Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)


The Sisko

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, youngchew said:

 

Can only speak for myself as far as being willing to compromise.  :)  I said in a post earlier this morning that "unlike most gun enthusiasts, I would be willing to compromise."   I am well aware that most gun owners are stubborn.

 

As far as the "you people are twisted" comment as if you know me, I'll just give that a "LOL."  

 

 

 

I dont mean to call you twisted. But I do think the view point that you share of 'I WANT my guns so there for I do not support a ban' pretty ****ing twisted. And I know that isnt much of an apology so im sorry if I came off the wrong way. 

 

You are very willing to compromise I see and thats what we need more of. I aint got a problem with that. We may never agree fully but thats basically the definition of a compromise. And its a hell of a start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

If you ban assault weapons, you make owning one a crime. Owners have to choose between forfeiting them or being a criminal gun owner.

In the past, I'd say this was a big issue for me.  Not any longer.  Unfortunately, the idiots ruin everything for the responsible people.  If it comes to having to give up mine, I'll do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can put restrictions on gun ownership. We used to have a law limiting magazine size and outlawing assault rifles, until Bush 43. Since then, we've had these mass shootings. There is a correlation, plain as day.

 

We have a Constitutional right to vote and Republicans constantly put restrictions on that right. We need to start comparing these rights and linking them together.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

So earlier when you said that the gun control crowd has to change their attitude because they want to ban everything, do they really or is that just an NRA fabrication?

There is a wing of the gun control crowd that legitimately wants an outright ban on guns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

There is a wing of the gun control crowd that legitimately wants an outright ban on guns. 

 

 

I’m part of that wing - but I realise that’s not possible and I don’t advocate that as a policy response. It’s not on the table.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

If you ban assault weapons, you make owning one a crime. Owners have to choose between forfeiting them or being a criminal gun owner.

 

You also make selling them a crime.  You also make manufacturing them a crime.  I have no doubt that gun people will choose their guns over not wanting to engage in criminal conduct, but businesses (that are profitable without assault weapons, just less so) will not subject themselves to that liability.  The people that own these companies are not gun advocates fighting the good fight for freedom.  They are private equity companies fighting for profits.  Breaking the law is usually bad for business if you get caught. 

 

For example, Sturm Ruger (who manufactures a line of ARs) is one of the largest gun companies in the US.  They are publicly traded and largely owned by Cerberus Capital Management (who also owns Avon and Staples). 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, codeorama said:

In the past, I'd say this was a big issue for me.  Not any longer.  Unfortunately, the idiots ruin everything for the responsible people.  If it comes to having to give up mine, I'll do so.

And this is wrong.  Remember when the quote being bandied about on this board about rights was used when the 1st/4th Amendment was being infringed upon: 

Quote

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Why is that not applicable to the 2nd Amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

There is a wing of the gun control crowd that legitimately wants an outright ban on guns.

Obviously there are some people who believe that. Seems to me that we're taking a very small percentage of people, drawing a circle around them, and assigning their extreme beliefs to the opposing side as counter to the very real extreme beliefs of the gun rights crowd.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

We can put restrictions on gun ownership. We used to have a law limiting magazine size and outlawing assault rifles, until Bush 43. Since then, we've had these mass shootings. There is a correlation, plain as day.

 

We have a Constitutional right to vote and Republicans constantly put restrictions on that right. We need to start comparing these rights and linking them together.

Thanks for the constructive dialogue and partisan shilling. Really adds to the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

 

This is really a dickish response to a heartfelt post.  Don't know if you meant it to come across that way, but that's how it did.

 

Sorry you feel that way. My point should be clear though. 

Medicate. No dickish intent. 

I try my best to put myself in situations where I do not have to typically repeat myself. 

 

Medicated folks or unstable folks ( which was part of that post)...always say the same thing, over and over, as if you didn't understand the first go around. 

That is a grown woman. She can defend her words. Are you thinking she needs protection from you or @TryTheBeal! ? 

Not to mention, I put my captain cape away in the college years.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Obviously there are some people who believe that. Seems to me that we're taking a very small percentage of people, drawing a circle around them, and assigning their extreme beliefs to the opposing side as counter to the very real extreme beliefs of the gun rights crowd.

Gun rights? Or gun lobby? The NRA lobbies on behalf of members. Doesn't mean they represent the beliefs of the members. What other gun rights lobby is there that you know will fight for your rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am super liberal and I own a gun, and am considering buying a shotgun. I will after I move to Texas. I come from a hunting family, both sides. Hunting for food. My maternal grandfather and uncle were taxidermists. 

 

Guns will always be part of American life. That doesn't mean that we can't have restrictions. 

 

My goodness, this guy had 59 guns between the hotel and his home in Mesquite, not sure what's in Reno house. 

 

Who the **** needs 59 guns?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Gun rights? Or gun lobby? The NRA lobbies on behalf of members. Doesn't mean they represent the beliefs of the members. What other gun rights lobby is there that you know will fight for your rights?

The NRA tells their members to hold extreme beliefs, and so they do. The NRA didn't fight for their member's belief that Obama was coming to take their guns. They made that **** up and lied to their membership about it for 8 years so that a vulnerable population who is easily misled would go out and buy more guns.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

I am super liberal and I own a gun, and am considering buying a shotgun. I will after I move to Texas. I come from a hunting family, both sides. Hunting for food. My maternal grandfather and uncle were taxidermists. 

 

Guns will always be part of American life. That doesn't mean that we can't have restrictions. 

 

My goodness, this guy had 59 guns between the hotel and his home in Mesquite, not sure what's in Reno house. 

 

Who the **** needs 59 guns?

Who needs to protest 59 times in a year? Who needs to get more than one abortion? Who needs to vote in every election?  

 

Needs is an individually determined limit. Should the government get to decide how many is too many?  This is why this debate gets tricky. You deem an AR to be unnecessary and therefore should be banned. If I deem an AR to be necessary can I therefore deem it not need to be banned?

 

I am 100% in favor of responsible gun control.  First step is overhauling existing law. Get rid of the 1,598 individual laws and let's start with federal law. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Thanks for the constructive dialogue and partisan shilling. Really adds to the discussion. 

 

I mean she makes a point though doesnt she? If we had those restrictions before, and then once we got rid of them the violence went up a level, then they where obviously working and need to be reenacted, right? 

 

I say this not having time to verify the claims myself, yet, so im relying on you guys for this info. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

So why are there so many mass killings in the US compared to other wealthy advanced democracies? Heck even compared to pretty much anywhere. 

 

It it seems that in other countries with much lower public ownership of guns ‘crazies’ are not switching to use of semtex or chemical weapons to carry out mass murder.

 

In general because they control the populace more, would need specific countries for detail.

The celebrity factor/cult worship of them here is a factor....that free press thing.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I mean she makes a point though doesnt she? If we had those restrictions before, and then once we got rid of them the violence went up a level, then they where obviously working and need to be reenacted, right? 

 

I say this not having time to verify the claims myself, yet, so im relying on you guys for this info. 

Except the experts can't claim that:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

And she can make a point without partisan shilling (it's not the first time she slams a political party when the discussio is going on without any real partisan slant).

Edited by Popeman38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 

Gonna keep reading this but I do note early that they are discussing "Crime" and not acts of terror or mass shootings. I would personally see the difference there as "crime" can end up being alot of things. And robbing a bank is not what im trying to stop, yet. 

 

but i gotta keep reading. Im supposed to be working too which is way less fun than arguing with you guys lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not "more than one."  She said 59.  Who needs 59 pets?  This is generally referred to as "hoarding" and is often seen as a sign of mental health problems.  

 

I realize that. So what is the point of having a dresser ? Shouldn't a closet get the job done ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...