The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@cicerone imposter,

cicegirl, you find it easier to live the lie than accept the truth... that's just laziness on your part.

@H2O MAN,

When you are unable to "see" the difference in gender, you're in no position to offer opinions on most subjects under the sun. It only proves your stupidity.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You act like a little girl.

0 Replies

Lawmakers eye new taxes on guns, ammo in latest wave of legislation

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

cicegirl, you find it easier to live the lie than accept the truth... that's just laziness on your part.

And we can all see that your true goal Spurt is to kill as many children as possible. That is your "true goal" that you hide behind your second amendment argument but it's as clear as Obama is trying to take your guns away.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

And we can all see that your true goal Spurt is to kill as many children as possible. That is your "true goal" that you hide behind your second amendment argument but it's as clear as Obama is trying to take your guns away.

With the anti gun crowd or at least a large percents of it does not wish to allowed armed security to be in place in schools as a safe guard against random murders of children one wonder if such people are wishing for more mass killings of children to fuel their drive to disarm the population.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Except that argument makes no sense Bill. If assault weapons are such a small percentage of murders we don't have to do anything why would schools shootings which make up such a small percentage require we do something?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Except that argument makes no sense Bill. If assault weapons are such a small percentage of murders we don't have to do anything why would schools shootings which make up such a small percentage require we do something?

LOL the rare schools schooling is more an emotion driven problem in a nation of 300 million with 79 millions in one level of school or another at any one time. Children are still likely to be far safer on average in a school building then in their own family homes.

If 20 students had been killed in some school related accident it might not even made or barely made the national news.

The anti guns crowd clearly in any case do not themselves care to solved this rare problem but but just wish to used it to achieved their ends.

Be that as it may, as there is a strong national desire to short stopped those rare happenings it still does not make sense to take the one action that is least likely to end that problem and turn away from actions that would do so such as armed security guards or more long term better mental health programs.

Of course this is not the first time we had have attacks on our freedoms under the banner it for the welfare of the children and it will not be the last.

1 Reply

@parados,

Since they don't understand logic, your question goes way over their heads.
They're blind to their own contradictions.

Simply stated, less guns means less murder/killings by guns. It's simple logic that seems to be very difficult for them to understand.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

imply stated, less guns means less murder/killings by guns. It's simple logic that seems to be very difficult for them to understand.

It simple alright lord is it simple as in simple minded!!!!!!!!!!

Ninety nine point nine percents of guns are in the handes of people that are no risk to the public safety and you could give those people a dozen more guns free of charge each and not increase the risk to the general public.

On the other hand there could be only ten percents of the 300 millions guns in this nation and still anyone who have the desire to be arm and do not care about the laws can find a way to do so.

See Mexico for an example where the general population is disarmed and yet the drug gangs are fully arm along with any other criminals that care to be.

Hell good old Bonnie and Clyde way back in the thirties did not buy their BAR rifles in a gun shop but stole them from the national guard depots.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You wrote,

Quote:

It simple alright lord is it simple as in simple minded!!!!!!!!!!

So, how many murders would occur if no guns existed vs ten million guns?

Can you guess that one, or is it too difficult for your brain to comprehend?

If no guns existed, NOBODY will get killed by a gun. As the number of guns increases, the potential to kill by guns increases. That's logic 101.

Too difficult for your brains?

Sometimes a simple mind can grasp simple concepts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

So, how many murders would occur if no guns existed vs ten million guns?

First most of those ten of millions of guns hell in the US three hundred millions guns are in the hands of people that have never and will never harm another human being.

Next people been killing people long before the 15 century and the first firearms in retail and whole sale lots.

Let see in one battle I can think of off hand 50,000 Romans was killed on one battlefield in one day time.

Then we have whole cities with populations in the many hundreds of thousands wiped out and in some case not only the humans but every living things within those cities killed.

We had the interesting case of a sport stadium full of 30 to 40 thousands people wiped out in Constantinople within a few hours or so.

All without any need for firearms.

Sorry but firearms or the lack of firearms is not going to change human nature and where there is a wish to killed there is a way to killed.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You wrote,

Quote:

First most of those ten of millions of guns hell in the US three hundred millions guns are in the hands of people that have never and will never harm another human being.

You're not answering the question. If there are 3-hundred million guns, the likelihood that those guns will be used to kill somebody increases - it doesn't decrease. It doesn't matter that some people will never harm another human being.

You have no concept of logic; NONE!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The Rachel Maddow show just reported that 91% of Americans want to have background checks on anyone who buys a gun.

I'm in favor of that too!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They won't work. Only a simple utopian mind would think they would.

Trying to find a talking point somewhere between a total ban on guns, except those with a chain of responsibility, and a free for all, is liberal blather.

It's one thing identifying the mass shooters after the event and quite another before it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If there are 3-hundred million guns, the likelihood that those guns will be used to kill somebody increases - it doesn't decrease. It doesn't matter that some people will never harm another human being.

Nonsense once more you could have great deal less guns and people who wish to be armed badly enough could still do so.

Hell even in so call guns "free" UK I would bet that anyone willing to break the laws would have little trouble becoming arm in one way or another.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It's one thing identifying the mass shooters after the event and quite another before it.

Strange as a high percent of mass shooters had been showing indications that they was in need of mental health services long before they went on a killing spree.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

LOL the rare schools schooling is more an emotion driven problem in a nation of 300 million with 79 millions in one level of school or another at any one time. Children are still likely to be far safer on average in a school building then in their own family homes.

So why are you promoting putting armed guards in schools? Don't you realize that is a ridiculous argument based on your logic?

0 Replies

I don't get the argument that people used to slaughter each other with swords so guns don't kill people, etc. In Roman times if I went on a spree in the middle of the city with a sword I could probably kill quite a few people before i was stopped by local law enforcement IF they had superior skills with a sword, since that would be their weapon as well. Today if I went off in the middle of downtown Raleigh with a sword I might get a couple of people but then a law enforcement officer WITH A GUN (that if no one else is who's supposed to have them) would put me down quickly. In addition I wouldn't be able to get in a tower or a second or third story window and start taking people out with a sword. I'd also have a pretty tough time sneaking a big sword into a school or a theater.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Strange as a high percent of mass shooters had been showing indications that they was in need of mental health services long before they went on a killing spree.

You're talking with hindsight Bill. There might be millions in a state which, after the event, people might say there were indications and nobody would sign their name to before the event. If you have background checks somebody has to sign something. And, to be fair as the constitution demands, the checks should apply to the present owners of guns.

And if a complete gun ban operated none of that would be required nor the vast expense of it and the vast expense of gun production and gun activity and all the consequences thereof. And all that expense could be directed to other things.

If the whole population of the US had an arsenal and the gun death rate quadrupled you could still find cases where lives had been saved by such a predicament.

1 Reply

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know