Domestic terrorism

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

There very likely could be a combination of two things going on here, but I don't see how guns aren't PART of this equation. Not sure who reads Reddit, but it is absolutely overrun with morons saying guns weren't part of the problem. I just don't understand how we can't limit the sales of these types of guns. People instantly hear ban and they assu me it's everything. Will criminals still get guns if they want them? Absolutely. If a ban on assault rifles, extended magazines, etc. saves even ONE life, wouldn't it be worth it?

I don't imagine he would go through the channels to somehow get a black market assault rifle if it was illegal. The death toll could have been cut in half.

Assault weapons are essentially the same as any other semi-automatic weapon (handgun or rifle). Some are just scarier looking than others. The previous assault weapon ban had little or no effect on crime (depending on which lies you subscribe to). Another will likely have the same effect. As you stated, the people that you want to be deprived of guns.....won't be.
What is it you really expect to achieve?
We have a people problem and until we attack it from that angle, we'll see nothing progressive and we'll haven plenty more of the same. The gun is just a tool easily replaceable with bombs....anthrax.....nukes.....jetliners...fertili zer, etc.
Who knows? You cannot ban everything....or can you?
These people and groups have proven to highly inventive when confronted with such choices.
Hell, we can't get our borders under control. Until AT LEAST that happens, we cannot hope to stem the importation of bad guys and things we do not want them to have.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Assault weapons are essentially the same as any other semi-automatic weapon (handgun or rifle). Some are just scarier looking than others. The previous assault weapon ban had little or no effect on crime (depending on which lies you subscribe to). Another will likely have the same effect. As you stated, the people that you want to be deprived of guns.....won't be.
What is it you really expect to achieve?
We have a people problem and until we attack it from that angle, we'll see nothing progressive and we'll haven plenty more of the same. The gun is just a tool easily replaceable with bombs....anthrax.....nukes.....jetliners...fertili zer, etc.
Who knows? You cannot ban everything....or can you?
These people and groups have proven to highly inventive when confronted with such choices.
Hell, we can't get our borders under control. Until AT LEAST that happens, we cannot hope to stem the importation of bad guys and things we do not want them to have.

This is enough for me. Even a little is worth it. It always comes down to, "Well, it probably won't work so let's just not try it." I mean, why not? That's my question, why NOT try?

And trust me, I don't think guns are the sole problem nor do I think all guns should be banned. Obviously, this is pure speculation, but say we had an assault gun ban in effect, do you think the death toll would have been as high? I really don't think it would have been. I think your serious terrorist would do whatever they could to acquire bomb building materials, assault rifles, etc.

Again, if it lowered these types of crimes by .0000001% that's worth it because really, what is the cost?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

This is enough for me. Even a little is worth it. It always comes down to, "Well, it probably won't work so let's just not try it." I mean, why not? That's my question, why NOT try?

And trust me, I don't think guns are the sole problem nor do I think all guns should be banned. Obviously, this is pure speculation, but say we had an assault gun ban in effect, do you think the death toll would have been as high? I really don't think it would have been. I think your serious terrorist would do whatever they could to acquire bomb building materials, assault rifles, etc.

Again, if it lowered these types of crimes by .0000001% that's worth it because really, what is the cost?

I think we need to separate a couple things...these assault weapons tend to be used in these activity shooter, mass killing.

"normal" gun violence tends to be hand guns and long guns.

The mass killings are headline makers...normal gun violence isn't talked about much.

We talk about mass killings a lot...we don't talk about everyday gun violence which affect more folks across the country. Chicago, Baltimore...? Are we good with this? Would assault weapons bans stop this violence? probably very little.

The mass killings are usually mentally unstable, mental illness...some terrorists. I think these people would still want to kill regardless of a ban of assault weapons. Is it the act or gun?

These are tough questions for sure

[Hog1]

understood...
Thanx for the clarification

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Right. For me, it's definitely two issues.

The hardest question is the "why?" and how do you fix that?

I just think some very simple things could be done to lessen gun violence. My frustration is that there's such giant opposition. I'm not talking about some huge revamp. Talking about VERY simple things that just make sense, yet somehow we can't get this passed.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Right. For me, it's definitely two issues.

The hardest question is the "why?" and how do you fix that?

I just think some very simple things could be done to lessen gun violence. My frustration is that there's such giant opposition. I'm not talking about some huge revamp. Talking about VERY simple things that just make sense, yet somehow we can't get this passed.

The toughest thing is effectively defining mental illness...medications are prescribed for everything...lotta medicated folks. Do we really want a database of this?...Seems too intrusive. I don't think the governments belongs in mine, yours, and family medical records and then determining constitutional rights...

I think if your on the terrorist watchlist...its simple...you cant posses or buy a weapon. Sorry.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The toughest thing is effectively defining mental illness...medications are prescribed for everything...lotta medicated folks. Do we really want a database of this?...Seems too intrusive. I don't think the governments belongs in mine, yours, and family medical records and then determining constitutional rights...

I think if your on the terrorist watchlist...its simple...you cant posses or buy a weapon. Sorry.

How would that have stop Sandy Hook or any school shooting for that matter ?Chico you can't scream every time one of these mass shootings goes down blame Obama and then turn down any or all suggestions to prevent them from happening again.Somewhere someone's personal freedom's are going to be infringed upon to help end these killings the question is how do we the people control it?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

How would that have stop Sandy Hook or any school shooting for that matter ?Chico you can't scream every time one of these mass shootings goes down blame Obama and then turn down any or all suggestions to prevent them from happening again.Somewhere someone's personal freedom's are going to be infringed upon to help end these killings the question is how do we the people control it?

Dude I'm screaming because this was the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 and another one in a long series committed by Isis. I guess no one saw Isis committed another attack in France yesterday as well. This one claims he was directed by Isis and killed while on facebook streaming live.

I really don't think the media covers the Isis crisis enough and i don't think the American people understand how serious and deadly this group is...just last week cnn had an article up and I'm paraphrasing : "just how much of a threat is Isis?" just another liberal garbage article. Now we see just how much this threat is.

Sandy hook/ Newton was incomprehensible...its a story about a terribly neglected kid by his own parents. They were fucking horrible people.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Giantone

How would that have stop Sandy Hook or any school shooting for that matter ?Chico you can't scream every time one of these mass shootings goes down blame Obama and then turn down any or all suggestions to prevent them from happening again.Somewhere someone's personal freedom's are going to be infringed upon to help end these killings the question is ho go w sot we the people control it?

If my personal freedoms are at risk, it will have to be for something with a chance of success....
Nothing suggested here has...that chance.
Obama is to busy playing to an uninformed public to offer anything useful and using every tragedy and failure in his administration as a platform for some BS gun control salvation nonsense.
Do some of that CIC shit Barry......

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Hog1

If my personal freedoms are at risk, it will have to be for something with a chance of success....
Nothing suggested here has...that chance.
Obama is to busy playing to an uninformed public to offer anything useful and using every tragedy and failure in his administration as a platform for some BS gun control salvation nonsense.
Do some of that CIC shit Barry......

Seriously! Some in the US take the rights and security that our Constitution and 4 basically safe borders (I am talking safe from mobilized militias or foreign military attack) as signs that the freedoms we enjoy, are always going to be there, instead of realizing that there are people and groups that would happily take away individual liberties in a heartbeat if they could.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

The database would definitely be one of the NON-simple solutions.

While I think you could pare that down to certain red flags, I also don't want the government up in my records.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

The database would definitely be one of the NON-simple solutions.

While I think you could pare that down to certain red flags, I also don't want the government up in my records.

People do not trust the Fed...imagine that.
And we no longer are a people of common sense. We're to occupied with who can use......Dick/No Dick bathrooms to actually embrace actions other than to bamboozle and betray the voters.....

[CRedskinsRule]

Without diving into the whole mess, I hate the argument "if it even saved 1 ... " It's a terrible and imo evil way of defining solution sets.

It's terrible because a multitude of bad laws have been and will forever be written using the if it even saved 1 train of thought. How about we write a law that every car must stop for any pedestrian crossing the road. How many lives would be saved, certainly at least one somewhere, but it's a terrible law because no appropriately cautious drivers would ever get where they were going, so most likely it would lead to super cautious drivers who gave every pedestrian a 5 foot berth and crazy whacked out drivers who ignore the law and put more people at risk.

It's evil because many (I would say most, but not all) the people who use that line of argument have a hidden agenda that they hide by making ridiculous heroisms like "if it saves 1 life I would give up my life savings for ever", "if it saves 1 child, it will be worth giving our government all their private information", ... the list goes on and on, and those who would seek to usurp the freedoms enshrined in the declaration of independence and the Constitution will forever beat the "if it saves one life " drum.

That's my opinion at least.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Nevermind. This is taking a single comment and taking it into something I had no intention of doing. My comments are topical only. I have no agenda. If by that logic the bans caused more deaths I obviously would agree. Again, what is the valid argument in just trying it? I have yet to hear a rational reason.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Nevermind. This is taking a single comment and taking it into something I had no intention of doing. My comments are topical only. I have no agenda. If by that logic the bans caused more deaths I obviously would agree. Again, what is the valid argument in just trying it? I have yet to hear a rational reason.

The main reason that I know of is simply that once a law is on the books, it tends to grow tentacles. You could put a law on the books, and inevitably, if it fails to produce results the rationale will most likely be that it just needed one more tweak, one more adjustment, not that it was a failed experiment and let's remove it.

for the record, I didn't think you were using the "if it saves 1 life" mantra the way I wrote, but I do think that people with very bad intentions often get a lot of traction with good minded folk using that logic.