10
   

Gun control

 
 
maxdog
 
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 07:28 am
why we think if there is gun control there will be no terrorisim attacks like the wallmart and el paso ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 10 • Views: 1,223 • Replies: 137

 
Region Philbis
 
  7  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 09:02 am
@maxdog,

we think nothing of the sort.

gun control will reduce the number of senseless murders, not eliminate them entirely...
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 09:39 am
@maxdog,
We don't think that. But consider what the country would be like now had this law not expired after ten years:

Quote:
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity".

The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the US Senate, and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.


So yeah, people who already had assault-styled weapons and large capacity magazines wouldn't have been affected. But think of all of those weapons and magazines which wouldn't have been sold in the ensuing fifteen years — how many of the guns used by mass murderers in the last decade-and-a-half were bought on impulse in that time period? We're talking about a huge number of firearms, many of which were bought by self-professed gun nuts and some of which were bought by psychopaths who turned them on innocent civilians and children.

Yes, someone who is determined to kill as many people as possible, for whatever sick purpose, would try to find a way to accomplish this gruesome task — but do we have to make it easy for them by providing them with guns designed after weapons of war? High velocity center-fired cartridges loaded into relatively short-barreled easily-carried guns equipped with pistol grips which can be fired from the hip at crowds? There's a reason these special psychopaths choose these particular types of weapons to do the job. In 1966 the Texas Tower Sniper, using a hunting rifle, killed eleven people and injured thirty-one over the course of ninety-six minutes. The Dayton shooter killed nine and injured twenty-seven in less than ten seconds with an assault-styled weapon he had ordered online.

There's no good reason for civilians, especially crazy ones, to have access to these weapons. No other developed country has the rate of mass murder by guns as the USA and the minimal controls we have over the sale and distribution of guns is result.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 10:08 am
@hightor,
Need to clean up my final sentence:
I wrote:
No other developed country has the rate of mass murder by guns as the USA and the minimal controls we have over the sale and distribution of guns results in this degree of unparalleled bloodshed.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 10:19 am
There has to be effective gun control and a lessening of hate rhetoric from those sizeable numbers look up to.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 10:29 am
@maxdog,
maxdog wrote:

why we think if there is gun control there will be no terrorisim attacks like the wallmart and el paso ?


Gun control would help prevent getting guns into the hands of those that have mental issues. Having control over who is able to get guns. At the very least there should be background checks where you need to meet certain criteria - like others said this won't 100% eliminate terrorists attacks but would be one way to prevent many of these. Go back and see many of the mass shootings were due to those getting guns that were known to have mental issues.

There is a difference between reasonable gun control and elimination of guns completely. Why would not want to verify that someone is capable and able to handle a gun? We need to be checked, verified and tested to get a drivers licence but yet many states have limited if any background checks to obtain a lethal weapon.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 10:40 am
@Linkat,
Quote:
There is a difference between reasonable gun control and elimination of guns completely.


I think the quantity and types of weapons allowed to be owned by civilians should be restricted.
maxdog
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 02:22 pm
@Region Philbis,
But even controlled ,everyone can get one right ?
0 Replies
 
maxdog
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 02:26 pm
@hightor,
But if they want to go to a mall and shoot random people ,which law can make it impossible to themwhen they buy weapons by black market ?
maxdog
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 02:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
The problem i thinks is the people or their mindstate . I can have an arsenal of weapons and don t even shoot anything that have a.life.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 02:29 pm
@maxdog,
Takes a wild guess.
0 Replies
 
maxdog
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 02:31 pm
@Linkat,
But a crazy man can get a gun from these streets .
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 03:09 pm
@maxdog,
maxdog wrote:

But a crazy man can get a gun from these streets .


Yes I agree - but many of these instances this individual got the guns via legal means. It is not going to stop all instances, but it will stop some. And some is better than none. The Dayton shooter for example got his guns legally - if he did not - he may have not run on a shooting spree.

It will make it more difficult to get guns, as a result there is a barrier to overcome resulting in some not getting guns. Avoiding some is better - ask anyone whose family member was harmed or killed in Dayton.

Is there a reason you do not think there should be a background check?
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 03:13 pm
@maxdog,
maxdog wrote:

The problem i thinks is the people or their mindstate . I can have an arsenal of weapons and don t even shoot anything that have a.life.


But you would pass (I am assuming) a background check -- what does this cost you or how would that harm you? Waiting an extra week? You need to do that and it takes longer to get a passport to travel to another country.

Every reasonable person understands that is not going to prevent all shootings - not having any guns (if were wanted to and could eliminate all guns) is not going to stop all mass killings - reasonable people understand that - but why would you not take common sense ways to help prevent this?

Most people still put on a seatbelt in a car knowing that it is not 100% going to guarantee you will not be killed in a car accident - however, knowing it will help prevent this.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 04:51 pm
@Linkat,
A week?!? There is no reason why background checks cannot be carried out instantly.

If you want my support for HR 8, it is going to have to be modified to limit all background checks to 24 hours.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 04:52 pm
@Region Philbis,
Region Philbis wrote:
we think nothing of the sort.
gun control will reduce the number of senseless murders, not eliminate them entirely...

That depends on the gun control.

Many leftists pursue measures that will do nothing to save any lives, and will only violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

I understand that this is not the case with all leftists.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 04:57 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
We don't think that. But consider what the country would be like now had this law not expired after ten years:
Quote:
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)

The primary difference would be that a lot more people would be having their civil liberties violated for the enjoyment of leftists.


hightor wrote:
So yeah, people who already had assault-styled weapons and large capacity magazines wouldn't have been affected. But think of all of those weapons and magazines which wouldn't have been sold in the ensuing fifteen years -- how many of the guns used by mass murderers in the last decade-and-a-half were bought on impulse in that time period?

Gosh! All of those civil liberties that the left didn't get a chance to violate for fun. What a tragic loss.


hightor wrote:
Yes, someone who is determined to kill as many people as possible, for whatever sick purpose, would try to find a way to accomplish this gruesome task -- but do we have to make it easy for them by providing them with guns designed after weapons of war?

The cosmetic appearance of the gun does not make it any easier to kill people with.


hightor wrote:
High velocity center-fired cartridges loaded into relatively short-barreled easily-carried guns

Those are characteristics shared by most hunting rifles.


hightor wrote:
equipped with pistol grips which can be fired from the hip at crowds?

Anyone would-be murderer who is ignorant enough to fire their gun that way is not going to kill very many people, if any at all.


hightor wrote:
There's a reason these special psychopaths choose these particular types of weapons to do the job. In 1966 the Texas Tower Sniper, using a hunting rifle, killed eleven people and injured thirty-one over the course of ninety-six minutes. The Dayton shooter killed nine and injured twenty-seven in less than ten seconds with an assault-styled weapon he had ordered online.

The pistol grip on the gun had nothing to do with the severity of the massacre.

The allegedly military appearance of the gun had nothing to do with the severity of the massacre.


hightor wrote:
There's no good reason for civilians, especially crazy ones, to have access to these weapons.

More importantly, there is no good reason to prevent civilians from having access to them.

You may have forgotten the Constitution, but the NRA hasn't forgotten.


hightor wrote:
No other developed country has the rate of mass murder by guns as the USA and the minimal controls we have over the sale and distribution of guns results in this degree of unparalleled bloodshed.

That is incorrect. The bloodshed would be no less if those victims were killed with bombs.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 06:13 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Many leftists pursue measures that will do nothing to save any lives
just like health care and foreign diplomacy, this president and all of congress is clueless. Dont just point out the left. The righties are more than culpable. They use the "left right" argument jut to divert eyes from looking at them.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 06:48 pm
@farmerman,
If I have a complaint about something that the right is doing, I'll be sure to address it appropriately.

However, it is certain people on the left who are trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun here, so this particular complaint is being correctly addressed to those particular leftists.
maxdog
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2019 09:25 pm
Like i said , a man could easily bring an AK from a gang member and do crazy rampage no matter how strict is the law , and this without mention knives that you can find them at home and stampade with a car . So no matter the laws unfortunately .
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gun control
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 07:53:57