toldailytopic: Do you support or oppose tightening gun control laws in USA?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Wile E. Coyote
New member
Apples and oranges Bub! Government doesn't ban locks. Thus no underground lock running. But the Government does ban guns. Thus underground gun running. What did Prohibition do? Ask my friend Elliott Ness.
There are more crimes prevented by the presence of guns than there are crimes prevented by guns laws. Did the scores of thousands of gun laws we already have stop what happened in Connecticut?
There you have it! You said "heartsickness." And you said that what we are doing now [banning guns] is not working. Thank you!
Pastor Jim's solution,
"Changing laws will not change anything. Changing hearts will."
The pagan state kicked out the Great Physician of men's hearts! You don't want to give the Great Physician a try. Why not if what we are doing now is not working?
Yet you promote more of the same (gun laws).
My issue is not rights and liberty. I have said nothing about rights and liberty. I believe that Christ called His followers to give up everything for Him including their so called rights.
My issue is that gun control laws have proven ineffective. I want a solution that works. I am content with or without guns.
Did a moratorium stop the bootleggers and the liquor running during Prohibition? You are NOT calling for a moratorium on guns really. You are calling for the Government to create underground crime.
Last edited:
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I accept and openly admitted the situations are different.....
If you were decide that having 6 years old shot by assault weapons isn't something you should just accept, you don't wait for it to magically go away, you do something about it.
a) You look at a law that will work or have a positive effect.
b) You debate and create consensus and pass the law.
c) You then enforce the law.
No that isn't easy, most american politicians are scared stiff and don't know how to do it, things don't change by magic, they change by people making a moral call and setting out to change things.
As others have said the 'it can't' change argument could of applied to slavery, or could be applied to abortion today. Just because something hard to do doesn't make it wrong.
I also get its annoying when people do the 'in our country ....... that better than your country posts', but you have lived with these happening so often and gun crime being such a part of your culture you thinks your current situation is normal normal, even worse you think its inevitable.
It is not, there are other options that could work better for you (UK, and Switzerland being two very different examples).
I do get liking guns and weapons, I like older weapons lots myself, but if they became a significant risk to people in the UK id happily band Antique and Samurai swords.
If you were decide that having 6 years old shot by assault weapons isn't something you should just accept, you don't wait for it to magically go away, you do something about it.
a) You look at a law that will work or have a positive effect.
b) You debate and create consensus and pass the law.
c) You then enforce the law.
No that isn't easy, most american politicians are scared stiff and don't know how to do it, things don't change by magic, they change by people making a moral call and setting out to change things.
As others have said the 'it can't' change argument could of applied to slavery, or could be applied to abortion today. Just because something hard to do doesn't make it wrong.
I also get its annoying when people do the 'in our country ....... that better than your country posts', but you have lived with these happening so often and gun crime being such a part of your culture you thinks your current situation is normal normal, even worse you think its inevitable.
It is not, there are other options that could work better for you (UK, and Switzerland being two very different examples).
I do get liking guns and weapons, I like older weapons lots myself, but if they became a significant risk to people in the UK id happily band Antique and Samurai swords.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't like gun control, but if there was a ban on assault weapons that mother wouldn't have had the gun her crazy kid used in the recent school shooting. That one gun was able to go through several children in one shot.
What is the need for assault rifles?
The better option, in my opinion, would be to put armed guards in every school. We guard our money better than we guard our kids. That's sick. Armed guards would be a deterrent, as well. These cowards usually shoot themselves at the first sign of a gun that might be used against them.
I find the biggest fault with the mother who knew her son was loopy and had the guns where he could get them. Unfortunately, while most people are responsible gun owners, too many aren't.
I guess, in the end, I'd opt for more guns....in the schools...in the malls...in the hands of retired cops or trained guards.
What is the need for assault rifles?
The better option, in my opinion, would be to put armed guards in every school. We guard our money better than we guard our kids. That's sick. Armed guards would be a deterrent, as well. These cowards usually shoot themselves at the first sign of a gun that might be used against them.
I find the biggest fault with the mother who knew her son was loopy and had the guns where he could get them. Unfortunately, while most people are responsible gun owners, too many aren't.
I guess, in the end, I'd opt for more guns....in the schools...in the malls...in the hands of retired cops or trained guards.
Hey, I know it. Find me a perfect analogy and I'll find a hat to eat.
Gee, I dunno. Maybe the same thing the war on drugs is doing right now?
This is very debatable, actually. More goes into preventing crime than folks just packing heat.
Owning a gun didn't help Nancy Lanza, either.
You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again: So not a single bit of gun control legislation you can possibly in any situation imagine prevents a single crime. Ever. Is that what you're saying?
You're either being deliberately dense or just genuinely numb today, Wile. We AREN'T "banning guns." Where in the name of all that's rational and sane did you get this bugwitted idea? What we're doing now, and what you're proposing, is very simple: NOTHING. So far, "don't do a thing" is the only thing you've suggested. And here we are, twenty-six victims later, in just the latest installment of American Shoot Em Up.
Who? Wait, a pastor. Like I'd care.
Wrong. Again. See above.
:chuckle:
How's giving up your PC comin' along?
Tighten on certain weapons.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I think that is the only way forward for the states, take excessive weapons out of the system.
Yep, who needs an AR-15 or an AK-47? Planning on going to war?
The entire "if everyone has guns, crime will go down" theory is up for debate. On the other hand, I could not imagine everyone packing heat. Think about some of the people in this world, would you really (I mean, really) want them to have ease of access to a firearm? I could see fire fights breaking out over a woman at the bar, over a shopping cart bumping into a car, or someone running a stop sign. No thank you. Having a firearm within your own home for personal protection is one thing, issuing everyone a Smith and Wesson with their high school diploma is quite another.
bigbang123
New member
So are cars but cars are still regulated.
bigbang123
New member
I support a good faith effort to close loopholes.
It is easy to go online, sign up and buy guns without a background check or sell guns without a Federal Firearms License. Criminals and even honest people who don't want to be subject to background checks or don't want their guns registered in certain states, can subvert the law.
(this site employs the necessary legal jargon to cover themselves but lying on your part enables you or anyone to bypass those hurdles) http://www.armslist.com/
No. All gun control laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to own them and use them for protection. The end result: the path is made easier for criminals to commit crimes against society. They don't have to face armed citizens. A citizen trained in the use of the weapon is a deterrent. With gun creasing gun control laws, only criminals will have guns.
If someone doesn't value their own safety enough to take a class on a saturday, sign/fill out a few forms, and wait for a background check; then it's on them.
People who say "an armed society is a polite society" seem to like the idea of not daring to offend anyone, or hesitating to speak one's mind, just in case you might get shot. What kind of madness is this?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
That's what they said when Florida was passing the Castle Doctrine and the Concealed Weapons Laws....the problems never materialized!
bigbang123
New member
Can't argue with you there..........or can I?
Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full
I oppose more gun control laws in the US. Instead, they should enforce the laws already on the books.
Would you rather someone carry a concealed weapon or carry it openly?
bigbang123
New member
The laws currently on the books have loopholes that need to be closed.
Example
Is it ok to close this loophole?
It is easy to go online, sign up and buy guns without a background check or sell guns without a Federal Firearms License. Criminals and even honest people who don't want to be subject to background checks or don't want their guns registered in certain states, can subvert the law.
(this site employs the necessary legal jargon to cover themselves but lying on your part enables you or anyone to bypass those hurdles) http://www.armslist.com/