After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent

[Kieran00001]

58 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'm more interested how you can cross the street...as you seem to fear such miniscule risk.

 

If you care to read posts without hyperventilating, you would have comprehended that I said the 2/3rds of handgun deaths wouldn't be affected (i.e., wouldn't go down) by gun confiscation advocates' call for an "assault weapons [usually defined as high-capacity semi-automatic rifles]" ban.

 

 

 

Funny how people fear Islamic terrorists attacking them, when the risk is so much lower than the minuscule risk of being killed by an American.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Note, all the 'red states' are in the upper right.  'Blue states' are lower left.

 

Interesting observation.  Here, let's visualize that using Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a red or blue state:

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by attrayant
uploaded 2nd time b/c something screwy with the colors.

[attrayant]

Oh yuck what happened to the colors?  I used bright, primary colors.  Hopefully it's still legible. 

[JimShortz]

On 10/3/2017 at 7:20 AM, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

...but it sure is easier to shoot people if you have a gun!

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Funny how people fear Islamic terrorists attacking them, when the risk is so much lower than the minuscule risk of being killed by an American.

You might want to re-read the thread topic heading...might stop you from spamming the topic.

[Blue Muton]

1 minute ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You might want to re-read the thread topic heading...might stop you from spamming the topic.

The previous post was entirely relevant to the topic and to this thread. Your reply is the spam.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

The previous post was entirely relevant to the topic and to this thread. Your reply is the spam.

The topic is Democrat proposals for new gun laws...not muslim terrorist attacks.

[attrayant]

14 minutes ago, JimShortz said:

...but it sure is easier to shoot people if you have a gun!

 

The "guns don't kill people" quip is an empty response that attempts to change the focus of the discussion, and is a clear sign the speaker has little of value to say.  We all understand that people are responsible for killing, regardless of the weapon used.  However, those of us with a working conscience realize that weapons offer utility and make it possible for people to do murderous things.

 

Using the same "logic", nuclear bombs don't kill people either.  Nuclear explosions didn't kill anyone in Japan, in August of 1945.  President Truman did.  Not sure how that makes anyone feel better.

Edited October 5, 2017 by attrayant

[Blue Muton]

17 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The topic is Democrat proposals for new gun laws...not muslim terrorist attacks.

You are being obtuse. Fortunately most people in this discussion can see straight through your attempts to divert from the reality of the insane situation that America and many of its innocent citizens find itself in.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

The "guns don't kill people" quip is an empty response that attempts to change the focus of the discussion, and is a clear sign the speaker has little of value to say.  We all understand that people are responsible for killing, regardless of the weapon used.  However, those of us with a working conscience realize that weapons offer utility and make it possible for people to do murderous things.

 

Using the same "logic", nuclear bombs don't kill people either.  Nuclear explosions didn't kill anyone in Japan, in August of 1945.  President Truman did.  Not sure how that makes anyone feel better.

 You said Gun's don't kill people kill is a clear sign that I don't have anything to say.I used that because it was short and to the point. Why demonize the millions of people who are law abiding gun owner's because of a deranged people that want to do murderous things, as you say. Many law's have been enacted for gun's and it will be debated and tweaked .The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves.You have a working conscience that's stuck on banning gun's.The founder's of America got this one right by enacting 2 A.

Why is it ok  for some Anti's to have gun's than protest and enact laws to take them away from the masses? Take away those armed security people that CH has and replace them with only armed taser guards. American's must protect themselves

Edited October 5, 2017 by riclag

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You might want to re-read the thread topic heading...might stop you from spamming the topic.

 

Spamming is the sending of unsolicited mail, it does not apply to posts on a forum you have decided to be off topic.  Anyway, a comparison is on topic.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

You are being obtuse. Fortunately most people in this discussion can see straight through your attempts to divert from the reality of the insane situation that America and many of its innocent citizens find itself in.

The "insane" reality being less than 100 people are killed in mass shooting incidents annually?

[Kieran00001]

21 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The "insane" reality being less than 100 people are killed in mass shooting incidents annually?

 

There were 372 mass shootings in 2015 killing 475 and wounding 1870.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There were 372 mass shootings in 2015 killing 475 and wounding 1870.

Nope.

[ilostmypassword]

38 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The "insane" reality being less than 100 people are killed in mass shooting incidents annually?

What's strange to me, is that the same statistical approach applies to Muslim terrorist attacks, too. And yet, would you believe it, there are people who just propose all kinds of draconian measures to deal with that. Strange, no?

[attrayant]

 You said Gun's don't kill people kill is a clear sign that I don't have anything to say. I used that because it was short and to the point.

 Its overly simplistic and misses the point. We're not angry at guns for killing people in the same way we're not angry at the car that ran over a anti-nazi protester a few weeks ago. I'm not angry at my computer when I make a typo and I'm not angry at my hammer when I accidentally smash my thumb with it.

 

Go ahead and make guns. Make bazookas for all I care. Just enact come common sense restrictions on the stupid and often mentally troubled people who seem to be attracted to them. Stop threatening agencies that want to do research on gun violence.

 

Why demonize the millions of people who are law abiding gun owner's... [/Quote] That question loses all legitimacy when you follow it up with this ridiculous statement:

 

 

 

The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves.

  

Until you back this up with some kind of evidence, it nothing more than an irrational fear.

 

I'm anti-gun in the same way I'm anti-car. There are a lot of restrictions on car ownership and use. Misuse one badly enough and you can lose your privilege to use one. There's no good reason firearms shouldn't be just as tightly regulated.

 

 

[riclag]

17 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 Its overly simplistic and misses the point. We're not angry at guns for killing people in the same way we're not angry at the car that ran over a anti-nazi protester a few weeks ago. I'm not angry at my computer when I make a typo and I'm not angry at my hammer when I accidentally smash my thumb with it.

 

Go ahead and make guns. Make bazookas for all I care. Just enact come common sense restrictions on the stupid and often mentally troubled people who seem to be attracted to them. Stop threatening agencies that want to do research on gun violence.

 

 

  

Until you back this up with some kind of evidence, it nothing more than an irrational fear.

 

I'm anti-gun in the same way I'm anti-car. There are a lot of restrictions on car ownership and use. Misuse one badly enough and you can lose your privilege to use one. There's no good reason firearms shouldn't be just as tightly regulated.

 

 

Back what up with some kind of evidence? Evidence that won't fit the anti gun narrative .Any link I put up,you put up a link to dispute it.I say black and white you say white and black.

 

For  200 +years 2A has been the law.For 200+ years law maker's have tweaked gun law's . It's still the law.American's have the right to bear arm's

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Nope.

 

Yup.

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shootings/2015?sort=desc&order=%23 Killed

[Kieran00001]

32 minutes ago, riclag said:

Back what up with some kind of evidence? Evidence that won't fit the anti gun narrative .Any link I put up,you put up a link to dispute it.I say black and white you say white and black.

 

For  200 +years 2A has been the law.For 200+ years law maker's have tweaked gun law's . It's still the law.American's have the right to bear arm's

 

 

 

They have even tweaked the 2A, it used to mean that Americans had the right to keep and bear arms if they were part of a well regulated militia, now of course there is the national guard and so little need for a militia, but wanting to sell guns they tweaked the amendment to include the right to keep and bear arms for Americans who are not a part of a well regulated militia.

[Thailand]

On 10/3/2017 at 9:11 AM, Ahab said:

All states have gun control, some more restrictive, some less restrictive. The amount of regulations that apply to all states is considerable and are several inches thick when printed out. The bottom line is that the US is different because of the second amendment to the constitution which protects private citizen firearm ownership. Unlike the UK and Australia the people or the government of the United States (with the support of the people) would have to change the constitution (we are not subjects of our government). Which will not occur in my lifetime.

 

In places where guns are outlawed completely in the USA (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..) murder rates are still high. Another thing to consider is the vast number of legally owned and operated guns in the USA already, even if you could make them all illegal tomorrow they are not going to disappear. Finally, laws against having automatic weapons, murder, and shooting unarmed innocent people attending a country and western concert are already on the books and did not deter this psychopath from doing what he did.

 

Let the USA bashing begin.

 

Is there some sort of invisible wall that prevents guns crossing state lines?

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Back what up with some kind of evidence? Evidence that won't fit the anti gun narrative .Any link I put up,you put up a link to dispute it.I say black and white you say white and black.

 

For  200 +years 2A has been the law.For 200+ years law maker's have tweaked gun law's . It's still the law.American's have the right to bear arm's

 

 

And yet you still don t see the correlation between the right to bear semi auto, bump stock, and the 1500 mass shootings since sandy hook massacre

[Golgota]

This is the perfect exemple of america's problem:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-guns/after-las-vegas-massacre-bump-stock-is-hot-item-at-u-s-gun-shops-idUSKBN1C92XR

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Back what up with some kind of evidence? Evidence that won't fit the anti gun narrative .Any link I put up,you put up a link to dispute it.I say black and white you say white and black.

 

Yeah that's how debate works.  Are you going to play right or not?

 

At least tell us how you know that "The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves".  Because if this is just idle speculation that came into your head one day, then you have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.  To be fair, you should be as critical of your own assertions as you are of ours.  

 

 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

For  200 +years 2A has been the law. For 200+ years law maker's have tweaked gun law's . It's still the law. American's have the right to bear arm's

 

Read up on the Heller decision.  It was only nine years ago when the supreme court redefined what was until then, the commonly understood meaning of the 2nd amendment.  The court somehow interpreted it to mean we can all have semi-automatic assault weapons under our beds.  Until 2008, nobody thought the second amendment applied to individuals unless they were part of a "well regulated militia".

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Nope.

So what are the correct numbers? Zero?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

What's strange to me, is that the same statistical approach applies to Muslim terrorist attacks, too. And yet, would you believe it, there are people who just propose all kinds of draconian measures to deal with that. Strange, no?

Only 100. Well that's OK then!

[jvs]

On 10/3/2017 at 11:20 AM, impulse said:

 

That, of course, is the flip side to the argument.  How many burglaries, home invasions and rapes didn't happen because there was a good chance the homeowner was capable of defending herself?   It's easy to count deaths by firearm.  Not so easy to count crimes that were prevented from ever happening.  But in a country with 300+ million, and millions of crimes every year, it's probably a lot.  Until the cops can guaranty my loved ones' safety, it's my obligation to provide it for them.

 

And how do you provide that safety for them if you don't mind me asking?

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Yeah that's how debate works.  Are you going to play right or not?

 

At least tell us how you know that "The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves".  Because if this is just idle speculation that came into your head one day, then you have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.  To be fair, you should be as critical of your own assertions as you are of ours.  

 

 

 

Read up on the Heller decision.  It was only nine years ago when the supreme court redefined what was until then, the commonly understood meaning of the 2nd amendment.  The court somehow interpreted it to mean we can all have semi-automatic assault weapons under our beds.  Until 2008, nobody thought the second amendment applied to individuals unless they were part of a "well regulated militia".

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-end-goal-for-gun-control

Ok! Now you can dispute that.  Round and round we go,where we stop nobody knows.

[inThailand]

7 hours ago, JimShortz said:

...but it sure is easier to shoot people if you have a gun!

 

And even easier when criminals can out gun you!

[Blue Muton]

34 minutes ago, riclag said:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-end-goal-for-gun-control

Ok! Now you can dispute that.  Round and round we go,where we stop nobody knows.

You've just linked to OPINIONS of gun nuts mouthing off, that's hardly verification of anything!

[boomerangutang]

The ownership of guns in the US has a ratchet affect.  There are increases in access to guns (promulgated by NRA and Republicans), and there is never a decrease in access.  Gun lovers are afraid that if they lose traction on any one issue (silencers, for example) their entire house of cards will come tumbling down.  They're wrong on that, like they're wrong on everything else.