Gun Control Debate #6

Discussion in 'Rampage Killings and Terrorist Attacks' started by Tricia, Feb 17, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nobody is denying us our right to defend ourselves. We simply don't need high capacity rapid fire weapons to do so and if we DO, please never handle a firearm again.
     
  2. Lulu_la_Nantaise

    Lulu_la_Nantaise New Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Such weapons might be useful to fight off a hord of zombies though. That about the only legitimate use I can think of, but still.

    (a rottenness of zombies? a brain-eating of zombies? never mind)
     
  3. grammieto5

    grammieto5 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So I'm just curious, these clear back packs, is this something new? Or have they been around for awhile?
     
  4. Blef

    Blef Verified Criminologist

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    1,336
    Trophy Points:
    93
    These backpacks are new for the students in Florida. Clear backpacks must have been around for a while, but I can't imagine many teenagers wanting to go out and buy them on their own choice.
     
  5. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    9,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tawny - a gun can only discharge as fast as the person pulls the trigger, so rapid fire is up to the shooter. Again, it isn't a 2d amendment issue, it is a human issue. Agree? Of course.

    By "high capacity" I assume you mean magazines that hold multiple rounds. Consider, if you will, that in reality it takes one second for a trained person to change magazines. So, a shooter with one 30 round magazine will take 2 second less than a shooter with 3 ten round mags to shoot 30 rounds. Those 2 seconds are unlikely to change the outcome of any mass shooting. So, to limit all magazines to 10 rounds will make no difference whatsoever in the real world of psychopath mass shooters, they will just train longer. Therefore, limiting magazine capacity is a regulation without an effect.

    I am not trying to be argumentative, but if there is a solution to mass shootings, it has to be based in reality and the gun ownership regulations must actually make a difference in the thing desired to be prevented.

    There are 50, 75 and 100 round drum mags, but they are so heavy when loaded that they are too cumbersome to carry and difficult to find for sale. Belt-fed weapons, like machine guns for combat, are illegal to own as a private citizen. Thus far, we haven't seen anyone using drum magazines in mass shootings but I bet that if the FBI so desired it could find the name and address of every person who has purchased one since the invention of the internet. But, they aren't illegal so no one is looking.

    Many hunting rifles use larger caliber rounds than does an AR-15. So, the size of the caliber is not a helpful factor either.

    And, if we start telling people what they can have based upon what we think they NEED, then luxury cars and big houses are on the table too. No one NEEDS an automobile at all, but absolutely no one needs a luxury car. No one NEEDS a massive house either.

    I hope you see the slippery slope here and how your argument fails to withstand reason.

    Further, and finally, per your statement that we don't need "high capacity rapid fire weapons" to defend ourselves, but if we do, you suggest we 'never handle a firearm again' is confusing. If we need them don't you want people who know how to handle them to use them? No?
     
    glamourkitty1922 likes this.
  6. Blef

    Blef Verified Criminologist

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    1,336
    Trophy Points:
    93
    So many issues that I could address here, most of which have all been addressed already. However I respectfully disagree with a lot of what you have said.

    You say don't be a sheep, well don't fall for the gun lobby propaganda either.
     
  7. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    9,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clear backpacks have been around for a very long time. They have been used in public schools here before. Maybe the answer is 'no backpacks'.
     
  8. Blef

    Blef Verified Criminologist

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    1,336
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The answer to stopping mass shootings, or any other shooting, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Guns are not harmless. They are designed and built to maim and kill, no other purpose. NONE!
     
  9. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    9,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no gun lobby propaganda, just facts. There is no 'gun lobby' but there are 2d amendment lobbyists; people having to remind Congress that we have a Constitutional Republic and and Constitution to protect us.

    <modsnip>
     
    glamourkitty1922 likes this.
  10. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see the same paranoia that Meghan McCain talked about - off the cuff remarks, no thinking beforehand. Indoctrination. Jmo.
     
  11. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    9,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And how do we determine who should and who should not have them? Any ideas? Surely, the same people who distrust government wouldn't want only the government to have them. Right?

    Gun are as harmless as flowers. Guns do not act, people act. A killer will kill with hands, rocks, knives, screwdrivers, hammers, ropes, stockings, belt, extension cords, bath tubs.

    Cigarettes kill more people everyday than guns, but we don't see a ban on the sale of cigarettes. Again, it is 'life' at issue, it is control.
     
    glamourkitty1922 likes this.
  12. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again no empathy for people, but much caring for gun possession with a personal twist on what everyone else should see and think. Hardly seems worth the time to reply imo.
     
  13. Blef

    Blef Verified Criminologist

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    1,336
    Trophy Points:
    93
    If you had read the threads you would see that MANY sensible suggestions have been made, which don't include gun prohibition.

    The "guns don't kill..." argument is nothing but NRA rhetoric. I haven't seen anyone commit a mass shooting with a tulip.
     
  14. TeaTime

    TeaTime Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    9,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts don't require empathy. Facts just are.
     
  15. bluesneakers

    bluesneakers not today satan

    Messages:
    19,146
    Likes Received:
    9,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI: Tawny and I are both veterans and understand very well how rapid fire and automatic weapons work.
     
  16. sillybilly

    sillybilly WS Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off-topic posts have been removed. Stick to gun control folks.

    Also, stop the back and forth arguing in this thread or timeouts will be issued.

    Thanks.

     
  17. EuTuCroquet?

    EuTuCroquet? “What's happening to my special purpose!?”

    Messages:
    5,404
    Likes Received:
    8,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    rsff

    Depends on the definition. We’re not getting into semantics again. This thread is full of appropriate uses, and assault weapon is one of them.

    ie: THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

    Implying people are ignorant because someone doesn’t agree with the semantics — especially when there are multiple correct uses — is just a diversionary tool to throw discussions off topic.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

    “The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964. Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition.[4]”

    ... assault rifle, you say? For infantrymen? It’s light so they can carry more ammunition?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...

    [emoji108] OKAY
     
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    26,489
    Likes Received:
    24,076
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am on the road and haven't had a chance to look at this thread until now.
    WOW.
    Closing it down until I get my desktop set up and I can figure out what is going on.
    Tricia
     
    glamourkitty1922 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice