A handful of extremists took out 3000 people on Sept 11th. You would have crucified your President if he had used this argument to do nothing about it.
Gun News Talk
- Thread starter Minor Axis
- Start date
A handful of extremists took out 3000 people on Sept 11th. You would have crucified your President if he had used this argument to do nothing about it.
Changes to the gun laws wont fix the problem overnight.... but they will start to address the 18th century attitudes that allow gun crime to persist .
America seems to be pretty unique among developed nations in its attitude towards its own government. The notion that the second amendment is somehow still relevant is a sham. There is no 'well disciplined militia', and the government holds all of the aces.Trillions of dollars worth of hardware protect the USA from domestic and international threats. The balance of power is totally one sided. Any attempt at armed insurrection or treason would be quickly subdued.
People need to realise that we are no longer living in frontier conditions, and that as long as guns are freely available, people will continue to use them for criminal purposes. The 23 executive orders are a brave start in the long journey to change attitudes.
"The 23 executive orders are a brave start in the long journey to change attitudes."
No, they are an over reaching abuse of power. Like much of the legislation of the past 20 years.
No, they are an over reaching abuse of power. Like much of the legislation of the past 20 years.
That's the fundamental difference of opinion between those who see their government as elected representatives of the democratic wishes of their countrymen, and those who view their government as a thinly veiled dictatorship.
That's ............................
All valid comparisons are historic, Nimrod.
He couldn't have used the argument that McVeigh killed 10X that many people, because he didn't kill 30,000 people, Nimrod.
No active law is a sham so long as the rule of law prevails. When it doesn't, then it doesn't matter anyway.
So we should give up our liberty because the tyrants are stronger? That's what you're saying?
and other people will continue to use them for legal purposes ... and other people will be able to use them to stem tyranny. And still other will be able to use them because it is their right to use them.
you've conveniently misread or ducked the biggest argument, so I'll restate it in the nope that you man up and come back to it.
on Sept 11th 2001, around 3000 people lost their lives to a group of terrorists.
Originally Posted by Jackass master 
Nothing he proposed yesterday except veiled mental health changes will stop the nuts from shooting. . Nuts and criminals will always find a way.
George Bush didn't shrug his shoulders and say 'oh well, 99.99%of people who use public transport do it safely, the nutjobs are always going to find a way'
The overwhelming majority of Americans accepted the supposed 'loss of freedoms' caused by changes to air security as a direct result of 9/11.
Why then did Bush shrug his shoulders and do nothing to stem the many thousands more deaths directly attributable to gun abuse under his presidency?
And on the subject of McVeigh...... Please remind us which building he attacked, and why.
I think you'll also find that the US government tightened controls on the active ingredient of fertilizer as a direct result of McVeigh's attempt to inspire a revolt against federal government.
on Sept 11th 2001, around 3000 people lost their lives to a group of terrorists.
Nothing he proposed yesterday except veiled mental health changes will stop the nuts from shooting. . Nuts and criminals will always find a way.
George Bush didn't shrug his shoulders and say 'oh well, 99.99%of people who use public transport do it safely, the nutjobs are always going to find a way'
The overwhelming majority of Americans accepted the supposed 'loss of freedoms' caused by changes to air security as a direct result of 9/11.
Why then did Bush shrug his shoulders and do nothing to stem the many thousands more deaths directly attributable to gun abuse under his presidency?
And on the subject of McVeigh...... Please remind us which building he attacked, and why.
I think you'll also find that the US government tightened controls on the active ingredient of fertilizer as a direct result of McVeigh's attempt to inspire a revolt against federal government.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup, you are correct, but so is your invalid one. Try to debate instead of deflect and distract with obsolete data.
The largest school massacre is a valid statistic, even if it was too far back to have been reported on color TV. The Michigan murders that Allen (not I) cited is valid to the discussion, and will continue to be valid until another mass murder pushes it to number two. Pointing out that murderers don't always use guns - and thus show that eliminating guns won't eliminate murders - is not deflection. Allen addressed Minor's post directly.
So, not deflection; not distraction; not invalid.
It deliberately avoids the discussion of how to reduce deaths caused by guns, so it's both a distraction and a deflection.
Sandy Hook was not an isolated tragedy. There have been 900 other gun-related deaths in the USA since then. Is that an acceptable price to pay for what is essentially nothing more than a hobby?
Sandy Hook was not an isolated tragedy. There have been 900 other gun-related deaths in the USA since then. Is that an acceptable price to pay for what is essentially nothing more than a hobby?
Using the term "Nimrod" repeatedly, undermines the users argument.
Dundee you seem to know it all
So tell us how you would solve the gun problem
You find citing history is inconvenient but when you come up with your solution take a look and see what happened when some countries disarmed if that is your solution.
Guns laws are moving the way of drunk driving laws. They dance around the problem which only impacts those legally trying to get or keep guns the same as they do with drunk drivers.
And when coming up with your solution Dundee keep in mind days like yesterday. It was good business at the guns stores.
Americans will always have their guns. Had they not been armed back in 1776 they would still be British.
or worse we could have been like Germany and Russia
Did you write the letter that caused this response??
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/17/4555883/us-not-like-other-countries.html
So tell us how you would solve the gun problem
You find citing history is inconvenient but when you come up with your solution take a look and see what happened when some countries disarmed if that is your solution.
Guns laws are moving the way of drunk driving laws. They dance around the problem which only impacts those legally trying to get or keep guns the same as they do with drunk drivers.
And when coming up with your solution Dundee keep in mind days like yesterday. It was good business at the guns stores.
Americans will always have their guns. Had they not been armed back in 1776 they would still be British.
or worse we could have been like Germany and Russia
Did you write the letter that caused this response??
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/17/4555883/us-not-like-other-countries.html
Last edited by a moderator:
How many of the 900 gun-related deaths involved assault rifles? How many involved high-capacity magazines? Of course, if anyone was killed with the first 10 shots, then the size of magazine would be moot. In your research, did you find any evidence that a background check would have prevented the killer from obtaining his/her weapon?
My point is that these measures, just like the "Patriot" Act *spits*, do little to address details that allowed the crime to occur. This president, just like the last, is capitalizing on a catastrophe to expand gov't control and reduce individual liberty.
So one time is okay?
You're right, of course. I'm taking deep calming breaths as we speak.
Hey, on a brighter note, my wifes 00 buck training ammo came in the other day!
The solution is easy. Be competent around guns and know how to use them for self defense.
The solution is easy. Be competent around guns and know how to use them for self defense.
sorry but that is no solution
legally owned guns misused by their owners is not even a blip on the gun violence radar
the problem is guns getting into the hands of nuts and criminals
Having a gun is a right but it comes with responsibilities. Part of that is being held responsible if your gun is used in a crime. If it was stolen or lost you should have to report it immediately or be held accountable for reckless endangerment. Following the path a gun took before a crime should be required. For example at the latest school killing the mother if she had lived should have been equally responsible for the actions of her son since she not only did not apparently have them locked up but she knew her son was a nut.
The mass murders make the news but they are not the biggest result in deaths. In less than a week or so as many people were murdered in Chicago and Detroit. Nothing in the proposals addresses how to reduce those deaths.
I'm pushing 50 and probably had more guns than my age. ANY gun I have sold or have owned has been done by the books. Not ONE single gun I've had my hands on has EVER come back to me by anyone as being used in a crime.
Ironically enough, take a look at the gun laws and murder rate in those two cities you've mentioned. I worked in DC when I was younger, when I moved they were in the triple digit murder rate in less than the first quarter of the year, check their gun laws as well.
that said, I will agree that too many people who are idiots own guns who shouldn't have them. The worse thing you can do IMO is buy a gun for protection and rarely practice with it.
Ironically enough, take a look at the gun laws and murder rate in those two cities you've mentioned. I worked in DC when I was younger, when I moved they were in the triple digit murder rate in less than the first quarter of the year, check their gun laws as well.
that said, I will agree that too many people who are idiots own guns who shouldn't have them. The worse thing you can do IMO is buy a gun for protection and rarely practice with it.
i agree if you own a gun you need to know how to store it and use it. that is not what is causing all the murders except for the nut case now and then using one the vast majority are obtained illegally and used in crimes or to settle a score. At least in the high crime areas. Joe I was not using you as an example of where a gun is illegally obtained. You are the opposite example as you do things by the book. The problem is way too many do not follow that book.
Most people I deal with always want to cover their butt and "follow the book". If someone didn't want to follow the state law dealing with me, I wouldn't want to deal with them, period.
The fact is, there are illegal gun markets out there that the law has no affect over. The only thing more laws do is make it impossible for the law abiding citizen. That and increase gun values. My buddy called me to thank me for the tip on the 2k gun he bought because he can't find it under 3.5k now.
The biggest problem is people who are "anti gun" don't have a clue what their talking about. The news is a joke as they never get their "facts" straight or terminolgy right.
Heck, the Associated Press made the comment that if the 94 Assault Weapons ban was still in effect, the killings at the elemantary school in CT would never of happened. That is total BULL SHIT. What scares the living crap out of me is people who report the news don't have a clue what their talking about. Just recently I called a local newspaper reporter because a comment he made pertaining to federal/state gun laws was incorrect. He (the reporter) told me it was a typo. Yeah.
You are right on about the inept reporting. They only want to sensationalize the story. They are as bad as Biden hearing shots he could not have heard if he had ultra-sonic hearing. They just want the PR.