Using a tragedy to push laws that do not address the cause of the shooting (1 Viewer)

[TurtleDude]

What's stopping them from getting guns in the UK ?
Look at the mass shootings, almost all are committed with legally bought guns. (and even the illegal guns were bought legally by someone at sometime)


Only someone blinded to the truth and who would rather see the world burn than give up his guns denies this.

you ignore history

English criminals never were using firearms all that much prior to their gun bans

your howling to ban most guns would result in a civil war-do you plan on being part of the gun banning forces?

 

[TurtleDude]

Whilst I would love to be able to buy and own an HK-416, what possible need do you have of one ?

where does need have any relevance? if people like you want to ban something-that alone is grounds for freedom loving Americans to own it. if the government 'needs' such weapons to use against its own citizens, said citizens need them to prevent the government from using them against us

 

[Rucker61]

Whilst I would love to be able to buy and own an HK-416, what possible need do you have of one ?

Why do you use the word "need"?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you use the word "need"?

because he tries to project his "needs" as being the standard for the rest of us

 

[CLAX1911]

An excellent reason why most of us pro gun advocates reject the anti gun reactions to mass shootings

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ts-show-why-gun-control-advocates-mistrusted/

as to the Texas HS Shooting
If his public statements are to be believed, Senator Murphy does not want to ban shotguns or .38-caliber revolvers, which is why he has made no effort to convince Congress to do so. Per Murphy’s website, the senator favors “universal background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers and illegal weapon sales, and limiting access to high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons.” In addition, he hopes to secure “legislation to close loopholes in our background check system; to make it illegal for those on the FBI terror watch list to buy a gun; to end the ban on gun violence research at the Center for Disease Control; to encourage licensing requirements for handgun purchases; and to help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.” None of these provisions intersect with today’s incident. Which means that if, as Murphy claims, Congress is to blame for not having taken steps to stop what happened today, then Senator Murphy is, too. He cannot have it both ways. If today’s murders were the result of congressional inaction on shotguns and revolvers — if, to borrow his unlovely phrase, a “green light” was shown to the killer — then he must share in the responsibility. And if he isn’t responsible, then nor is anybody else.

​

I honestly think it's a diversion so that we don't have to look at the real issue. That issue is our culture. So the Parkland shooter was part of a program called Promise which is why the police couldn't arrest him. Programs like this are developed to combat a mythology known as school-to-prison pipeline.

The idea that it's a pipeline bothers me. Things that flow through pipe have no choice students that flow into the prison system do.

This sort of policy is created specifically by the people that advocate for gun control.

So when we get down to the brass tacks gun control is more of a rodeo clown then an actual solution.

 

[Nickyjo]

you cannot prove they would work here can you. what's wrong with them-they INFRINGE on our rights since they are only DIRECTED at people who haven't caused problems with firearms. and at least half of the Democrats want to ban most modern sporting rifles

Of course I cannot prove that something w haven’t tried to do would work here. But laws against fraud, theft and murder seem to work, without infringing on people’s rights.

Gun control on airplanes seems to be working. Would you want to repeal them?

 

[Rucker61]

Of course I cannot prove that something w haven’t tried to do would work here. But laws against fraud, theft and murder seem to work, without infringing on people’s rights.

Gun control on airplanes seems to be working. Would you want to repeal them?

You can take guns on airplanes if the owners say it's okay. Laws against fraud, theft and murder don't actually seem to work, and owning a gun isn't the same as committing a crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course I cannot prove that something w haven’t tried to do would work here. But laws against fraud, theft and murder seem to work, without infringing on people’s rights.

Gun control on airplanes seems to be working. Would you want to repeal them?

lets examine your somewhat pertinent post. yes, we have laws against, theft, murder and fraud. we prevent lots of that by the threat of punishment and punishment for those convicted. Which is what we should do with the improper use of firearms. Yet, gun banners want to do more than merely have the threat of a severe sentence hanging over someone's head. they want to pass laws that punish activity they claim can later facilitate murder. why is that?

 

[zsu2357]

Whilst I would love to be able to buy and own an HK-416, what possible need do you have of one ?

Because I can. Do I need some other reason? What you may own is NOT based on need. You don't NEED a 57" flat screen but if you want one you can have one. You don't NEED an indoor pool but you can have it.