The CT shooting and gun control

• GoChiefs

  

  BoatShoes;1343102 wrote:lol...it makes a difference...
  
  What makes you the think a depressed average man could take out 20 kindegartners regardless of what was available to him? Seems considerably easier to do when you can hope on your computer and get guns and body armor in the time it takes for pornhub to load.

  Lol all you want...lol at you for thinking it makes a difference....
  
  Do you think somebody in the US that wanted to do this couldn't use a knife as well? Do you really think there aren't people in the US that are screwed up enough that they would use knives if guns weren't available? You can't be serious.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1343089 wrote:It can be rough confronting evidence based argumentation that contradicts your gut feelings. I understand and empathize.

  FIFY
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1343089 wrote:It can be rough confronting evidence based argumentation that contradicts your gut feelings. I understand and sympathize.

  Your evidence is countered, but you always find something else. Hell, if we outlawed guns in the whole U.S. of A., people would get guns from Canada and Mexico.
• tk421

  

  Boatshoes has not provided any evidence, ignore any so called "argument" he provides. Saying that gun control "works" in other countries is not evidence of anything. I'm sure the people of North Korea don't have to worry about random shootings, but I wouldn't want to live in that country anytime soon. Giving up freedoms just for an illusion of safety is never a good thing.
• TedSheckler

  

  The school is a fun-free zone. I'm pretty sure he didn't care about the law.
  
  This country has mental health issues, not gun control issues.
• sleeper

  

  I could see Obama introducing a bill next week banning guns entirely. And then when Republicans come out and say "That's stupid we aren't voting for that!"; Obama and his media friends will say the Republicans support policies that kill innocent children and they want these tragedies to happen so that the rich can make more money and we need to tax the rich more to pay for better gun policies, etc.
• tk421

  

  no way the courts go for any law that is passed banning guns. They have already said that the public has the right to keep and carry a weapon for self defense. I could see a law like the AWB setting limits on magazine capacities and other stuff like that, but an outright ban even with this tragedy won't fly with the public. Too many gun owners, the courts just struck down Illinois own ban on concealed carry.
• End of Line

  

  Too many Pros and Cons on the whole gun banning issue.
  
  If you outlaw them, the selling of illegal arms would sky rocket more so than it already is.
• tk421

  

  Another point is that the gun business is huge, you ban guns outright in this country and how many jobs, how much money will be lost to the economy?
• End of Line

  

  Also, Guns don't kill people, People kill people.
• tk421

  

  End of Line;1343183 wrote:Also, Guns don't kill people, People kill people.

  there's that as well. You must physically pull the trigger, the gun doesn't know if it's shooting a steel target or a person. It's not a living person and the left's attempt to demonize it is ludicrous.
• gut

  GoChiefs;1343047 wrote:Please re-read my post. Notice the part where I said today isn't the day? They can talk about it all they want later on, but show a little respect first.

  I wasn't directing that at you. Obama said he wasn't going to make it political, but then he clearly did that. You can argue it could be interpreted differently, but after Benghazi, or the campaign he ran, I will disagree entirely.
  
  And like I said, the Dems won't let this crisis go to waste.
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1343124 wrote:Your evidence is countered, but you always find something else. Hell, if we outlawed guns in the whole U.S. of A., people would get guns from Canada and Mexico.

  If we had some kind of national gun control, you're right, Mexico would pose a problem because we have poor border security and that's a pretty lawless state. It would at least create a singular point of entry and other countries industrialized have done an reasonable job of combating gun smuggling. It would also create an incentive for better securing our southern border.
  
  Still, certainly more effort is required to get a gun from Mexico if you're in Chicago as opposed to Gary, Indiana.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1343127 wrote:Boatshoes has not provided any evidence, ignore any so called "argument" he provides. Saying that gun control "works" in other countries is not evidence of anything. I'm sure the people of North Korea don't have to worry about random shootings, but I wouldn't want to live in that country anytime soon. Giving up freedoms just for an illusion of safety is never a good thing.

  Why? We make comparisons between the fiscal, social, monetary policies of other countries all the time to figure out what works.
• majorspark

  

  Don't get between Mayor Bloomberg and a microphone. The blood is not even dried before he gets on his political soap box.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1343174 wrote:Another point is that the gun business is huge, you ban guns outright in this country and how many jobs, how much money will be lost to the economy?

  Murdered children are acceptable consequences in the pursuit of economic growth after all.
  
  If someone were anti-abortion, this would be kind of like saying in response as a defense of abortion..."Well there may be disastrous moral consequences but think about all of the lost jobs?"
  
  I think the area of contention is whether or not it is also immoral or wrong to ban guns and whether doing so would actually do away with these kinds of moral problems.
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1343191 wrote:Still, certainly more effort is required to get a gun from Mexico if you're in Chicago as opposed to Gary, Indiana.

  Until a stockpile of illegal guns builds up in Gary, Indiana.
• BoatShoes

  Also worth noting, the same courts that have upheld gun rights have also said that we have a constitutional right to an abortion. Yet, many members of Congress have sought to extensively regulate abortions and access to abortion even within the framework of it being legal. If it's ok to do that with abortion, I don't see why it would be so problematic to do with guns. We don't have to outright ban them...just maybe try a more coordinated national approach at reasonable regulations in the same way we've approached Abortion.
• tk421

  

  BoatShoes;1343201 wrote:Murdered children are acceptable consequences in the pursuit of economic growth after all.
  
  If someone were anti-abortion, this would be kind of like saying in response as a defense of abortion..."Well there may be disastrous moral consequences but think about all of the lost jobs?"
  
  I think the area of contention is whether or not it is also immoral or wrong to ban guns and whether doing so would actually do away with these kinds of moral problems.

  Yes, because of one terrible tragedy, every single gun manufactured and used in this country will kill children. Of course, I forgot. Not like there could ever be any other use for a firearm, could there? In your eyes, all weapons kill children. They jump off the tables when you walk by and discharge right into your heart.
• tk421

  

  Seriously Boatshoes, just stop. No one else agrees with you, you are just being contrary to be contrary now. You can't honestly believe the drivel you type, and if you do I weep for your education.
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1343202 wrote:Until a stockpile of illegal guns builds up in Gary, Indiana.

  Yeah well that sounds foreboding but countries have had success at preventing that type of thing from happening
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1343207 wrote:Yeah well that sounds foreboding but countries have had success at preventing that type of thing from happening

  You said yourself that the open border between Mexico and the United States would be problematic, didn't you? Once they get across the border who knows where they'll end up.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1343206 wrote:Seriously Boatshoes, just stop. No one else agrees with you, you are just being contrary to be contrary now. You can't honestly believe the drivel you type, and if you do I weep for your education.

  Where's the fun in that? If I only wanted to engage in discourse with people who agreed with everything I said there's plenty of other places I could post.
  
  You're hurting my feelings.
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1343212 wrote:You said yourself that the open border between Mexico and the United States would be problematic, didn't you? Once they get across the border who knows where they'll end up.

  I agree that's a concern but considering that we need to secure that border better anyway and this creates a strong incentive do so I think it's a risk worth taking since, considering the alternative doesn't seem to be working so well. If you were right we could always stop and go back to the way it was, eh.
• BoatShoes

  fish82;1343113 wrote:FIFY

  Well Played.