• 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]

I've been thinking about this situation a bit.

It appears to me that two general "solutions" are being proposed:

The first - stricter gun control, with the theory that this will prevent the guns from being available. Frankly that is laughable unless the gun control is so strict that it involves a massive increase in police forces and power, which is totally unacceptable.

The second – higher security at schools, possibly including armed staff and/or armed guards, probably also walls, gates, security cameras, metal detectors, guard dogs, armor-plated school rooms, etc.
That might actually prevent such incidents, but at great cost(s) which may not be worth it…
I mean for one thing it’d mean a massive increase in school costs – basically we would be turning tens of thousands of schools into walled and guarded secure compounds capable of withstanding what effectively is a miniature military attack. Billions of $ there.
Even if you accept that, you encounter the additional risk of some crazies banding together to attack a school (for whatever insane reason) and a mini-war breaking out at said school. If the children were protected from harm it might be worth it, but it means the children of the USA would be growing up in walled and guarded compounds with high security and the possibility of attack ever-present if not very likely. Of course to one degree or another that is already the case in some areas, but…


Basically…neither option is…an option.
One because it wouldn’t actually fix the issue, and the other because it is not feasible.


So do we even have an option? Any option?
Cyber schools?
Homeschooling?
Private schools (not much difference there really).

In any case, if we actually are serious about preventing incidents such as this, pulic schools as they currently are known will cease to exist.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Why do you not take the time to learn ? A Glock is semi-automatic by definition. Just like the AR-15 is a semi rifle version of the automatic M-16.

One trigger squeeze = one bullet, casing ejected, is semi automatic.

One trigger squeeze, held = continuous rounds at the cyclic rate until the magazine is empty, or jams, is full automatic.
Click to expand...

Sir anybody that knows weapons knows they can be altered.,:peace
 
The Mark said:
I've been thinking about this situation a bit.

It appears to me that two general "solutions" are being proposed:

The first - stricter gun control, with the theory that this will prevent the guns from being available. Frankly that is laughable unless the gun control is so strict that it involves a massive increase in police forces and power, which is totally unacceptable.

The second – higher security at schools, possibly including armed staff and/or armed guards, probably also walls, gates, security cameras, metal detectors, guard dogs, armor-plated school rooms, etc.
That might actually prevent such incidents, but at great cost(s) which may not be worth it…
I mean for one thing it’d mean a massive increase in school costs – basically we would be turning tens of thousands of schools into walled and guarded secure compounds capable of withstanding what effectively is a miniature military attack. Billions of $ there.
Even if you accept that, you encounter the additional risk of some crazies banding together to attack a school (for whatever insane reason) and a mini-war breaking out at said school. If the children were protected from harm it might be worth it, but it means the children of the USA would be growing up in walled and guarded compounds with high security and the possibility of attack ever-present if not very likely. Of course to one degree or another that is already the case in some areas, but…


Basically…neither option is…an option.
One because it wouldn’t actually fix the issue, and the other because it is not feasible.


So do we even have an option? Any option?
Cyber schools?
Homeschooling?
Private schools (not much difference there really).

In any case, if we actually are serious about preventing incidents such as this, pulic schools as they currently are known will cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Why isn't stricter gun controls an option?
It may not prevent guns from being available but it would prevent guns from being available so easily .:peace
 
j-mac said:
No, it is not. All weapons that those without a class 3 firearms license can obtain are semi auto. A fully automatic weapon is not on the streets to the average person. Never has been.



That is my extrapolation based on your words in the post where you rail on killing kids.
Now don't get me wrong, what happened in New Town CT. is horrible and brings a tear to any rational persons eye.



I know several gun dealers where I live here, and believe me when I say they are absolutely anal about crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's...So, who are these clumsy sales people you are speaking of? Do you have some examples of this? Or is that what you imagine is happening?



No, I can't see that hypothetical being allowed to purchase a gun in America.



I am not talking about branch banks here, but rather the main banks....Tell me of one that doesn't have armed security?



Well, it certainly doesn't mean that a knee jerk reaction to a crazy person means that I now lose my right.



You don't prune the tree with a flame thrower. There is a process, if you want to change the rights of the people, then amend the constitution. Good luck with that.



Well, call your congresscritters, maybe you can have that inane question added to the other stupid questions on the forms to purchase....I can see it now...

'Do you have the intention of killing teenagers, movie goers, or children? Yes____ No____'



Let me break this down for ya...Seems like your sentence here could be interpreted to fit Obama and the demo's today also.



It is equally not a monarchy, or dictatorship either.
Click to expand...

My response we have had 4 public shootings in 2 months 3 was done buy guns or ammunition bought leagally.

Some gun dealers hasn't been crossing the T'S or dotting the I's
Now if that is gun control working I'd just soon go back to the drawing board and try again.

It is the end result that matters not the beginning of gun sales.:peace
 
presluc said:
Why isn't stricter gun controls an option?
It may not prevent guns from being available but it would prevent guns from being available so easily .:peace
Click to expand...

In case you have not noticed, criminals do not obey bans, they profit from them. For example cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth and weed are all federally banned, and have been for decades, yet they are available 24/7/365 and are responsible for a good portion of violent crime by gangs that peddle these "non-existant" wares for maximum profit and will sell them to anyone and everyone tax free, with no waiting period and no background check. They would love to add high end weapons to their inventory of profitable things that people want but the gov't is afraid to regulate and control.
 
presluc said:
Why isn't stricter gun controls an option?
It may not prevent guns from being available but it would prevent guns from being available so easily .:peace
Click to expand...
Because:
  • I think it's unconstitutional.
  • It would cause more harm than good (and the good would be questionable - I mean, I don't consider making guns harder to get a good thing).

Edit: To expand on B, IMO gun control mostly if not only causes issues for people who want a gun for personal defense or recreational purposes. Limiting those in any way (especially the personal defense aspect) is bad in my book.


Edit 2: tl;dr - because it won't work.
 
Last edited:
presluc said:
Sir anybody that knows weapons knows they can be altered.,:peace
Click to expand...

Not easily, but more importantly, not legally.

Becoming a pattern here with the libs. Complain about something, blame the gun, and offer no tangible solution, ie :eek:ne that stops the bad guys.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In case you have not noticed, criminals do not obey bans, they profit from them. For example cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth and weed are all federally banned, and have been for decades, yet they are available 24/7/365 and are responsible for a good portion of violent crime by gangs that peddle these "non-existant" wares for maximum profit and will sell them to anyone and everyone tax free, with no waiting period and no background check. They would love to add high end weapons to their inventory of profitable things that people want but the gov't is afraid to regulate and control.
Click to expand...


628x471.jpg
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In case you have not noticed, criminals do not obey bans, they profit from them. For example cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth and weed are all federally banned, and have been for decades, yet they are available 24/7/365 and are responsible for a good portion of violent crime by gangs that peddle these "non-existant" wares for maximum profit and will sell them to anyone and everyone tax free, with no waiting period and no background check. They would love to add high end weapons to their inventory of profitable things that people want but the gov't is afraid to regulate and control.
Click to expand...

True criminals don't obey laws , when a gun dealer sells a gun to an unstable person that's criminal.:peace
 
The Mark said:
Because:
  • I think it's unconstitutional.
  • It would cause more harm than good (and the good would be questionable - I mean, I don't consider making guns harder to get a good thing).

Edit: To expand on B, IMO gun control mostly if not only causes issues for people who want a gun for personal defense or recreational purposes. Limiting those in any way (especially the personal defense aspect) is bad in my book.


Edit 2: tl;dr - because it won't work.
Click to expand...

I wrong it is constitutional for responsible people to have the right to own guuns , it is not constitutional for criminals or irresposible people to have that right.

2. How do you know it would do more harm it has yet to be tried.

Wanting a gun for personal defence is one thing, wanting a gun to kill innocent people or to just leave a gun laying around that anybody could pick up is another.

If America does not try new vendors or new ways where will America end up ?
Why cause somebody says it won't work.
I've heard that "it won't work"phrase a lot in my life and history is littered with "it won't work" scenarios that actually did work.:peace
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Not easily, but more importantly, not legally.

Becoming a pattern here with the libs. Complain about something, blame the gun, and offer no tangible solution, ie :eek:ne that stops the bad guys.
Click to expand...

Maybe not easily for you but easily for others.

I have not complained about the gun or a gun nor gun ownership by honest responsible people in this thread.
Nor have I complained or said anything bad about the 2nd amendment.
On more than one occasion I said I support the 2nd amendment.

The only reason that there is no tangible solutions is that everytime someone even suggest looking into gun control and sales in America they hit a brick wall of NRA and "it won't work " or that's unconstitutional."

Eventually everybody just says well there is the 2nd amendendment and society waits for the next broadcast about a nut with a gun that kills innocent people with guns bought leageally or easily obtained:peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How do you define/identify an unstable person exactly?
Click to expand...

You must have a lot of unstable friends in your life, so I guess you life must be pretty easy pickens for unstable people.

My point sir is you would know if a person was unstable ;you would not trust just anybody with your pin number to your ATM card would you?
You would not let just anybody stay at your house would you?
Would you let a drug dealer date your daughter?

And you are just an average citizen , gun dealers should have the same knowledge should they not?:peace
 
presluc said:
The only reason that there is no tangible solutions is that everytime someone even suggest looking into gun control and sales in America they hit a brick wall of NRA and "it won't work " or that's unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
Both of those are perfectly sound reasons to oppose a proposal - what sense is there to have a law that doesn't work, violates the constitution, or both?
 
presluc said:
You must have a lot of unstable friends in your life, so I guess you life must be pretty easy pickens for unstable people.

My point sir is you would know if a person was unstable ;you would not trust just anybody with your pin number to your ATM card would you?
You would not let just anybody stay at your house would you?

Would you let a drug dealer date your daughter?

And you are just an average citizen , gun dealers should have the same knowledge should they not?:peace
Click to expand...

Nice legal terminology there, skippy. But at least you are honest in your desire to not sell any guns. So a gun dealer should not sell a gun to anyone that they would not allow to stay in their home, date their daughter and offer their pin number to. They would remain in business for about half a day because, after that, their pool of eligible customers (very close friends and distant relatives?) is likely to have been exhausted.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nice legal terminology there, skippy. But at least you are honest in your desire to not sell any guns. So a gun dealer should not sell a gun to anyone that they would not allow to stay in their home, date their daughter and offer their pin number to. They would remain in business for about half a day because, after that, their pool of eligible customers (very close friends and distant relatives?) is likely to have been exhausted.
Click to expand...
I'm just waiting to hear about the ACLU suing a gun store owner because he refused to sell a gun to someone because of racial profiling.
 
H. Lee White said:
I'm just waiting to hear about the ACLU suing a gun store owner because he refused to sell a gun to someone because of racial profiling.
Click to expand...

The only color, according to many liberals, that they care about is US mint green. ;)
 
H. Lee White said:
Both of those are perfectly sound reasons to oppose a proposal - what sense is there to have a law that doesn't work, violates the constitution, or both?
Click to expand...

You can not sell a gun to a criminal that is the law. violates the constitution
Why would you want to sell a gun who's going to violate the constitution?:peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nice legal terminology there, skippy. But at least you are honest in your desire to not sell any guns. So a gun dealer should not sell a gun to anyone that they would not allow to stay in their home, date their daughter and offer their pin number to. They would remain in business for about half a day because, after that, their pool of eligible customers (very close friends and distant relatives?) is likely to have been exhausted.
Click to expand...

Well, well another spin doctor what do you guys do take a test or something?

I've debated with some of the best spin doctors on this forum, and I gotta tell ya you ain't one of them junior.

The old attage "business is business" was what you were spinning toward I take it man's gotta make a living ect ect.
Heard that before , but where does it stop?
As you said wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that does this or fits this profile he would be out of business???
Question ; what kind of person could not buy a gun from a gun dealer legally?

Arms dealers foreign and domestic make more than any imported exported product including drugs

So somewhere in there is American gun sales , take away the criminal gun sales and you still have quite a chunk of change.

Question Criminals sell guns , where do they get the guns to sell?

Question Can a gun dealer be bribed to sell a gun illegally?
AFTER ALL BUSINESS IS BUSINESS:peace
 
presluc said:
I wrong it is constitutional for responsible people to have the right to own guns , it is not constitutional for criminals or irresponsible people to have that right.
Click to expand...
How do you determine who the "irresponsible" people are? Can you?

presluc said:
2. How do you know it would do more harm it has yet to be tried.
Click to expand...
Way I look at it.
On the one hand, the purpose, or "good" that it supposedly does - preventing or limiting access to firearms (and/or specific types of firearms) for people who are somehow determined to be untrustworthy in that regard.
Sure, you can say "oh this guy was convicted of X, he can't buy a gun". But what about the person who was never even charged with anything, let alone convicted, yet is purchasing a firearm to go on a murder spree? And even if you somehow could identify that person, he could just go purchase a firearm illegally, or steal one.
In short, this "good" is half-assed at best, and won't really do much more than possibly provide a very slight reduction in gun crimes.

Which brings us to the other hand, the “harm” that gun control does – If you eliminate the ability for a person to purchase a firearm to defend themselves, then when/if a criminal who acquired a firearm illegally tries to kill them, they are defenseless. If you greatly restrict the ability, via limits, licenses, etc, it does the same thing but to a lesser degree.
Further, if you eliminate guns or greatly restrict them, criminals or potential criminals will be more likely to attack someone who they feel relatively sure does not have a method to defend themselves. It’s a risk-vs-reward calculation – if I want to rob a house, am I going to choose the one with $100,000 in jewels but an armed owner? Or the one with $50,000 but no defense? Sure I might get twice the reward from house A, but at the same time I might get killed. Of course in reality most criminals try to hit a house when it has no one inside. And that is, IMO, mainly BECAUSE people might have firearms, etc.

In short, gun control harms law-abiding citizens more than it does criminals. Thus bad.
presluc said:
Wanting a gun for personal defense is one thing, wanting a gun to kill innocent people or to just leave a gun laying around that anybody could pick up is another.
Click to expand...
But how can you possibly regulate that? Inspect people’s houses on a yearly basis?

presluc said:
If America does not try new vendors or new ways where will America end up ?
Why cause somebody says it won't work.
I've heard that "it won't work” phrase a lot in my life and history is littered with "it won't work" scenarios that actually did work.:peace
Click to expand...
This isn’t one of them.
I cannot be sure, as I have not made an exhaustive study of this subject, but I suspect someone who has could link and quote proof or at the least indications which show that gun control does more harm than good. Of course much of that is subjective, but from what I have read/heard/seen, it’s enough to convince me.
---------
Of course, I don’t think turning all our schools into fallout bunkers will work either.
 
presluc said:
Well, well another spin doctor what do you guys do take a test or something?

I've debated with some of the best spin doctors on this forum, and I gotta tell ya you ain't one of them junior.

The old attage "business is business" was what you were spinning toward I take it man's gotta make a living ect ect.
Heard that before , but where does it stop?
As you said wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that does this or fits this profile he would be out of business???
Question ; what kind of person could not buy a gun from a gun dealer legally?

Arms dealers foreign and domestic make more than any imported exported product including drugs

So somewhere in there is American gun sales , take away the criminal gun sales and you still have quite a chunk of change.

Question Criminals sell guns , where do they get the guns to sell?

Question Can a gun dealer be bribed to sell a gun illegally?
AFTER ALL BUSINESS IS BUSINESS:peace
Click to expand...

The kind of person that is not a resident of the state of purchase (some exceptions to this apply) and that an NICS check indicates is not a US citizen, has had a violent felony conviction, was designated as having dometic abuse issues or was certified as mentally deficient. Beyond that, I know of no other legal reason for a FFL dealer to deny the sale of a gun. As you should be aware, after that purchaser leaves that FFL dealer's sight, they are free to do as they please with that gun, with no further paperwork involved, or responsibility lies with that FFL dealer. Do some FFL dealers violate the law? Probably, but that is not my concern, that is why we have the BATFE.
 
H. Lee White said:
To someone you have reason to suspect is a criminal, yes.
But, my point was much, much broader.
Click to expand...

Broader? how so?

In case you haven't been reading my post I am an Independent.

I support the 2nd amendment,and the right to own arms. for defencive purposes, I support abortion , I support the death penalty.

I do not support selling guns to irresponsible people that winds up making innocent people and children dead.

Too many times in the past people as ask for an investigation for strickter gun control too many times we were accused of breaking the constitutional rights of the people.
Columbine innocent people dead
Flint a child shot by a child
Virginia Tech College students dead
Aurora movie goers shot and killed
New Town 26 innocent 20 under the age of 7
Penn.
and the list get larger.

We ask about not stopping the right to own guns or to defend yourself with guns we ask about the current gun control.

Our answer after the killings at Conn, the same answer we got after Columbine , Flint, Virginia Tech Aurora.

The current gun control laws are working fine, it's the crazies fault,you're trying to take away my constitutional right according to the 2nd amendment, from my col dead hands, oh look the libs are whining again blah blah blah.
Meanwhile there are 20 innocent kids dead in Conn.
as well as other places shot with guns purchased legally.

I've heard a lot of talk about if you can't take care of a child you should not have one I AGREE

IF A PERSON DON'T KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE OF A GUN THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE ONE I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom