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Should make it easier to pick out the criminals.
 
How can ownership of an assault rifle be justified? They are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. Why would anybody want to own a weapon like this?
 
thaiboxerken said:
This is just raw assertion. Other countries have banned guns for civilians, and for some reason, it made it much harder for gangs to get guns.
Click to expand...

You really need to read this:

Imagining Gun Control in America, understanding the remainder problem.

Wake Forest Law Review, 2009.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743

Best case scenario for compliance with a total comprehensive gun ban in the U.S. based on figures from local and state firearms prohibitions already enacted, and the estimates of complaince in foriegn countries that have banned firearms, after the passage of such a law there would be approximately a 400 year supply of firearms in the US.

The author, Nicholas James Johnson, a professor at Fordham University School of Law. He is not an NRA shill.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It was intended to reduce crimes, like this one.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the AWB of 1994 would have stopped a man from stealing a gun from someone and killing all those kids. You have no evidence right now that shows the guns he used were prohibited by the AWB. I'm sure you will disagree, so why not show me the part of the relevant law that proves you are right.

Ranb
 
lionking said:
How can ownership of an assault rifle be justified? They are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. Why would anybody want to own a weapon like this?
Click to expand...

Serious question.

Would you make the same observation of an Winchester 1886 lever action rifle or similar?
 
I've always found it kinda cowardly to endorse a tax on something you don't use yourself as a punitive measure. "I don't use guns/cigs/booze/gas...etc tax those people who are beneath my smug awesomeness!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom