• 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!

26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

presluc said:
So a crazy person buys a gun leagaly kills people that's 1 crime 1 bullet
If a crazy person tries to buy a gun and because of tough gun control; can not that's 1 less crime, 1 less bullet

So how is crime not reduced?:peace
Click to expand...
The problem here is not the gun, but the crazy person.

The third part of your scenario: Crazy person steals or illegally purchases a gun, and kills people.



Edit: If anything, this indicates that we need more awareness, help, and as a last resort, control of, crazy people.

There’s that whole “right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” thing, but if your liberty or pursuit of happiness infringes upon my right to live, you should lose the confrontation.
 
Last edited:
presluc said:
Perhaps a new gun control would have stopped the massacre in CT..

Spare me the "no matter what you do kids will still be shot by guns " BS, unless you are psycic if you are you know what I really wanted to write in response to that... post.:peace
Click to expand...

"A new law" ............. yeah, cause then the criminals and whackos will have to stop and obey the law !!!
 
presluc said:
The mentally ill does not have the right to purchase firearms that is not in the constitution that they do.:peace
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. If they are not a felon, over the age of majority, and a resident of the state... they can purchase a firearm.
 
presluc said:
So a crazy person buys a gun leagaly kills people that's 1 crime 1 bullet
If a crazy person tries to buy a gun and because of tough gun control; can not that's 1 less crime, 1 less bullet

So how is crime not reduced?:peace
Click to expand...

You haven't defined crazy or how a shrink (who is not an agent of the legal system) makes a determination that a person is "crazy" and how they report it....and how that is substantiated.
 
mac said:
See, now that you'd need to substantiate.



Actually, yes, assuming their credit were ok and they had no foreign relations/business dealings.



If he's not a felon, he can buy what he wants.



The person that bought it is responsible for it, unless it is stolen from them.
Click to expand...

Responsibility does not stop at who shot the gun but who sold the gun, or at least that's the way it should be.

America is constantly on the watch for guns and other materials dealt by gun runners.
Why because they don't want them falling into the wrong hands.
I ask for tougher gun control to do the same thing and I hit a brick wall??
"What about my privacy" "what about my rights" "what about the extra paperwork" wah wah.

If you are a responsible person and wants to buy or own a gun I have no problem with that, but to say after all the deaths of innocent people including 6 yr old kids, the current gun control system is working is wrong,

Anyway if you are an honest responsible person that wants to own a gun to defend himself how would having tougher gun laws effect you?
Perhaps those that want easier gun laws or gun control is not so responsible.
I have nothing to hide if I need a gun I will ask the gun dealer to run a very subjective backgrounds check on me friends and family and have it regestered in my name with a monthly check on regestration.:peace
 
Four of the five greatest massacres in US history did not involve "Assault" weapons. One of them just barely involved a weapon at all.

Two of them relied entirely on explosives made from commercially available materials. One was committed entirely by handguns. One was committed almost entirely with a hunting rifle. The one that did involve an "assault" weapon would have still occured without it (assuming the weapon had been unavailable) as the perpetrator had two handguns with him that would have done the same thing.

An "assault" weapons ban would have mitigated exactly nothing in any of these massacres.
 
presluc said:
Responsibility does not stop at who shot the gun but who sold the gun, or at least that's the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Not if was sold in accordance with the law, as most are.

America is constantly on the watch for guns and other materials dealt by gun runners.
Why because they don't want them falling into the wrong hands.
I ask for tougher gun control to do the same thing and I hit a brick wall??
Click to expand...

Tougher gun control doesn't avoid massacres.

"What about my privacy" "what about my rights" "what about the extra paperwork" wah wah.
Click to expand...

What about your rights? How about we go after your right to privacy? Your right to free speech? Your right to associate?

If you are a responsible person and wants to buy or own a gun I have no problem with that, but to say after all the deaths of innocent people including 6 yr old kids, the current gun control system is working is wrong,
Click to expand...

The current gun control system had nothing to do with it.

Anyway if you are an honest responsible person that wants to own a gun to defend himself how would having tougher gun laws effect you?
Click to expand...

Let's say you were going through a rough patch in your life and got a shrink to prescribe you some anti-anxiety meds....should you now be banned from purchasing firearms for the rest of your life?

Perhaps those that want easier gun laws or gun control is not so responsible.
Click to expand...

Ask switzerland about that.

I have nothing to hide if I need a gun I will ask the gun dealer to run a very subjective backgrounds check on me friends and family and have it regestered in my name with a monthly check on regestration.:peace
Click to expand...

What is a "very subjective" background check?
 
The Mark said:
In short, because 2nd Amendment.

And I think you misinterpreted my post - It is likely quite possible to hunt with an AK-47 if you so desired, but likely few people do because such weapons are overkill for that purpose. My response was because your post appeared to assume that a hunter hunting with an AK-47 by default was using the weapon because it had a large mag and could fire automatically. Didn't follow logically so far as I could tell.
Click to expand...

This isn't about questioning the 2ND AMENDMENT God it's been brought up enough.

For the umtenth time I SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT , as a matter of fact I and many of my family have fought some died to protect the Constitution.
FYI Rights of the Constitution doesn't stop at the 2nd amendment.

I question the gun sales to people that should not be allowed to buy a gun.
And oh yes I know criminals buy and sell guns but we know they are criminals.

Criminals with a shady past can't buy guns but nut jobs can has and do because gun control in America doesn't want to hurt anybody's feeling by prying into their privacy and if that doesn't work these nut jobs hide behind the 2nd amendment like the slime they are

. HOWEVER, the NRA THEY'RE MAKING MONEY. THE GUN DEALERS THEIR MAKING MONEY,, SO WHAT IF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND KIDS GET KILLED???????:peace
 
american said:
because the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. You have participated on the constitution forum, and don't know this fundamental truth?
Click to expand...

have you, do you??
 
The Mark said:
No.

A nutcase killed 26 people in Newtown.

Gun (s?) were what he used to do this.

The problems I see here are:
No one in the school had a gun to shoot this guy with.
From the sounds of things, this guy needed mental help and didn't get it.
Click to expand...

Strange, I thought it was the bullets fired from a gun that killed 26 people in CT.?
GUNS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.

Odd, this guy needed mental help didn't get it , did not need a gun or guns got them.:peace
 
presluc said:
Strange, I thought it was the bullets fired from a gun that killed 26 people in CT.?
GUNS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.

Odd, this guy needed mental help didn't get it , did not need a gun or guns got them.:peace
Click to expand...

He stole the guns from his Mother. How are you going to prevent such ?

"Infringe" on her right to own them ?

Who denied him "mental help" ? How do you know what treatment that he had, and had not, gotten ?
 
presluc said:
This isn't about questioning the 2ND AMENDMENT God it's been brought up enough.

For the umtenth time I SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT , as a matter of fact I and many of my family have fought some died to protect the Constitution.
FYI Rights of the Constitution doesn't stop at the 2nd amendment.

I question the gun sales to people that should not be allowed to buy a gun.
And oh yes I know criminals buy and sell guns but we know they are criminals.

Criminals with a shady past can't buy guns but nut jobs can has and do because gun control in America doesn't want to hurt anybody's feeling by prying into their privacy and if that doesn't work these nut jobs hide behind the 2nd amendment like the slime they are

. HOWEVER, the NRA THEY'RE MAKING MONEY. THE GUN DEALERS THEIR MAKING MONEY,, SO WHAT IF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND KIDS GET KILLED???????:peace
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight....you're all in favor of the 2nd amendment...it's the 14th you have a problem with?
 
presluc said:
Strange, I thought it was the bullets fired from a gun that killed 26 people in CT.?
GUNS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.

Odd, this guy needed mental help didn't get it , did not need a gun or guns got them.:peace
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that if you write in all caps your statements will be less uninformed? The guns were stolen, chief.
 
presluc said:
Strange, I thought it was the bullets fired from a gun that killed 26 people in CT.?
GUNS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.

Odd, this guy needed mental help didn't get it , did not need a gun or guns got them.:peace
Click to expand...

Over 450 school age kids shot in Chicago so far this year. 62 of them died. Chicago has tough gun control laws, and is as Democrat as a pimple on a welfare whore's ass. Where's the results of gun control there ?
 
mac said:
Not if was sold in accordance with the law, as most are.



Tougher gun control doesn't avoid massacres.



What about your rights? How about we go after your right to privacy? Your right to free speech? Your right to associate?



The current gun control system had nothing to do with it.



Let's say you were going through a rough patch in your life and got a shrink to prescribe you some anti-anxiety meds....should you now be banned from purchasing firearms for the rest of your life?



Ask switzerland about that.



What is a "very subjective" background check?
Click to expand...

At one time segragation was law that was changed because it wasn't working.
At one time the law came from the king of England that was changed because it wasn't working
What everything stops at the law of gun control?

Tougher gun controls won't increase massacres either.

Already have
Right to privacy complete background inspections done on me when I applied to move into an apartment. driver's licence knows what car I drive , insurance companies knows if I smoke or not when I worked in a factory I was given random drug test like everybody else.
Right to speech.
That's one right even I won't test for if I went to the Lansing state legislative building and actually said out loud what I think of the governor of Mich. well let's say I'd be off line for awhile.
Right to associate
Please, I'm an ex hippie I marched and assiciated in the 60's and I got beat up by cops , jailed by cops for that right., BEEN THERE DONE THAT..
So if you want to come after my rights you may be late getting here but, COME ON

THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL SYSTEM LIKE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING.


I'm not Swiss so why should I ask them this is my country America.

Tougher than the ones they give now that's for sure.:peace
 
presluc said:
At one time segragation was law that was changed because it wasn't working.
At one time the law came from the king of England that was changed because it wasn't working
What everything stops at the law of gun control?
Click to expand...

No, controls are stopped by the Constitution. If you hadn't noticed, it does more to limit govt infringement on rights than it enables it.

Tougher gun controls won't increase massacres either.
Click to expand...

Au contrair. The average massacre occurs in areas where the cowardly perpetrator is relatively certain that the victims are unarmed. Tough gun control will only disarm those that you would want to be armed. Those bent on murder will get the guns another way.

Already have
Right to privacy complete background inspections done on me when I applied to move into an apartment. driver's licence knows what car I drive , insurance companies knows if I smoke or not when I worked in a factory I was given random drug test like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Again, it is evident that you don't quite understand what a "complete" background check entails. I gaurantee you that no person was interview over your apartment application.

Right to speech.
That's one right even I won't test for if I went to the Lansing state legislative building and actually said out loud what I think of the governor of Mich. well let's say I'd be off line for awhile.
Click to expand...

So, you get to pick and choose which rights are worth protecting....gotcha.

Right to associate
Please, I'm an ex hippie I marched and assiciated in the 60's and I got beat up by cops , jailed by cops for that right., BEEN THERE DONE THAT..
So if you want to come after my rights you may be late getting here but, COME ON
Click to expand...

Apparently the cops disabled your logic mechanisms.

THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL SYSTEM LIKE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I'm not Swiss so why should I ask them this is my country America.
Click to expand...

If you actually looked into anything you'd realize that areas with high rates of private, legal ownership of firearms have low incidence of violent crime.

Tougher than the ones they give now that's for sure.:peace
Click to expand...

I think you need to look up what subjective means.
 
presluc said:
....THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL SYSTEM LIKE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING.

I'm not Swiss so why should I ask them this is my country America.

Tougher than the ones they give now that's for sure.:peace
Click to expand...

How do you measure that it is not working ? Because of such as Newtown, VA Tech, and Columbine ?

OK, then apparently "gun control" was working in the 50's and 60's and 70's.

What laws changed ? Or perhaps, its not the "laws" that have changed ......... ;)

OBTW, none of what you suggest would have changed this recent tragedy.
 
presluc said:
Strange, I thought it was the bullets fired from a gun that killed 26 people in CT.?
GUNS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.

Odd, this guy needed mental help didn't get it , did not need a gun or guns got them.:peace
Click to expand...
Only badly maintained or horribly designed guns have the possibility of firing without a finger on the trigger, and even that requires mishandling and obviously someone loading the gun.

Ergo, gun did not fire bullets, person fired bullets with gun.
Of course this guy shouldn't have had access to those guns. That's an issue with poor mental health care and bad parenting, it sounds like - he got the weapons from his mom?
It's not an issue with gun control - except in that the person who owned the guns gave him access and should not have.


Edit: Additionally, even extremely strict gun control measures will not stop those nutcases who give no outward signs of mental issues.


As I view it, the only real way to prevent/stop violence on this level is to have more people armed with personal weapons, and specifically in this case, armed (concealed or even openly) guards at schools.

FFS children are considered most precious by us, we go nuts when **** like this happens, but we can't deal with armed guards to protect them?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Over 450 school age kids shot in Chicago so far this year. 62 of them died. Chicago has tough gun control laws, and is as Democrat as a pimple on a welfare whore's ass. Where's the results of gun control there ?
Click to expand...

You are seeing the results of gun control there. The criminals still have the guns, and the law abiding citizens no longer have them. Touchdown for the criminals.
 
danarhea said:
You are seeing the results of gun control there. The criminals still have the guns, and the law abiding citizens no longer have them. Touchdown for the criminals.
Click to expand...

In nearly every instance of the govt trying to "make it better" you'll see good intentions perverted and corrupted by bureaucracy.
 
mac said:
In nearly every instance of the govt trying to "make it better" you'll see good intentions perverted and corrupted by bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
I have my own version of this:

If the government tries to do something, they will fail. Also, in trying they will cause more problems then they solve.
 
Here's an interesting perspective from a woman at the National Review. Lanza would've been stopped if the school didn't have so many females in it.


The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

link...​

Dawn "seemed" to act bravely?

I particularly like the thought proccess that men can somehow stop a bullet better than women.

This tragedy is bringing out the idiots in droves.
 
poweRob said:
Dawn "seemed" to act bravely?
Click to expand...

In conservativespeak, that means she's not jumping to conclusions and taking it as fact that that's what happened. The clue is at the beginning of her next sentence: "According to reports.... " We all know how accurate media reporting is in the immediate aftermath of an event like this, especially when it involves "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips." :roll:

poweRob said:
This tragedy is bringing out the idiots in droves.
Click to expand...

No ****.
 
Ahlevah said:
In conservativespeak, that means she's not jumping to conclusions and taking it as fact that that's what happened. The clue is at the beginning of her next sentence: "According to reports.... " We all know how accurate media reporting is in the immediate aftermath of an event like this, especially when it involves "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips." :roll:



No ****.
Click to expand...

Talk about selective editing. Wanna address how huskier 12 year olds can stop bullets better than women that was omitted from your reply?
 
poweRob said:
Talk about selective editing. Wanna address how huskier 12 year olds can stop bullets better than women that was omitted from your reply?
Click to expand...

Not particularly. I just wanted to address for the liberal community what was obvious to the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom