Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That is a more-than-valid subject in a thread about gun control

Try looking at the title of this thread.

That this thread is about gun control has been clear from the first post.

firefly wrote:

Yes, people want to make sure that another school shooting like that doesn't happen here again.

What has that got to do with gun laws in Switzerland?

Switzerland came up because someone posted bogus studies claiming that the presence of guns results in more homicides.

firefly wrote:

Go start other threads to indulge your various interests/preoccuptions with guns, and your interest in the 2nd Amendment--and stop hijacking this one.

Since this thread is about gun control, and since people are advocating gun control in this thread, it is more than appropriate for people to post arguments against gun control here.

firefly wrote:

You've posted loads of pictures of guns.

Just one, as I recall, though I later quoted that post when I added to my thoughts.

The post and the picture were on topic. It related to what will likely become a popular gun if a 10-round magazine limit is passed.

firefly wrote:

Did you post any pictures of the victims killed in that school in Connecticut?

No. What would be the point of that???

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Is she proposing some sort of registration?

Yes indeed, everyone should refuse to register their guns. Would be the height of folly to comply.

I'm sure the NRA would block any such attempt to pass a registration law, however.

Why? The founders had a gun census. They went door to door to ask who had guns and recorded it.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles_plby.html

I like your taste in websites. Very Happy

Anyway: Because the government is not to be trusted with gun registration. Pushes to register guns are just a preliminary move in a plot to seize those guns.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They are pretty close to being the same, given Obama's great desire to violate the Second Amendment

Obama had not as yet place heavy pressure of his office to get the ban back on and then .................................................

It looks pretty heavy from my perspective. Although I am confident that the House Democrats will stand with the NRA and defeat his assault on the US Constitution.

Then there was his call, when he was running for the US Senate, to impose a federal ban on all civilian concealed carry.

And when he was in the US Senate, he actually voted for a bill that would have banned all military surplus rifle ammo (it didn't pass).

BillRM wrote:

It is my understanding the both GW Bush and Reagan had been willing to sign off on an assault weapon ban and Reagen even lobby congress for the ban.

Don't know about Reagan, but W was lying in his verbal support for renewing the ban. He helped make sure it was not renewed.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

If you want to discuss gun control--rather than the topic of this particular mass shooting--try this thread

http://able2know.org/topic/204645-1

or this one...

http://able2know.org/topic/204876-1

Since this thread has been specifically about gun control from the very first post, and (especially) since people here are outright advocating gun control, this is an appropriate place to argue against gun control.

Therefore, I will continue to post here.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Laurie Eberhardt, 67, was taken to Bayfront Medical Center, where doctors removed what St. Petersburg police are calling a "large-caliber" bullet from her right wrist. They think the bullet came from a rifle that someone fired in the air to celebrate the New Year.

A large caliber rifle bullet? Like an elephant gun???

She still has her hand???

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

BillRM wrote:
There is nothing at all special about gun violence over all the other manner of violences that mankind employ

Yes of course there is. Guns are designed to kill, and do it very efficiently, and have no other design use.

True of hunting weapons. But it would be inhumane if it were otherwise.

Not so true of self-defense weapons. The effects can be similar, but the goal there is extremely rapid incapacitation.

And target-shooting guns are designed for striking non-living objects. Certainly no killing involved there.

Otherwise, how many living things died during the shooting competitions at the Olympics?

McTag wrote:

If you buy and keep a gun, you are part of the problem.

There is no problem.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Have you checked the figures for gun violence in Chicago and Detroit lately? I don't think they do a lot of game hunting in those cities, and a lot of people seem to be using other people for their "target shooting".

People in Detroit are already allowed to carry guns for self defense.

The Supreme Court is only a year or two from mandating the same nationwide, at which point people in Chicago will also be allowed to carry guns for self defense.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I suppose it just stands to reason that you would be stupid enough to stand there and let someone threatening you with a knife or gasoline walk up to you.

You make it sound a lot easier to avoid close contact than it really is.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Val Killmore wrote:
but most don't hit any major arteries in such an area and are never recovered.

What does that mean?

Are you a bit soft in the head Bill?

I don't think that was Bill you were addressing.

But what he meant was that bad shots that hit muscle but no arteries, often result in the wounded animal bounding away never to be seen again.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

She still has her hand???

Likely the bullet if shot fairly straight into the air have only it terminal velocity remaining and also had lost it spin by the time it hit her hand.

Not thousands of feet per second but a few hundreds feet per second.

Similar to being hit by a bullet drop from a high flying aircraft.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

People in Detroit are already allowed to carry guns for self defense.

My wife will not go grocery shopping in the Detroit area without her 38 along with her.

A protection that the like of Firefly wish to take away from her so only the criminals will be armed.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

They'd be less dead if they were killed with knives?

Of all the tedious arguments extended by the armchair gunslingers here, this is an example of the most tedious.

Would you rather be killed by an avalanche or by a falling tree? Either way, would you be any more dead? There you are then, the availability of guns is not an issue.

Please spare us, for at least a few pages, before you repeat this one again.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Please spare us, for at least a few pages, before you repeat this one again.

More then worth repeating when fools like you try to sell the idea that somehow it is worst to be shot then killed by other means.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Thinking's not your strong suit, is it, Bill?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Thinking's not your strong suit, is it, Bill?

Odd that is my opinion of your emotionally/illogically driven postings on this thread.

Guns are as evil as the ring in the lord of the rings and turn anyone to the dark side that have such a device in their possession.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Only from the waist down and the knees up, why?

Are you saying that it has been a long time since you washed your dick?

Are you saying all blacks have unwashed dicks?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:
She still has her hand???

Likely the bullet if shot fairly straight into the air have only it terminal velocity remaining and also had lost it spin by the time it hit her hand.

Not thousands of feet per second but a few hundreds feet per second.

Similar to being hit by a bullet drop from a high flying aircraft.

Maybe. But given the abuse of the term "high caliber", I'm wondering if it won't turn out that she was struck by a varmint round.

If I were going to fire a gun into the air to celebrate something, I don't know that I'd pick a gun that inflicted real pain on me every time I pulled the trigger.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They'd be less dead if they were killed with knives?

Of all the tedious arguments extended by the armchair gunslingers here, this is an example of the most tedious.

Would you rather be killed by an avalanche or by a falling tree? Either way, would you be any more dead? There you are then, the availability of guns is not an issue.

Please spare us, for at least a few pages, before you repeat this one again.

The details of my replies depend on the details of what I am replying to.

I only make the above reply when someone goes on and on about gun deaths as if it made some sort of difference what manner someone is murdered.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Mythbusters did a great show concerning firing bullets straight up into the air and if that was the case it would not matter greatly what the caliber happen to had been as far as the harm done.

Deaths or serous harm is done by rounds not shot straight into the air and that still have their spin and most of their horizon vel. compound when they impact someone.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

No. In fact it's not too late to start discussing arming teachers and staff.

Arm some teachers and staff and see what happens the next time a mentally
ill person or terrorists enters a government school with evil intentions.

3 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know