Originally posted by psmith81992
This kinda misses the point doesn't it? Or is more control=less incidents the logic of the day?
It's not the only aspect that can prevent these kinds of things of happening, perhaps not even the most important, but yes, it is one aspect. So indeed, more control = less of these incidents....
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not the only aspect that can prevent these kinds of things of happening, perhaps not even the most important, but yes, it is one aspect. So indeed, more control = less of these incidents....
Ok I'm glad you acknowledge that it's only one aspect because you know full well other countries that have more weapons per household don't have these issues.
another word you're too dense to look up, learn, and apply correctly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
AS always: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens
See, two can play that game. 🙂
Originally posted by Star428
AS always: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizensSee, two can play that game. 🙂
I don't think Bardock is talking about disarming the citizens. A little stricter gun controls doesn't equate to "they're taking away our guns", and I'm a gun advocate from texas so...
Originally posted by long pig
Disgusting.
Yes, we are all outraged that this happens so damn often.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok I'm glad you acknowledge that it's only one aspect because you know full well other countries that have more weapons per household don't have these issues.Still seeing that you're having difficulty with the english language. Another shocker.
Yeah, but it would still help the US, and is probably the most straightforward and easiest to implement.
Yeah, but it would still help the US, and is probably the most straightforward and easiest to implement. [/B]
Everyone that mentions gun control doesn't really have an opinion of what exactly to change. The only "list" I'm for is regarding automatic weapons. The idea of all gun users being on a registry is highly unAmerican.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think Bardock is talking about disarming the citizens. A little stricter gun controls doesn't equate to "they're taking away our guns", and I'm a gun advocate from texas so...
You must not know Bardock very well. He's one of those Europeans who thinks there should be a nationwide ban on guns in America.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Everyone that mentions gun control doesn't really have an opinion of what exactly to change. The only "list" I'm for is regarding automatic weapons. The idea of all gun users being on a registry is highly unAmerican.
I suppose some view it that way, I do think that every firearm should be tracked though. I think firearms should be limited per person. And I think there should be a "drivers license" for getting them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose some view it that way, I do think that every firearm should be tracked though. I think firearms should be limited per person. And I think there should be a "drivers license" for getting them.
Having a registry seems quite ridiculous and I'm opposed to it, as far as hand guns go. I'm on the fence regarding automatic weapons. Further, the idea of a limit per person gives the state or the law makers the power to declare what they feel is a good enough number. I know plenty of gun owners who collect and shoot their weapons at the range and they cringe every time something like this happens.
Originally posted by Robtard
You need a driver's license to operate a vehicle and you need to register said vehicle, so what's so far fetched an "un American" about one for guns, all guns?
Because the "registry" would be on every federal law enforcement watch list. Hardly the same thing as a driver's license, won't you agree?
Really don't see the difference. If you have a driver's license and a registered car(s), you're already wilfully in the system, which the feds have access too.
It's basically saying: "I have a privacy right to my gun, not my car". Which doesn't make sense, unless you have a good reason for the distinction/separation?
Originally posted by Bardock42
As always: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
The terrifying truth is that there is indeed no immediate way to prevent this, guns or no guns(mind you, guns do make it easier). If someone is determined and demented enough to kill a bunch of people, they will. Knives, vehicles, homemade bombs, etc. have proven themselves to be sufficient instruments of mass slaughter in cases both inside and outside of the US.
Better attention to mental health and reduction of poverty are the best solutions in the long run.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The terrifying truth is that there is indeed no immediate way to prevent this, guns or no guns(mind you, guns do make it easier). If someone is determined and demented enough to kill a bunch of people, they will. Knives, vehicles, homemade bombs, etc. have proven themselves to be sufficient instruments of mass slaughter in cases both inside and outside of the US.Better attention to mental health and reduction of poverty are the best solutions in the long run.
We have real-world examples of stricter gun laws lowering gun related crimes. So unless you believe "nope, just won't work in the US cos nope", there is precedence.