So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 . . . 43 NEXT
 

Stilt:

I don't think that hitler taking guns away is as relevant as my point that popularity =/= right. I was using hitler as an example against a very broad, vague argument which was easily discredited, however i dont think that you would seriously make the argument that because hitler was in favor of gun control that we in america should have no laws governing the sale and purchase of weapons. Hitler was also vegetarian, doesn't mean we should ban vegetables.

You could of proved that point without resorting to the Hitler card. I was using that example just to show you what I can use if you use the Hitler card. You could of noted Twilight is popular, or Bush, or anything else. Using Hitler seams like your trying to use emotions of the horrible things that man did to your favor.

However, I would also like to point out that using Hitler alone as an argument for gun control is flawed, I would also like to point out the fact that just about every other dictator of the last century also enacted very strict gun control laws as soon as they gained power is an argument against gun control.

The advantage a stockpiler has is, if crazy, he can arm a group of like minded crazies with the snap of a finger, with the possibility of killing thousands.

You know how hard it is to kill THOUSANDS of people? You would need tens of thousands o bullets, hundreds of guns, hundreds of people that are both able and willing to just randomly, out of the blue, kill a load of random people, without any reaction from the police, military, or any other armed civilian.

Can you please find me of one time, ONE time that a dedicated group broke the collection of a single man and went on to kill thousands of people? One case here in America that this happened?

As for mental health, ill concede this, mental health is a very broad term that covers several disorders, not all of them spontaneous or violent. However my point still stands that violent psychopaths will have no problem finding guns and bullets to kill people with due to our lax gun laws.

The cost/benefit ratio is way to high for this to be even attempted. With several MILLION guns purchased in the U.S. every year, the added cost of time and resources to test every, single, person that buys a gun for a very serious mental health disorder well surpasses the cost caused by the very tiny amount of people that go on a shooting spree just because they are insane. Also, I doubt it would even cause a dent in the crime, because an insane person wanting to blow several people's heads off wouldn't mind buying a gun illegally.

Someone previously tried to argue that in the wake of the string of school shootings that our country has experienced for the last 2 decades, that we are still experiencing, that we should make guns even EASIER to obtain. Ha, unreal, Im not even going to bother responding to that

And you know what changed two decades ago? The "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," a Federal act that made several places areas illegal to bring a gun to, including schools. Oh, it was struck down by the Supreme Court five years later (broke the Commerce Clause), which was immediately followed by the majority of states making it illegal to carry firearms on campuses, while almost all universities changed their own campus rules in the few states that didn't change their laws.

Stilt:

Tyler Perry:
An interesting article on people's perceptions of the case:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/there_wont_be_unity_on_the_tra036717.php#more

I read the thing, it made some very good points and I can see my biases more clearly as a result of it, but at the end of the day, I still have to say the fat man with the gun following a kid with skittles is exceedingly likely to be the guilty one. That and the fact that he's alive. Also, people keep saying "oh the bruises wouldnt have had time to show up" to which I respond "then why didnt he take some pictures of those big bad bruises the day after eh?

They probably did take plenty of pictures of Zimmerman both on the scene and shortly afterwards. If so, it will be among the evidence held by police, along with the rest of the stuff we don't have access to.

As for your conviction that Zimmerman is guilty, I'll ask again. Why?

Assuming homicidal tendency on the basis of having the gun is bullshit. I believe I already mentioned the fact that CC licensees like Zimmerman are statistically less likely to commit a crime than even someone like you.

Assuming racial hatred in this matter is also bullshit. There's no evidence of it, quite the opposite.

Assuming the person who lives is guilty... I haven't heard that thought process used since they stopped drowning suspected witches.

Stilt:
However there is no reason for anyone to own more than one gun, it makes it easier for them to get stolen, raises the possibility of armed uprising, and is just generally a bad idea. And no, i dont think stockpiling should be defended on the basis of a collectors novelty..

Your argument is so silly, it border on nonsensical. Guns have many different purposes. My carbine is used for target shooting. If I want to get a home defense weapon, it's going to be a very different gun than one for hunting, as well. And a carry piece would also be very different than most any other weapon, like a pistol done for shooting.

So different needs that a person can have is a pretty good reason. If I want a hunting rifle, I think it's pretty unfair to say I have to chose between getting that or getting a Mossberg for home defense.

Also, you still fail to define stockpiling or any rational legal basis why a constitutional right should be rationed in such a regard

Not G. Ivingname:

You could of proved that point without resorting to the Hitler card. I was using that example just to show you what I can use if you use the Hitler card. You could of noted Twilight is popular, or Bush, or anything else. Using Hitler seams like your trying to use emotions of the horrible things that man did to your favor.

fair enough

However, I would also like to point out that using Hitler alone as an argument for gun control is flawed, I would also like to point out the fact that just about every other dictator of the last century also enacted very strict gun control laws as soon as they gained power is an argument against gun control.

And I'm sure gun violence by the citizens plummeted. They were living in shitty tyrannies, but I'm sure gun deaths went down

You know how hard it is to kill THOUSANDS of people? You would need tens of thousands o bullets, hundreds of guns, hundreds of people that are both able and willing to just randomly, out of the blue, kill a load of random people, without any reaction from the police, military, or any other armed civilian.

yes, quite hard, no, no precedent, still more possible in america than anywhere else. I said possible, not likely mind you

Can you please find me of one time, ONE time that a dedicated group broke the collection of a single man and went on to kill thousands of people? One case here in America that this happened?

The cost/benefit ratio is way to high for this to be even attempted. With several MILLION guns purchased in the U.S. every year, the added cost of time and resources to test every, single, person that buys a gun for a very serious mental health disorder well surpasses the cost caused by the very tiny amount of people that go on a shooting spree just because they are insane. Also, I doubt it would even cause a dent in the crime, because an insane person wanting to blow several people's heads off wouldn't mind buying a gun illegally.

im not asking the vendors to perform a diagnosis, Im asking them to tell customers to come back in a week after theyve checked their backgrounds is all

And you know what changed two decades ago? The "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," a Federal act that made several places areas illegal to bring a gun to, including schools. Oh, it was struck down by the Supreme Court five years later (broke the Commerce Clause), which was immediately followed by the majority of states making it illegal to carry firearms on campuses, while almost all universities changed their own campus rules in the few states that didn't change their laws.

you're suggesting this law somehow had something to do with gun violence in schools? I cant wait to hear this

Stilt:
im not asking the vendors to perform a diagnosis, Im asking them to tell customers to come back in a week after theyve checked their backgrounds is all

They can do a NICS check in about 10 minutes. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant".

I'd have to ask what the bloody point of such a system is if a person should wait a week even when they can see if there's a problem in 10 minutes.

I take back what I said about you being Blablahb. You're getting far closer to reonhato now.

CM156:

Stilt:
im not asking the vendors to perform a diagnosis, Im asking them to tell customers to come back in a week after theyve checked their backgrounds is all

They can do a NICS check in about 10 minutes. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant".

I'd have to ask what the bloody point of such a system is if a person should wait a week even when they can see if there's a problem in 10 minutes.

I take back what I said about you being Blablahb. You're getting far closer to reonhato now.

Ad HOOOMinem, oh ad HOMMMMINEM... how you discredit the rest of your speaker's point so effectively i will never know

Stilt:

CM156:

Stilt:
im not asking the vendors to perform a diagnosis, Im asking them to tell customers to come back in a week after theyve checked their backgrounds is all

They can do a NICS check in about 10 minutes. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant".

I'd have to ask what the bloody point of such a system is if a person should wait a week even when they can see if there's a problem in 10 minutes.

I take back what I said about you being Blablahb. You're getting far closer to reonhato now.

Ad HOOOMinem, oh ad HOMMMMINEM... how you discredit the rest of your speaker's point so effectively i will never know

That would only happen to be if you think pointing out you have a similar writing style to another is an "attack". It isn't.

So, do you care to address anything I've said elsewhere, or not?

My guess is not. Might I recommend you brush up on gun laws before you debate them?

CM156:

Stilt:
However there is no reason for anyone to own more than one gun, it makes it easier for them to get stolen, raises the possibility of armed uprising, and is just generally a bad idea. And no, i dont think stockpiling should be defended on the basis of a collectors novelty..

Your argument is so silly, it border on nonsensical. Guns have many different purposes. My carbine is used for target shooting. If I want to get a home defense weapon, it's going to be a very different gun than one for hunting, as well. And a carry piece would also be very different than most any other weapon, like a pistol done for shooting.

So different needs that a person can have is a pretty good reason. If I want a hunting rifle, I think it's pretty unfair to say I have to chose between getting that or getting a Mossberg for home defense.

Also, you still fail to define stockpiling or any rational legal basis why a constitutional right should be rationed in such a regard

I posit that he's thinking about a scenario where someone has a basement or room with guns quite literally piled on top of each other.

That is the only meaning I can even begin to imagine from what he's saying.

Zekksta:

CM156:

Stilt:
However there is no reason for anyone to own more than one gun, it makes it easier for them to get stolen, raises the possibility of armed uprising, and is just generally a bad idea. And no, i dont think stockpiling should be defended on the basis of a collectors novelty..

Your argument is so silly, it border on nonsensical. Guns have many different purposes. My carbine is used for target shooting. If I want to get a home defense weapon, it's going to be a very different gun than one for hunting, as well. And a carry piece would also be very different than most any other weapon, like a pistol done for shooting.

So different needs that a person can have is a pretty good reason. If I want a hunting rifle, I think it's pretty unfair to say I have to chose between getting that or getting a Mossberg for home defense.

Also, you still fail to define stockpiling or any rational legal basis why a constitutional right should be rationed in such a regard

I posit that he's thinking about a scenario where someone has a basement or room with guns quite literally piled on top of each other.

That is the only meaning I can even begin to imagine from what he's saying.

Well, such a person would be in such a minority, that making a law to address said issue would not be really needed.

Sad that "hoarding" isn't a space on my anti-gun rights bingo.

CM156:

Stilt:

CM156:

They can do a NICS check in about 10 minutes. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant".

I'd have to ask what the bloody point of such a system is if a person should wait a week even when they can see if there's a problem in 10 minutes.

I take back what I said about you being Blablahb. You're getting far closer to reonhato now.

Ad HOOOMinem, oh ad HOMMMMINEM... how you discredit the rest of your speaker's point so effectively i will never know

That would only happen to be if you think pointing out you have a similar writing style to another is an "attack". It isn't.

So, do you care to address anything I've said elsewhere, or not?

My guess is not. Might I recommend you brush up on gun laws before you debate them?

Well I've already made clear that I dont take kindly to you imposing someone else's identity on my own, and you've made the conscious decision to continue, thereby irrefutably making it an ad hominem.
Also it's clear that you have no respect for this blahblab guy and reonhahsdb guy, therefore making it an ad hominem intrinsically

CM156:

Zekksta:

CM156:

Your argument is so silly, it border on nonsensical. Guns have many different purposes. My carbine is used for target shooting. If I want to get a home defense weapon, it's going to be a very different gun than one for hunting, as well. And a carry piece would also be very different than most any other weapon, like a pistol done for shooting.

So different needs that a person can have is a pretty good reason. If I want a hunting rifle, I think it's pretty unfair to say I have to chose between getting that or getting a Mossberg for home defense.

Also, you still fail to define stockpiling or any rational legal basis why a constitutional right should be rationed in such a regard

I posit that he's thinking about a scenario where someone has a basement or room with guns quite literally piled on top of each other.

That is the only meaning I can even begin to imagine from what he's saying.

Well, such a person would be in such a minority, that making a law to address said issue would not be really needed.

I'm not really sure a law would even be necessary to prevent it in America, even if it wasn't the minority. As long as the people don't do anything illegal with the guns then there should be no issue. (Storage issues/laws aside)

Zekksta:

CM156:

Stilt:
However there is no reason for anyone to own more than one gun, it makes it easier for them to get stolen, raises the possibility of armed uprising, and is just generally a bad idea. And no, i dont think stockpiling should be defended on the basis of a collectors novelty..

Your argument is so silly, it border on nonsensical. Guns have many different purposes. My carbine is used for target shooting. If I want to get a home defense weapon, it's going to be a very different gun than one for hunting, as well. And a carry piece would also be very different than most any other weapon, like a pistol done for shooting.

So different needs that a person can have is a pretty good reason. If I want a hunting rifle, I think it's pretty unfair to say I have to chose between getting that or getting a Mossberg for home defense.

Also, you still fail to define stockpiling or any rational legal basis why a constitutional right should be rationed in such a regard

I posit that he's thinking about a scenario where someone has a basement or room with guns quite literally piled on top of each other.

That is the only meaning I can even begin to imagine from what he's saying.

No, you owning a hunting rifle and a concealed weapon is not stockpiling. Anything above, ill be generous, 4 guns is stockpiling. Am I not merciful?

Stilt:

No, you owning a hunting rifle and a concealed weapon is not stockpiling. Anything above, ill be generous, 4 guns is stockpiling. Am I not merciful?

Is your arbitrary rule of *four items is considered stockpiling* only applicable to guns?

Stilt:

CM156:

Stilt:

Ad HOOOMinem, oh ad HOMMMMINEM... how you discredit the rest of your speaker's point so effectively i will never know

That would only happen to be if you think pointing out you have a similar writing style to another is an "attack". It isn't.

So, do you care to address anything I've said elsewhere, or not?

My guess is not. Might I recommend you brush up on gun laws before you debate them?

Well I've already made clear that I dont take kindly to you imposing someone else's identity on my own, and you've made the conscious decision to continue, thereby irrefutably making it an ad hominem.
Also it's clear that you have no respect for this blahblab guy and reonhahsdb guy, therefore making it an ad hominem intrinsically

I didn't say you were him. I stated you were sounding like him due to typing patterns. Big difference.

But I see this deflection tactic

I didn't intend it as an attack. I in no way said it was.

Now... Care to address any points?

Stilt:

No, you owning a hunting rifle and a concealed weapon is not stockpiling. Anything above, ill be generous, 4 guns is stockpiling. Am I not merciful?

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Note that even in California, they don't have a limit on the number of guns you can own. It's damn difficult to get one, but there's noting legally stopping you from having four, five, or even twenty.

Zekksta:
I'm not really sure a law would even be necessary to prevent it in America, even if it wasn't the minority. As long as the people don't do anything illegal with the guns then there should be no issue. (Storage issues/laws aside)

Then we're in agreement.

Zekksta:

Stilt:

No, you owning a hunting rifle and a concealed weapon is not stockpiling. Anything above, ill be generous, 4 guns is stockpiling. Am I not merciful?

Is your arbitrary rule of *four items is considered stockpiling* only applicable to guns?

Its applicable to guns, and any other things that can end peoples lives in an instant at range with the same accuracy and surety as guns. So, magic wands too

CM156:

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

Stilt:

CM156:

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

When you're talking about putting an arbitrary limit on the number of constitutionally protected items a person my own, you're going to need the law on your side in some regard. Also, you've given me no rational basis, so I assume you had some legal precedent.

I mean, why four? Why not five? Six? Seven? Why is there a universal solution for every gun owner?

The answer is that there isn't. See, I don't concern myself with what my neighbor chooses to legally buy.

CM156:

Stilt:

CM156:

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

When you're talking about putting an arbitrary limit on the number of constitutionally protected items a person my own, you're going to need the law on your side in some regard. Also, you've given me no rational basis, so I assume you had some legal precedent.

I mean, why four? Why not five? Six? Seven? Why is there a universal solution for every gun owner?

The answer is that there isn't. See, I don't concern myself with what my neighbor chooses to legally buy.

Listen. If you base your argument on need, then I can take your argument more seriously. If you want to have both guns for need AND as a luxury, hobby type want, then it significantly weakens your argument. Collecting Anything that can so easily end a persons life from a great distance IMO cannot be considered a hobby.

If you want to base your argument off of need, say the need to go hunting (I consider this a special need and not a hobby), or the need to keep your family safe, then there are only so many guns you NEED. IN reality a more logical number would be 2 guns but like I said before, I was being merciful.

Stilt:

CM156:

Stilt:

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

When you're talking about putting an arbitrary limit on the number of constitutionally protected items a person my own, you're going to need the law on your side in some regard. Also, you've given me no rational basis, so I assume you had some legal precedent.

I mean, why four? Why not five? Six? Seven? Why is there a universal solution for every gun owner?

The answer is that there isn't. See, I don't concern myself with what my neighbor chooses to legally buy.

Listen. If you base your argument on need, then I can take your argument more seriously. If you want to have both guns for need AND as a luxury, hobby type want, then it significantly weakens your argument. Collecting Anything that can so easily end a persons life from a great distance IMO cannot be considered a hobby.

If you want to base your argument off of need, say the need to go hunting (I consider this a special need and not a hobby), or the need to keep your family safe, then there are only so many guns you NEED. IN reality a more logical number would be 2 guns but like I said before, I was being merciful.

It's a good thing your opinion has no basis in the legal system :D

Guns are my hobby. They're many people hobby. They are laws that protect sales of people who collect guns as a hobby. If you don't like it, you "can go straight to Concord bridge and take a flying leap"

You're missing the big point of this whole issue. You're asking me to justify enacting my right.

That's not how it works at all.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Source from a recent court ruling

Here's an idea: How about you don't concern yourself with other peoples legal actions or recreation? That sound easy?

CM156:
[quote="Stilt" post="528.355532.14332060"]

Here's an idea: How about you don't concern yourself with other peoples legal actions or recreation? That sound easy?

Im concerned when other peoples "hobbies" affect my own safety.
Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if everyone in the world owned a gun, we would be safer and better off?

Stilt:

CM156:

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

Four really doesn't make much sense. At my home, my dad has a .38 revolver in a safe near his bed for home defense, and we also have a Ruger Mark III and a Sig P250 for target shooting.

If we happened to be hunters (we aren't), then a rifle apiece wouldn't be crazy, right? There, that's five guns.

What's up with this whole stockpiling thing anyway? It's not like if I decide to go on a shooting spree, having five guns is going to be so much better than having two...

dyre:

Stilt:

CM156:

Why four? What legal basis does this have?

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

Four really doesn't make much sense. At my home, my dad has a .38 revolver in a safe near his bed for home defense, and we also have a Ruger Mark III and a Sig P250 for target shooting.

If we happened to be hunters (we aren't), then a rifle apiece wouldn't be crazy, right? There, that's five guns.

What's up with this whole stockpiling thing anyway? It's not like if I decide to go on a shooting spree, having five guns is going to be so much better than having two...

If you have a townhall meeting in rural mississippi and start handing them out for armed rebellion, then you'd have a problem. If someone breaks into your house while your away and steals your collection of 30 guns, theres a real big problem

Stilt:
Im concerned when other peoples "hobbies" affect my own safety.
Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if everyone in the world owned a gun, we would be safer and better off?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand regarding your arbitrary limit on my rights. I'm not going to make a "more guns-less crime" argument.

CM156:

Stilt:
Im concerned when other peoples "hobbies" affect my own safety.
Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if everyone in the world owned a gun, we would be safer and better off?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand regarding your arbitrary limit on my rights. I'm not going to make a "more guns-less crime" argument.

Oh but you have! I seem to recall you citing a 1992 law attempting to link gun repression to gun violence in schools. Care to retract that?

Stilt:
If someone breaks into your house while your away and steals your collection of 30 guns, theres a real big problem

Which is why several gun owners support harsh penalties (mandatory long sentences) to people who illegally steal guns or straw-purchase. Makes more sense than locking up non-violent drug offenders.

Stilt:

CM156:

Stilt:
Im concerned when other peoples "hobbies" affect my own safety.
Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe that if everyone in the world owned a gun, we would be safer and better off?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand regarding your arbitrary limit on my rights. I'm not going to make a "more guns-less crime" argument.

Oh but you have! I seem to recall you citing a 1992 law attempting to link gun repression to gun violence in schools. Care to retract that?

Please cite the post where I said that.

Go on, I'll wait.

...

I'm waiting...

EDIT: Give up? I never said such a thing. You've got me confused with someone else.

Gee and I thought it'd be Blablahb that filled this thread with anti-gun posts. I guess I didn't give him enough credit.

Or maybe he's just using a sockpuppet.

Ah well, what the hell...

Is it four guns per household, per person, per adult, what? What would be the penalty for having more? Would it apply equally to antique firearms? How about non-functional firearms? Could people somehow get a permit for more? Businesses would obviously be exempt of course right?

Stilt:

dyre:

Stilt:

Legal basis? What do you mean? Do you honestly think that the law is some infallible tome ordained by god? Just because something is law doesnt mean it deserves to be, deserving that status can only be attributed to reasoned, rational arguments, things that often escape the law.

Four really doesn't make much sense. At my home, my dad has a .38 revolver in a safe near his bed for home defense, and we also have a Ruger Mark III and a Sig P250 for target shooting.

If we happened to be hunters (we aren't), then a rifle apiece wouldn't be crazy, right? There, that's five guns.

What's up with this whole stockpiling thing anyway? It's not like if I decide to go on a shooting spree, having five guns is going to be so much better than having two...

If you have a townhall meeting in rural mississippi and start handing them out for armed rebellion, then you'd have a problem. If someone breaks into your house while your away and steals your collection of 30 guns, theres a real big problem

You know, an armed rebellion isn't inherently a bad thing. Of course, it would be pretty terrible in the US, because the current government is not deserving of being overthrown and imo is in fact fairly good, but in other places in the world, people have legitimate reasons to fight their governments. In any case, if we allow people to carry four guns apiece, why don't the members of this armed rebellion just go buy guns normally?

If someone breaks into my house...to steal thirty (large, difficult to move around) guns instead of money / jewelry / etc...even though he can already legally acquire as many of them as he wants...yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Stilt:

Not G. Ivingname:

You could of proved that point without resorting to the Hitler card. I was using that example just to show you what I can use if you use the Hitler card. You could of noted Twilight is popular, or Bush, or anything else. Using Hitler seams like your trying to use emotions of the horrible things that man did to your favor.

fair enough

However, I would also like to point out that using Hitler alone as an argument for gun control is flawed, I would also like to point out the fact that just about every other dictator of the last century also enacted very strict gun control laws as soon as they gained power is an argument against gun control.

And I'm sure gun violence by the citizens plummeted. They were living in shitty tyrannies, but I'm sure gun deaths went down

Don't have statistics on that, which is hard to find considering the fact that these dictators had a tendency to lie a lot.

You know how hard it is to kill THOUSANDS of people? You would need tens of thousands o bullets, hundreds of guns, hundreds of people that are both able and willing to just randomly, out of the blue, kill a load of random people, without any reaction from the police, military, or any other armed civilian.

yes, quite hard, no, no precedent, still more possible in america than anywhere else. I said possible, not likely mind you

Thus we should legislate on tiny possiblities that have never happened before and have a tiny chance of happening, but have a small chance of causing thousands of deaths? Well, might as well close down every single power station in America, since if they explode they could kill a LOT of people.

Can you please find me of one time, ONE time that a dedicated group broke the collection of a single man and went on to kill thousands of people? One case here in America that this happened?

The cost/benefit ratio is way to high for this to be even attempted. With several MILLION guns purchased in the U.S. every year, the added cost of time and resources to test every, single, person that buys a gun for a very serious mental health disorder well surpasses the cost caused by the very tiny amount of people that go on a shooting spree just because they are insane. Also, I doubt it would even cause a dent in the crime, because an insane person wanting to blow several people's heads off wouldn't mind buying a gun illegally.

im not asking the vendors to perform a diagnosis, Im asking them to tell customers to come back in a week after theyve checked their backgrounds is all

We have this thing called "instant background checks," what do you expect to appear in the week long background check (which is just asking the FBI to mail over the same background information that they would just instantly email to the shop?

And you know what changed two decades ago? The "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," a Federal act that made several places areas illegal to bring a gun to, including schools. Oh, it was struck down by the Supreme Court five years later (broke the Commerce Clause), which was immediately followed by the majority of states making it illegal to carry firearms on campuses, while almost all universities changed their own campus rules in the few states that didn't change their laws.

you're suggesting this law somehow had something to do with gun violence in schools? I cant wait to hear this
Possibly. Not saying it DID, that would be a fallacy, but I can say a very large gun control measure FAILED to prevent the ",wake of the string of school shootings that our country has experienced for the last 2 decades..."

evilneko:
Gee and I thought it'd be Blablahb that filled this thread with anti-gun posts. I guess I didn't give him enough credit.

Or maybe he's just using a sockpuppet.

That's currently our working theory. We're still trying to find more definitive proof. His lack of accusation of blame, however, are a stark contrast to Blablahb

CM156:

Stilt:

CM156:

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand regarding your arbitrary limit on my rights. I'm not going to make a "more guns-less crime" argument.

Oh but you have! I seem to recall you citing a 1992 law attempting to link gun repression to gun violence in schools. Care to retract that?

Please cite the post where I said that.

Go on, I'll wait.

...

I'm waiting...

Someone previously tried to argue that in the wake of the string of school shootings that our country has experienced for the last 2 decades, that we are still experiencing, that we should make guns even EASIER to obtain. Ha, unreal, Im not even going to bother responding to that

And you know what changed two decades ago? The "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," a Federal act that made several places areas illegal to bring a gun to, including schools. Oh, it was struck down by the Supreme Court five years later (broke the Commerce Clause), which was immediately followed by the majority of states making it illegal to carry firearms on campuses, while almost all universities changed their own campus rules in the few states that didn't change their laws.
report"

It was the animaniacs guy, sorry you lead heads are all starting to run together but I was wrong about that one thing.

However, you think guns should be easier to get do you not?

CM156:

evilneko:
Gee and I thought it'd be Blablahb that filled this thread with anti-gun posts. I guess I didn't give him enough credit.

Or maybe he's just using a sockpuppet.

That's currently our working theory. We're still trying to find more definitive proof. His lack of accusation of blame, however, are a stark contrast to Blablahb

There you go again! Ganging up on poor old me, taking my identity away from me, it would make me angry if I wasnt aware of how insular you guys are

Stilt:
It was the animaniacs guy, sorry you lead heads are all starting to run together but I was wrong about that one thing.

However, you think guns should be easier to get do you not?

"Lead heads"?

That your best insult? What's next? You're going to accuse me of having a tiny penis? Because that's been my experience in these debates :X

Anyways, I don't remember saying I think guns should be easier or harder to get.

Stilt:

CM156:

evilneko:
Gee and I thought it'd be Blablahb that filled this thread with anti-gun posts. I guess I didn't give him enough credit.

Or maybe he's just using a sockpuppet.

That's currently our working theory. We're still trying to find more definitive proof. His lack of accusation of blame, however, are a stark contrast to Blablahb

There you go again! Ganging up on poor old me, taking my identity away from me, it would make me angry if I wasnt aware of how insular you guys are

Saying that we're still skeptical of your claim and that we're working with other theories in no way strips you of your identity. However, you're quick on your way to become this forums anti-gun fanatic in his stead.

You also do realize that complaining about it more makes us more skeptical of your claim?

CM156:

Stilt:
It was the animaniacs guy, sorry you lead heads are all starting to run together but I was wrong about that one thing.

However, you think guns should be easier to get do you not?

"Lead heads"?

That your best insult? What's next? You're going to accuse me of having a tiny penis? Because that's been my experience in these debates :X

Anyways, I don't remember saying I think guns should be easier or harder to get.

No, why? Is there an issue you want to talk about?

Joking aside, I want a straight answer. Would the world be a safer place if everyone had a gun?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked