25
   

Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 09:29 am
@parados,
Quote:
The issue isn't accidental deaths.


It is not about making bombs either and that is what the majority of your posts are about.http://www.doomjunkie.com/images/smilies/shill.jpeg
parados
 
  6  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 09:54 am
@coldjoint,
Guns intentionally kill more people than are intentionally killed by bombs, cars, poison, swimming pools combined.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 10:22 am
@parados,
So we are it would seems going once more always for mass killings and going to such subjects as suicides?

The most killings by guns are suicides an as it is my position that it is a human right to take one own life those deaths I have no problem with.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 11:01 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Guns intentionally kill more people than are intentionally killed by bombs, cars, poison, swimming pools combined.

And if people who wanted to intentionally kill could not do so with a gun, they would just choose some other way to achieve their intentional killing.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 11:13 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
So most shooters don't plan their attacks

I don't know. Insufficient data.


parados wrote:
but someone hell bent on massacre would use a bomb.

Very likely. But there are actually a number of things that they could attempt.

Dousing a crowded theater with kerosene and setting it on fire, for example. Or acquiring a heavy truck and driving at high speed the wrong way down a freeway. If someone is bent on mayhem, there is no limit to the number of things that they could come up with.


parados wrote:
In other words, reducing access to guns would reduce the number of mass killings.

Possibly, but if so, not by very much, as alternate methods would simply replace guns as the favored method.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 11:46 am
@revelette2,
Only people who are anti-gun think the NRA is a racist organization. Anything you guys can do weaken the NRA and weaken a voice for the people who support the 2nd Amendment. Once you weaken support for the 2nd Amendment, then all "common sense" gun laws go out the window and the real objective comes into play. Look at the announcement from the Lt. Gov of CA. He wants to pass a law that would force people to do a background check prior to buying ammo. It isn't about safer streets, it's about control over the American public.

You guys do realize that there are minorities who are part of the NRA? As much as you guys want them to be the KKK, they are not even close.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 12:02 pm
Quote:
http://www.a-human-right.com/agreement.jpg
Quote:
http://www.a-human-right.com/racist.jpg
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 12:45 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Guns intentionally kill


I see, it is another gun pulling the trigger? Keep not thinking, you are good at it.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 02:52 pm
I was thinking, I don't know what's more quintessentially America, hotdogs and apple pie, than when we pull together as a nation and argue about the most efficient way to blow away people in churches, colleges or nursery schools. The land of the free and the brave and all the stupids hiding under our aprons.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 03:05 pm
@glitterbag,
In a nation of well over 300 million people on average 30 a day die of gunshot that dont want too. I can live with that, and this does not sound like a crisis to me.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 03:23 pm
@oralloy,
Sure, Rolling Eyes That must be why guns make up 70% of homicides and are used 6 times more often than knives and over 10 times more often than any other object. Guns are so ineffective which is why they are the weapon of choice.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 03:24 pm
@BillRM,
I was responding to Pinkie's red herring of trying to introduce only gun accidents as an argument. I don't think there are too many accidental mass shootings, do you?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 03:25 pm
@glitterbag,
It seems the only people who think about such things are those who actually do those types of shootings and those who suffer from an irrational fear of guns. The distressing part is that you direct these thoughts at a majority of gun owners who don't think that way and are not violent people.

I saw a meme not long ago that said: If gun owners were as violent as anti-gunners thought they were, there would be no anti-gunners.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 03:27 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

I don't know. Insufficient data.


We do have data. The argument here is if people really wanted to kill more they would build bombs. Bombs require planning. We have several instances of mass shooters also building bombs so there can be little doubt those shooters are planning their attacks since they took the time to build bombs. We also know that in most of those instances the bombs were completely ineffective doing little damage and killing no one. Those attempts show that building bombs that kill people isn't as easy as Bill keeps claiming.

0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 05:30 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

It seems the only people who think about such things are those who actually do those types of shootings and those who suffer from an irrational fear of guns. The distressing part is that you direct these thoughts at a majority of gun owners who don't think that way and are not violent people.

I saw a meme not long ago that said: If gun owners were as violent as anti-gunners thought they were, there would be no anti-gunners.


We have a shot gun, but I no longer own the hand gun. Just don't think we really need more than a shot gun. I don't have any grips with the 2nd amendment, and since this country didn't pass an amendment to allow women to vote until 1920 I don't believe there is a snowballs chance in hell of ever appealing the 2nd amendment, I also don't think it should be overturned. But, for Christ's sake, even you have to admit that a lot of dumb asses who barely tell time get handguns. Even Chris Rock says in his stand-up routine, "if Ammo cost $5 grand there would be no more innocent by-standers".


Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 06:17 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Even Chris Rock says in his stand-up routine, "if Ammo cost $5 grand there would be no more innocent by-standers".

If ammo cost $5 grand, then only the 1% would own weapons because they would be the only ones who could afford to buy the ammo. Ones ability to make money doesn't always reflect their intelligence or skills. Look at Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians...

Quote:
But, for Christ's sake, even you have to admit that a lot of dumb asses who barely tell time get handguns.

Do you propose an intelligence test to get a firearm license?

I'll be honest with you. I would support a state issued firearm license. Training and a background check are required to obtain the license. If you served in the military and you pass the background check, you can have a license. Once you obtain the license though you no longer have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm or ammo. You show your license and as long as it is valid, you are good to go. You could also have different levels of licenses based on training/proof of certification. All state licenses would be valid in other states for the possession of your firearms, but you would only be allowed to purchase firearms from the state you have your license in.

I'm not sure how we integrate mental health checks into the background check system. The professionals who help people would be the first line of defense but they themselves have to be cautious in their use of reporting people. Lives can be ruined if not used properly. No bias in their reporting either way. Families can play a part but once again we have to be cautious and have due diligence when families are involved. Spouses going through divorce can cause problems for each other in the false reporting of crimes to get back at one another. Making it so a law biding spouse looses their right to a firearm based on the word of an ex could become a common thing and our rights are to be protected above all else.

Those who are convicted of committing a crime with a firearm get an automatic 10 year sentence for having the firearm, on top of the sentence for the crime you committed.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 06:31 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
ut, for Christ's sake, even you have to admit that a lot of dumb asses who barely tell time get handguns. Even Chris Rock says in his stand-up routine, "if Ammo cost $5 grand there would be no more innocent by-standers"


The sadly amusing part is from the news story of the drug abuser who once car jacket and kidnapped your elderly father, that it turn out to be an armed drug dealer that in the end freed your dad from this joker at gunpoint.

Footnote you was the one who introduced the subject of your father being carjack so no fair crying about my checking out the story using public records.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 07:18 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If someone is bent on mayhem, there is no limit to the number of things that they could come up with.


How about the guy who build a home make tank and used it to wipe out a large percent of his hometown.

Of course he only ended up killing himself, as it did not seems to be his intention to harm humans directly, but it does give an idea of what some skills and human ingenuity can come up with.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 07:24 pm
@oralloy,
Then if you do not wish to build your own tank stealing one from the local national guard depot will also work.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2015 07:38 pm
@oralloy,
Then we have the guy who stole a military copter and after flying it around the White house and dog fighting police copters landed it on the lawn.

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_White_House_helicopter_incident

At 2 A.M. on February 17, 1974, Robert K. Preston, a United States Army private first class, stole a United States Army Bell UH-1 Iroquois ("Huey") helicopter from Fort Meade, Maryland, flew it to Washington, D.C. and hovered for six minutes over the White House before descending on the south lawn, about 100 yards from the West Wing.[1][2][3][4][5][6] There was no initial attempt from the Executive Protective Service to shoot the helicopter down, and he later took off and was chased by two Maryland State Police helicopters. Preston forced one of the police helicopters down through his maneuvering of the helicopter, and then returned to the White House. This time, as he hovered above the south grounds, the Executive Protective Service fired at him with shotguns and submachine guns. Preston was injured slightly, and landed his helicopter.[7]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:26:43