• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

how many slaughters will it take?

How many slaughters will it take?

  • at least 12 months of slaughters

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • at least 24 months of slaughters

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • at least 36 months of slaughters

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • who are you kidding - no amount will matter

    Votes: 22 95.7%
  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
 
Last edited:
Of course, because another law will make those willing to break the law anyway stay home that day. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
Click to expand...

Ther was plenty of outcry and plenty of demanding but there is just no amount of majority that can defeat the NRA juggernaut. It does not matter how large a majority want background checks or Federal gun registration we have a mostly dysfunctional Govt. that is tied in knots by money.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk? - The Washington Post
 
OrphanSlug said:
Of course, because another law will make those willing to break the law anyway stay home that day. :roll:
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
 
haymarket said:
When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
Click to expand...

If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar.

If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar.
 
Since lack of gun control legislation is not the problem you will probably never see public outcry for it. The problem is not that people have guns. The problem is what some people are doing with them and the mindset of hate in so many americans. No amount of gun control legislation is going to make this kid in Charleston less of a racist. No amount of gun control was going to stop the theater shooter from wanting to shoot up a theater. If people want guns, whether legal or not, to shoot up a theater or church or whereever, they will get them. Or they will make bombs. Or set fires. I seriously doubt that people with illegal intent are going to be worried about and extra fine, or a year tacked on for illegal firearm possesion when they are facing 9 counts of first degree murder.
 
haymarket said:
Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
Click to expand...

What federal or state action would be effective in controlling firearms misuse?
There are plenty of gun laws on the books and wackos still get a hold of guns.
Anything short of total confiscation---totally impossible imho---will be ineffective.
As for the outcry?
Unless the perpetrators of the violence are evil Mooslims, no one gives a s***.
 
Kreton said:
Since lack of gun control legislation is not the problem you will probably never see public outcry for it. The problem is not that people have guns. The problem is what some people are doing with them. No amount of gun control legislation is going to make this kid in Charleston less of a racist. No amount of gun control was going to stop the theater shooter from wanting to shoot up a theater. If people want guns, whether legal or not, to shoot up a theater or church or whereever, they will get them. Or they will make bombs. Or set fires. I seriously doubt that people with illegal intent are going to be worried about and extra fine, or a year tacked on for illegal firearm possesion when they are facing 9 counts of first degree murder.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
 
iguanaman said:
Ther was plenty of outcry and plenty of demanding but there is just no amount of majority that can defeat the NRA juggernaut. It does not matter how large a majority want background checks or Federal gun registration we have a mostly dysfunctional Govt. that is tied in knots by money.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk? - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

90% may support expanded background checks, but even so it's still a back burner issue for most.
 
radioman said:
What federal or state action would be effective in controlling firearms misuse?
There are plenty of gun laws on the books and wackos still get a hold of guns.
Anything short of total confiscation---totally impossible imho---will be ineffective.
As for the outcry?
Unless the perpetrators of the violence are evil Mooslims, no one gives a s***.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
 
Never. Look on this forum. Look on any forum. Look at Fox News. Go to your local sports bar and look at all the "Wannabe Rambos" in camo hats and NRA shirts with a HS education.

zr0SKB6.jpg
 
haymarket said:
You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
Click to expand...

The door will never open. Nor should it. The problem is the people, not the guns.
 
haymarket said:
When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
Click to expand...

Our country has a lot of room for improvement on identifying and treating the mentally ill... maybe we ought to start there first.
 
Gun laws will not pass in the near future.

enten-datalab-guncontrol-pew.png


I think we have to ask if gun laws are not the answer, what is??? America has a far higher homicide rate than any other developed country. Canada has a homicide rate 3x less than ours despite loose gun laws. Are Americans predisposed towards 'mental illnesses' that make them more likely to commit murder? Is the wellbeing of the lower classes being ignored by those in charge? Are our citizens unhappy? What is triggering such hate? What is causing US citizens to do this?

We are in an endemic. For those who do not believe that gun control is the answer to our issues (read: the majority of the US) what are the alternative measures we can take to stop this happening?
 
Threatening a civil war is a typical response from conservatives .

Lutherf said:
If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar.

If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar.
Click to expand...

No one has talked about banning or confiscating guns.
This is a blatant irrational lie .
 
haymarket said:
You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
Click to expand...

You state the poll is explicitly not addressing whether additional gun control laws would have any positive impact. So what exactly is the point of the thread?

The "door" has always been open for discussion. But the proposals tend to get lost in platitudes: "We must do something to reduce the number of guns".
 
haymarket said:
When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?
Click to expand...

I think it would depend on the facts of the cases. If the guns involved were acquired illegally, then beefed up gun laws wouldn't help anyway. If the guns were purchased legally in states with background checks, ie the person buying the gun passed the requirements to purchase a gun, but apparently his/her clean record wasn't indicative of his/her intent, then again countrywide background checks, etc., wouldn't solve the problem either.

The only way I see that your scenario works is if the guns were either ones that most want to see made illegal, like assault rifles and such, OR if the guns are routinely purchased without a background check.

In this incident it seems that a parent purchased this gun for the boy, iirc, so the registering process would have been on the parent not this boy, first of all, so background check wouldn't even be on the right person. And it wasn't a gun that most think needs to be restricted to the public.

Many of the other shooters used assault weapons, so there was an area involved in those shootings to say, hey, our guns laws need to be beefed up, and a majority of the country sees the need for restricted assault weapon sales and background checks, etc. I don't see how any of those laws would've stopped this shooting.
 
pragmatic said:
You state the poll is explicitly not addressing whether additional gun control laws would have any positive impact. So what exactly is the point of the thread?

The "door" has always been open for discussion. But the proposals tend to get lost in platitudes: "We must do something to reduce the number of guns".
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.
 
NIMBY said:
Threatening a civil war is a typical response from conservatives .



No one has talked about banning or confiscating guns.
This is a blatant irrational lie .
Click to expand...
Cons want another civil war bring it on, the North would kick their ass again, please bring it.

I don't give a **** how many guns they have the other side will always have more, and of course more money also, the South is as poor as ****, and least educated..

Guns won't do a damn thing for those sorry inbreds when we are dropping Missiles on your ass, and Nuking you Waco Style!!


Thermonuclear weapons MF..:lamo
 
Lutherf said:
If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar.

If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's your proposed war that would be a blip, as you and all your cohorts will be put out of your delusions in very short order by tanks, armored humvees, drones, and maybe a few people exposed enough for you to actually shoot at. You have a very childish view of what civil war in USA would look like.
 
Summerwind said:
Many of the other shooters used assault weapons, so there was an area involved in those shootings to say, hey, our guns laws need to be beefed up, and a majority of the country sees the need for restricted assault weapon sales and background checks, etc. I don't see how any of those laws would've stopped this shooting.
Click to expand...

This is the point.
All laws proposed after these catastrophes, would have been ineffective in stopping said catastrophes.
As some posters have noted, this country is prone to these kinds of events.
In this country, even after the horrific Sandy Hook massacre, with the exception of the grieving parents, people just shrugged their shoulders and moved on.
I have no solutions.
 
Summerwind said:
Nope, it's your proposed war that would be a blip, as you and all your cohorts will be put out of your delusions in very short order by tanks, armored humvees, drones, and maybe a few people exposed enough for you to actually shoot at. You have a very childish view of what civil war in USA would look like.
Click to expand...

I have no illusions of what civil war in this country would look like. We've done it before and, in the grand scheme of things, not all that long ago.
 
Lutherf said:
If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar.

If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar.
Click to expand...

The hell is that supposed to mean, Luther?!
 
Unaffiliated said:
Never. Look on this forum. Look on any forum. Look at Fox News. Go to your local sports bar and look at all the "Wannabe Rambos" in camo hats and NRA shirts with a HS education.

zr0SKB6.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes they look real tough huh:lamo..

Without their guns they are ******s..

A bunch of inbred white trailer trash, they probably don't even have a job so they don't have anything better to do then play with their penis extensions..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom