Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[Johnny Hammersticks]

12 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Please stop blaming the media.  That, too, is weak.  Very trumpish.  You're better than that (and him).

 

There is no practical need for military-style and/or semi-automatic weapons.  Zilch.  Zero.  No one is using single-shot firearms to carry out terrorist attacks.  It's ridiculous that these things are sold in stores to the public.

 

For what???

 

So that we can hunt super animals; such as the flying squirrel and the electric eel!!

[HeHateMe]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

No.

Those who choose safety over liberty deserve neither and lose both.

 

 

 

Why background check at all then, let's allow any nut job to get his hands on anything he wants.

[Warcodered]

50 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

Yes that way a paperboy will never walk into a Walmart and kill a bunch of people with the latest addition of the Washington Post.

 

43 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

This is how progressivism works.

 

As I'm against progressivism (it's a disease), yeah. I don't feel the need to accomodate their desires in the least.

 

It's not that nothing can be done, in my eyes. It's that nothing SHOULD be done.

 

There's a difference.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

This is most CERTAINLY a relevant thought, Hap. The second amendment enshrines an inalienable right, much the same way the first does. If one of the inalienable rights is suddenly not inalienable, then why not the rest?

 

Yes it can clearly never be changed just like the 18th amendment.

 

39 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Since when is it an extremist position to not want to surrender my rights to anyone else?

 

 

 

People who are of the opinion that gun control is an answer to any problem.

 

Your extremist position is that any regulation of guns is equal to banning them.

 

31 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

From a guy who's smarter than just about anyone in this thread.

 

 

Right and we shouldn't try to do anything to decrease the rate of death by medical errors, fight the flu(that's just nature right), prevent suicides(wonder how many of those involved a gun), don't even know why we have speed limits, and homicide is just survival of the fittest. Seriously Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist not a criminologist, psychologist, or political scientist.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Warcodered

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Your extremist position is that any regulation of guns is equal to banning them.

Gugny's respsonses to this thread have proven me correct, so far. He insists there's "No good reason" to own a "semiautomatic" weapon.

 

Meaning that in his mind, it's perfectly reasonable to ban a 9mm Beretta M9 pistol. That's extremist foolishness.

 

My contention is not that regulation is equivalent to ban. My contention is that agreeing to one step toward a total ban is just that: enabling a future total ban.

 

 

6 minutes ago, HeHateMe said:

 

Why background check at all then, let's allow any nut job to get his hands on anything he wants.

 

There already are background checks.

 

How much more do you want checked? Blood tests? DNA? Urine sample? All of the above?

 

[RaoulDuke79]

Just for the record. I'm on board with whatever background checks are deemed necessary to prevent lunatics from buying a gun. I'm curious however,  as to when the ACLU will step in and say people's rights are being infringed upon. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Just for the record. I'm on board with whatever background checks are deemed necessary to prevent lunatics from buying a gun. I'm curious however,  as to when the ACLU will step in and say people's rights are being infringed upon. 

 

 

I think it's safe to say they won't.

 

They're all about the first, not so much the second.

 

[Warcodered]

9 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Gugny's respsonses to this thread have proven me correct, so far. He insists there's "No good reason" to own a "semiautomatic" weapon.

 

Meaning that in his mind, it's perfectly reasonable to ban a 9mm Beretta M9 pistol. That's extremist foolishness.

 

My contention is not that regulation is equivalent to ban. My contention is that agreeing to one step toward a total ban is just that: enabling a future total ban.

 

 

 

There already are background checks.

 

How much more do you want checked? Blood tests? DNA? Urine sample? All of the above?

 

So regulation doesn't equal a ban but if we have regulation we'll end up with a ban? 

[RaoulDuke79]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I think it's safe to say they won't.

 

They're all about the first, not so much the second.

 

I think you're right on board there. I believe they wont get anywhere near the gun control issue if it ever happens. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So regulation doesn't equal a ban but if we have regulation we'll end up with a ban? 

Eventually. That's the nature of regulation. It never decreases.

 

[LB3]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I think it's safe to say they won't.

 

They're all about the first, not so much the second.

 

He's right. You're just not thinking of all angles. Let's say they ban everyone with a mental disorder. The ACLU would be up in arms that transgenders aren't allowed to own guns due to their gender dysphoria.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Eventually. That's the nature of regulation. It never decreases.

 

Yes because when has regulation ever been decreased.

44 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And that's the problem. No one's thinking about this rationally, nor do they ever after something like this happens. If we were thinking rationally, we'd be thinking like NDgT did in his tweet above. THAT is the rational response.

 

Your definition of extreme and mine are radically different.

 

Your odds of dying at the hands of a drunk driver are FAR greater than from a mass shooting. Should we restrict alcohol to law-abiding citizens to stop DUI?

 

How'd THAT work the last time it was tried?
 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

12 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Just for the record. I'm on board with whatever background checks are deemed necessary to prevent lunatics from buying a gun. I'm curious however,  as to when the ACLU will step in and say people's rights are being infringed upon. 

 

On the 12th.

[HeHateMe]

6 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Gugny's respsonses to this thread have proven me correct, so far. He insists there's "No good reason" to own a "semiautomatic" weapon.

 

Meaning that in his mind, it's perfectly reasonable to ban a 9mm Beretta M9 pistol. That's extremist foolishness.

 

My contention is not that regulation is equivalent to ban. My contention is that agreeing to one step toward a total ban is just that: enabling a future total ban.

 

 

 

There already are background checks.

 

How much more do you want checked? Blood tests? DNA? Urine sample? All of the above?

 

Not everything requires a background check (not all States require it, private sales, loopholes etc.)

 

How about the proposal from Dewine from Ohio for "Red flag" situations too;

"Red flag" laws allow family members or police to seek removal of firearms from individuals whom they fear will cause harm to themselves or others. States with such laws allow guns to be removed temporarily before a judge grants a longer-term "emergency risk protection order." 

 

There are a lot of common sense things that can be done but doing nothing can't be the solution.

 

[Gugny]

32 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

 

If it bleeds, it leads baby. Let's get every reporter out there to investigate this guy's family, tell his life story. Whatever were his motivations? Right, not a problem

 

If we were smart about these things, those shooters would die in anonymity. But we're not. I digress.

 

So, you're against semi-automatic weapons, huh? How about something like this:

 

There's no practical use for that kind of firearm in your mind? No reason a homeowner should want something like that? How's the police response time in Glens Falls these days? Probably better than in North Argyle.

 

 

There's no need for semi-automatic weapons for home defense.  And I'm in Queensbury.  We have the Warren County Sheriffs and the Staties covering us.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, HeHateMe said:

Not everything requires a background check (not all States require it, private sales, loopholes etc.)

 

How about the proposal from Dewine from Ohio for "Red flag" situations too;

"Red flag" laws allow family members or police to seek removal of firearms from individuals whom they fear will cause harm to themselves or others. States with such laws allow guns to be removed temporarily before a judge grants a longer-term "emergency risk protection order." 

 

There are a lot of common sense things that can be done but doing nothing can't be the solution.

 

 

And when someone slips through that set of rules and shoots something up? What then?

 

 

Just now, Gugny said:

 

There's no need for semi-automatic weapons for home defense.  And I'm in Queensbury.  We have the Warren County Sheriffs and the Staties covering us.

What's the response time for your home?

 

Quick enough that an armed intruder would be stopped before you or your kid endured bodily harm or worse?

 

[HeHateMe]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And when someone slips through that set of rules and shoots something up? What then?

 

 

 

Back at square one, nothing is 100% going to fix this complex issue but there are things that can reduce the frequency.  But by your standards, if we can't stop 100 out of 100 attacks, why bother stopping 1 of them or 99 of them then?

 

Horrible argument.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, HeHateMe said:

 

Back at square one,

Which is exactly my point. There will never be ENOUGH regulation. There will only ever be more, unless it's resisted.

 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And when someone slips through that set of rules and shoots something up? What then?

 

 

What's the response time for your home?

 

Quick enough that an armed intruder would be stopped before you or your kid endured bodily harm or worse?

 

 

I refuse to live in fear.  I also refuse to have a gun in my home.  I grew up with multiple firearms in the house.  I'm not anti-gun, nor am I anti-responsible gun ownership.  However, if I did choose to have a gun for home protection purposes, I'd be comfortable with something that wasn't semi-automatic.

[ExiledInIllinois]

24 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

So that we can hunt super animals; such as the flying squirrel and the electric eel!!

You forgot jumping Asian carp:

 

[NSFGTW...

(NotSafeForGugnyTriggeringWarning) @Gugny : Please go to your room and don't watch]

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

I refuse to live in fear.

Except of semi-automatic weapons. That's ok to fear.