Gun Control concerning SHOTGUNS/RIFLES

[TheOriginalJames]

If it can be called a deadly weapon, it should be registered.

Anything could be used with deadly force. Remember the article where those punks beat the kid to death with a TV? Should I register my TV or go through a background check before I can purchase one?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Is a tv called a weapon? No. That's why I said a deadly weapon not just deadly. No one can mass murder 15 people with a television, or a base ball bat.

 

[Strauss]

Well how does the national register actually inhibit your freedom at all? I just don't see the logic here - it seems nonsensical to me.
The value it would provide to services like law enforcement....

What value? Ownership is legal so why would this provide value to law enforcement?

 

[Strauss]

If it can be called a deadly weapon, it should be registered.

Why??

 

[Goat Whisperer]

So that way the people responsible for little things like I dunno lets say Viginia Tech and my very close to home experience Trolley Square can be found and prosecuted.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Is a tv called a weapon? No. That's why I said a deadly weapon not just deadly. No one can mass murder 15 people with a television, or a base ball bat.

Uh... yeah you can. In fact, a baseball bat is less traceable than a gun. You take the weapon with you and leave no casings behind.

Everything can be called a deadly weapon.

 

[Strauss]

So that way the people responsible for little things like I dunno lets say Viginia Tech and my very close to home experience Trolley Square can be found and prosecuted.

See just like others here you are confused. Registration would not have stop Virginia Tech. Registering a gun does not stop wackos. Its the background check that identifies the wackos. So if you want to change the law to include people like Seung-Hui Cho for purposes of a background check, it sounds like a good idea to me. But that does not require a national registration of guns. What it requires is a more comprehensive background check.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

See just like others here you are confused. Registration would not have stop Virginia Tech. Registering a gun does not stop wackos. Its the background check that identifies the wackos. So if you want to change the law to include people like Seung-Hui Cho for purposes of a background check, it sounds like a good idea to me. But that does not require a national registration of guns. What it requires is a more comprehensive background check.

If he wouldn't of gotten a gun he wouldn't of been able to shoot all those people. I highly doubt a deeply troubled teen (One that has been going to therapists for things like wanting to kill people, whihc would of come up in a background check) could of easily gotten a gun if the registration process wasn't so easy. Maybe if he hadn't of been able to get a gun so fast and easily he would of been able to calm down and realize how much wrong he was planning on doing. Yes people can find ways of getting guns otherwise like pawn shops and friends, but if the laws were more feirce no one would be loaning out their guns or selling them to pawn shops. If laws were more strict and you could be held responsible for giving someone mentally unstable a shot-gun things could be different in many past and future situations.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Uh... yeah you can. In fact, a baseball bat is less traceable than a gun. You take the weapon with you and leave no casings behind.

Everything can be called a deadly weapon.

So if cho hadn't been able to get his guns and bullets because of stricter laws he would of killed 33 people and injured 15 others with a baseball bat? Interesting.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

So if cho hadn't been able to get his guns and bullets because of stricter laws he would of killed 33 people and injured 15 others with a baseball bat? Interesting.

Um... you can't deny the ability of people to swing a bat. it doesn't take much more than one swing to the head to kill someone from blunt force trauma.

You can thank Virginia state and the federal government for him having handguns. There are certain checks you have to go through to buy a handgun, one of them is having a background check performed for each gun you buy. Trust me. I've had 3 of them run. There is no age limit for buying ammunition in Virginia. I could send my 7 year old nephew in and buy me ammo.

He was declared mentally ill and was asked to seek counseling, but wasn't ordered to.

He wasn't a teen, btw, in VA you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. He was 23.

Still the problem I have is when people place the blame on guns. It's not the guns' fault. It just isn't. Cho was determined to do what he did. Had he not had guns, he could have done it with damn near anything else. He just chose to be a pussy and use the simplest method for his madness. So until you want to stop blaming the guns and start blaming him solely, I'm done here.

 

[Minor Axis]

As sometimes wonder about your ability to process information. I'll type slow so maybe you can follow along.

When you want to have a serious conversation you can drop the BS.

 

[gLing]

So if cho hadn't been able to get his guns and bullets because of stricter laws he would of killed 33 people and injured 15 others with a baseball bat? Interesting.

No laws will stop somebody getting a gun if they wanted too. Just like with drugs you can go buy guns and ammo right off of the street.

 

[Strauss]

When you want to have a serious conversation you can drop the BS.

No BS, I think you act the way you do to annoy people into responding in an inappropriate manner.

 

[Strauss]

If he wouldn't of gotten a gun he wouldn't of been able to shoot all those people. I highly doubt a deeply troubled teen (One that has been going to therapists for things like wanting to kill people, whihc would of come up in a background check) could of easily gotten a gun if the registration process wasn't so easy. Maybe if he hadn't of been able to get a gun so fast and easily he would of been able to calm down and realize how much wrong he was planning on doing.

One more time for the people in the back row:

1. Registration does NOT stop wackos from getting guns.
2 The background check (which usually takes 7 days or more) is what catches wackos; NOT registration.
3. There was a quirk in the law that allowed Cho to purchase a gun. That quirk/loophole has been closed.

 

[Minor Axis]

No BS, I think you act the way you do to annoy people into responding in an inappropriate manner.

In this thread I defy you to find a single confrontational statement by me designed to annoy you or anyone. You are the one with issues with what I've said while I've simply stated what I think. Maybe you have a very low tolerance with any one who does not agree with you 100%. Grow up.

 

[Strauss]

In this thread I defy you to find a single confrontational statement by me designed to annoy you or anyone. You are the one with issues with what I've said while I've simply stated what I think. Maybe you have a very low tolerance with any one who does not agree with you 100%. Grow up.

Again, you miss the point. Your response is totally out in left field, has nothing to do with what I said and is a further example of your attempts to be annoying. I never once said anything about confrontational. Get it. You do a wonderful job of "I don't get it? I don't get it".

Either you play stupid or maybe you're not playing, I don't know. Its called passive aggressive behavior. You can't make a cogent, intelligent argument nor can you respond to one so you engage in this passive aggressive type responses.

 

[Minor Axis]

Again, you miss the point. Your response is totally out in left field, has nothing to do with what I said and is a further example of your attempts to be annoying.

You took issue and responded to what I said, not the other way around . The point is I've made no annoying, controversial, or inaccurate statements in this thread. Nothing that should rile you. What exactly is your issue, is it my position or is it just me?

BTW, when I mentioned gun registration, I did not specifically say it, but a background check is part of the gun registration process as I know it. I did not spell it out for you as I assumed you were familiar. No?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Forget about what this thread is about for just one second. IF you made the laws incredibly strict and the enforcement incredibly tough, like if a police man sees a gun you have to have proof registration and other papers right then and there otherwise it is confiscated and it is a long process to get your gun back, maybe it would be possible to keep people from using guns for anything else but hunting, and for police protection. Statics say that guns used for protection in homes are usually used against the victim anyways.

If you had to purchase a special gun cabinet with your first gun that was bullet proof it's self and had some sort of super double lock on it, so that way no curious teens or kids could get into it. If you had to bring your guns in for a every 6 month inspection to make sure that they were still in your possession, etc. We could tighten up the lawa to the point where guns could not be easily found in the hands of criminals and make it take months to get a new one I don't see a problem with it.

If a psychopath can't get a gun off the streets or from his friends it should take a long time to get one legally. If you they had to take a while maybe someone would realize something was up with the guy or girl and get them into some sort of mental hospital, or maybe they could even realize how irrational they are being themselves. I think over all psychopaths cannot be controlled. Some are born that way and no one realizes how dangerous they are until it's all to late. They are irrational and extreme. They can be ripped of the wagon by a simple joke on sponge bob. We can not control some of these people but, we can control guns.

To receive a gun you should have to go through a mental test, to check your mental stability, a physical test, to test your ability to aim, and an extensive background check of at least the prevoius 5 years of any serious crime. If we made it strict I don't see why we couldn't get it under control enough. I understand how people continue to say "It isn't the gun shooting it's the person" But when it's a psychopath it doesn't matter what we do if they can get their hands on a weapon.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Um... you can't deny the ability of people to swing a bat. it doesn't take much more than one swing to the head to kill someone from blunt force trauma.

Yes if his onslaught had just been the first 2 people he killed. When going against all those students one to however many it was like 70, with a gun--peice of cake, a person attacks you, *bang* their dead before they've even stood up, 3 people, *bang* *bang* *bang* 3 seconds 3 people down. Easy. If your seriodly argueing he could of done that with a bat... I don't even think I really have to say anything about it.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Yes if his onslaught had just been the first 2 people he killed. When going against all those students one to however many it was like 70, with a gun--peice of cake, a person attacks you, *bang* their dead before they've even stood up, 3 people, *bang* *bang* *bang* 3 seconds 3 people down. Easy. If your seriodly argueing he could of done that with a bat... I don't even think I really have to say anything about it.

Uh... duh, child.

You'd have to change your angle of attack with a different weapon. Stop blaming the fucking guns for the problem.