- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,438
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Only if we have that many people committing violent crimes.
that's the problem
they are filled with NON-violent 'offenders'
Only if we have that many people committing violent crimes.
…and you continue to not answer my questions. Again, the ‘?’ are there to help you figure out which sentences are question if that is the problem. If you are instead willfully ignoring my questions, as increasingly seems likely, I guess just carry exposing yourself as a raging hypocrite fool.I am sorry. I gave you credit for keeping up with what you were posting, I guess not. No problem. I will ignore you then.
that's the problem
they are filled with NON-violent 'offenders'
hopefully, by that time we will have released those convicted of victimless crimes so that there will be ample room for those who violate the stiffer and better enforced gun laws
Oh don't be silly. SOmeone who doesn't mind murdering a federal judge and a bunch of innocent bystanders and crippling a beautiful and smart well liked congresslady is going to obey gun laws if they just would pass a few moreFormer congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head more than two years ago during a mass shooting in a Tucson parking lot, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing Wednesday with a call to action on gun violence.
"Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important," she said in a slow, deliberate voice to the dais of senators. "Violence is a big problem, too many children are dying, too many children. We must do something.
"Americans are counting on you," she said. - Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action
As I was reading the article I came across a perfect example of what I feel the problem is with the "gun restriction" crowed...
Giffords husband astronaut Mark Kelly, added this statement paraphrased...
"Called for legislators to close the loophole that allows private sellers to sell their guns without background checks, strengthen gun trafficking penalties for trafficking, and eliminate limitations on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence.
He also called for "a careful and civil conversation about the lethality of the firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold."
What does the center for disease control have to do with gun crime? This should worry people as they are trying to use a completely unrelated government body to manufacture, yes manufacture another reason to strip our 2nd amendment rights.
The last highlighted statement is just beyond stupid as far as I am concerned. If I am at the point where I am actually aiming a weapon at someone in defense of my life, loved ones or even property I want it to be as lethal as possible if it has come to that point. So only police and government should have "lethal" firearms?
This whole gun restriction mess is getting out of hand.
I don't think that is what he is saying. If there is some sound prevention, it might not be a bad idea to try and identify such measures.
that's the problem
they are filled with NON-violent 'offenders'
which is a funny comment coming from a guy who supports turning millions of gun owners into non violent offenders
key word being "sound"...there's a whole lot to that little word.
Oh don't be silly. SOmeone who doesn't mind murdering a federal judge and a bunch of innocent bystanders and crippling a beautiful and smart well liked congresslady is going to obey gun laws if they just would pass a few more
A proper NICS system, which included mental health records, would have prevented Laughner from buying his handguns.
Can Giffords please explain her own state's "lax" gun laws having a violent crime rate ranked 18th and Illinois ranked at 11th with some of the nation's strictest gun laws? What matters is not gun control but criminal control.
States' crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws - Washington Times
FBI Violent Crime Stats--Gun Ownership Up/Crime Rates Drop - Handguns
like it stops heroin users from buying heroin? Coke users from scorin that rock? Pot smokers from buying a lid?A proper NICS system, which included mental health records, would have prevented Laughner from buying his handguns.
Really? Read much about the VA Tech shootings? Kip Kinkel? Columbine? You think ANY shooter walking around unhindered for 10 minutes would kill fewer people with a handgun or shotgun then an AR? Cuz...the facts...they kinda disprove that.Criminals are getting guns, and they're not guns that are manufactured in people's basements. So clearly it's a problem that guns purchased and owned legally are winding up being used to slaughter innocent people. The articles you're talking about are virtually meaningless because they're all studying correlation and that doesn't prove causation. Besides, there are a number of laws regarding gun ownership and registration and "lax" is a subjective term.
What gun did Adam Lanza use to kill all those children? Where did it come from? Are situations like Newtown preventable? My opinion is that they are not, but if we put limitations on what kind of guns were legal to purchase, there could very well be 5-10 children still alive who died that day. We can't prevent tragedies but we can minimize them.
Criminals are getting guns, and they're not guns that are manufactured in people's basements. So clearly it's a problem that guns purchased and owned legally are winding up being used to slaughter innocent people. The articles you're talking about are virtually meaningless because they're all studying correlation and that doesn't prove causation. Besides, there are a number of laws regarding gun ownership and registration and "lax" is a subjective term.
What gun did Adam Lanza use to kill all those children? Where did it come from? Are situations like Newtown preventable? My opinion is that they are not, but if we put limitations on what kind of guns were legal to purchase, there could very well be 5-10 children still alive who died that day. We can't prevent tragedies but we can minimize them.
Really? Read much about the VA Tech shootings? Kip Kinkel? Columbine? You think ANY shooter walking around unhindered for 10 minutes would kill fewer people with a handgun or shotgun then an AR? Cuz...the facts...they kinda disprove that.
(for good measure, lets throw James Holmes and the Aurora shooting into that equation as well. He proved pretty clearly that after his AR jammed less than a third of the way into a magazine that his handgun made a more than adequate suitable substitute. Of course...that doesnt fit the 'assault weapon' rhetoric...so lets not talk about 'facts')
Before they make any new laws they need to make the present laws have a real bite.
For instance the guy who shot Gifford and killed the little 9 yr old girl is still alive.
Why is that puke still alive? What the hell people.
Unless it is only circumstantial evidence somebody who starts killing people left and right with that many witnesses should be destroyed in one week. Period. Like a rabid dog.
Both sides of the arguement should agree to that , right?
Caught with a gun in crime and do life.
I realize alot of these murderers don't have a record and we will only catch them after the fact. I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not. But quick punishment would prevent some from basking in their fame.
Yes, it does. Chicago today released a report that showed that 75% of the perpetrators of violent crimes in their fair city are repeat offenders. Thats a ****ing AWESOME place to start. When people satrt to realize there is no longer a revolving door then they might think twice about committing ANY violent act with a weapon. If they dont get the memo...they wont be released to re-offend til they are old and grey. Its a HELLUVA lot better place to start than making excuses for them, building new schools that are going to get trashed while the bodies continue to pile up, and targeting the inanimate objects or law abiding citizens. But then...people like you would have to run the risk of actually be seen attacking the perpetrators....
Before they make any new laws they need to make the present laws have a real bite.
For instance the guy who shot Gifford and killed the little 9 yr old girl is still alive.
Why is that puke still alive? What the hell people.
Unless it is only circumstantial evidence somebody who starts killing people left and right with that many witnesses should be destroyed in one week. Period. Like a rabid dog.
Both sides of the arguement should agree to that , right?
Caught with a gun in crime and do life.
I realize alot of these murderers don't have a record and we will only catch them after the fact. I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not. But quick punishment would prevent some from basking in their fame.
The mandate of the CDC, founded under the Public Health Service Act, is for general public health. This includes studying injury and safety concerns.
By all means...do both. As soon as you figure out how to limit access make sure you pass that word to the DEA folks. Limiting access to heroin, rock, and pot has been a dismal failure. See...criminals...they figure that whole 'access' thing out.There is no reason not to do both increased enforcement as you suggest as well as limiting access to criminals and crazies.
Because they don't give a **** about saving lives or reducing violence. All they care about is exploiting the death of cute little victims to further their ideological cause of banning assault weapons.There are more people killed by car wrecks and more kids killed by accidental poisonings every year than from gun crimes. Why aren't their hearings about banning Liquid Plumber?