Archive

Terrible situation, shooting....information still being gathered

  • said_aouita
    WebFire;1231245 wrote:Making guns illegal wouldn't keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.
    It would make it harder for them to get guns.
  • TedSheckler
    said_aouita;1231248 wrote:It would make it harder for them to get guns.

    And it would infringe on the 2nd amendment for law abiding citizens to own guns.
  • tk421
    said_aouita;1231248 wrote:It would make it harder for them to get guns.
    how do you figure that? I don't understand the logic, just because the federal government infringes on our Constitutional rights and bans firearms, the hundreds of millions of guns already in the country are going to magically disappear? Is Obama going to wave a magic wand and make all the terrible evil deadly weapons go bye bye?

    You think that if firearms were completely outlawed and people were banned from having them, they would meakly hand them over? How's that going in places like Chicago? How many gang bangers have come and voluntarily turned in their weapons? :laugh:
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    I'm pretty sure guns aren't illegal in Hawaii.
  • End of Line
    ccrunner609;1231251 wrote:guns dont kill people, people kill people.
    Reps. Also if they outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
  • tk421
    I'm pretty sure more than 12 people died because of a car that very same day, why no outrage and calls to ban vehicles? After all, 1 ton of steel moving at 60+ mph is a hell of a deadly weapon, and we all know it's the tool that is the problem, not the person.
  • WebFire
    said_aouita;1231248 wrote:It would make it harder for them to get guns.
    Is it hard for drug users to get drugs?
  • OSH
    tk421;1231334 wrote:I'm pretty sure more than 12 people died because of a car that very same day, why no outrage and calls to ban vehicles? After all, 1 ton of steel moving at 60+ mph is a hell of a deadly weapon, and we all know it's the tool that is the problem, not the person.
    I don't like to get into big political discussions over a message board, but this is an argument I've always had.

    There are so many more "deadly" things than a gun (no matter what type of gun). There's vehicles, swimming pools, tobacco, alcohol, falling out of beds (450 people a year) and vending machines (13 people a year). Why not address those issues?

    If you take away EVERY gun, even from the criminals who use them, there would still be violence. Taking away guns won't curb the violence, those that want to do damage will just figure out a way to hurt more and more people by other means. Figure out a way to ban criminals and we'll see less gun violence.
  • cruiser_96
    TedSheckler;1229980 wrote:Hey! Nice detective work. You got the "white guy" part right.
    This dude is destroying my stereotypes.
  • hasbeen
    said_aouita;1231225 wrote:What countries have a higher murder rate than the USA and are guns legal there? Do you believe if guns were harder to get their would be less gun related deaths?

    A few years old but I also found this-

    Highest gun related death per capita: DC, where guns are legal


    Lowest gun related death per capita: Hawaii, where guns are illegal
    (link)

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/04/26/editorial/editorial01.html
    http://honolulupd.org/info/gunlaw.htm

    g    uns aren't illegal in hawaii. may be stricter, but not illegal.
  • BigAppleBuckeye
    Apologies if this was already posted ... but thoughts on this post by Jason Alexander? http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
    I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

    This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

    That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

    Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

    Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

    As passed by the Congress:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

    "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

    Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    Definition of MILITIA
    1
    a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
    b : a body of citizens organized for military service
    2
    : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

    The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no. ....

    Jason Alexander
  • Con_Alma
    "...The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? ..."

    It's the ability and right to be in one as opposed to being in one that's protected.
  • WebFire
    The Constitution is not saying you have to be a member of a militia. Derp.

    Also, I laugh at people who think outlawing these guns would do anything.
  • Rotinaj
    WebFire;1231595 wrote:The Constitution is not saying you have to be a member of a militia. Derp.

    Also, I laugh at people who think outlawing these guns would do anything.
    It would most certainly do something. Not much though I'm guessing.
  • TedSheckler
    Out of touch and clueless. He needs to stick to what Larry David writes for him.
  • Devils Advocate
    The Westboro Baptist church is at it again......

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html

    #godsenttheshooter
  • Fly4Fun
    I wish people wouldn't even link articles about them. I wish the news would stop giving them coverage.

    They are the equivalent of internet trolls.

    Some people are just terrible individuals who prey on the tragedies of others to push their own agenda.
  • Devils Advocate
    Fly4Fun;1231687 wrote:I wish people wouldn't even link articles about them. I wish the news would stop giving them coverage.

    They are the equivalent of internet trolls.

    Some people are just terrible individuals who prey on the tragedies of others to push their own agenda.
    Oh... I think they might be a little Worse than internet trolls.

    And if I had known that you were giong to QQ about it, I would have given it it's own thread.
  • Fly4Fun
    Devils Advocate;1231713 wrote:Oh... I think they might be a little Worse than internet trolls.

    And if I had known that you were giong to QQ about it, I would have given it it's own thread.
    Ya, I can agree that they are worse than internet trolls as they are hurting real people who are grieving. My comparison was to say that they behave in the same way, making ridiculous statements in an attempt to receive attention to their point of view.

    And I was just responding to your post with my thoughts on it. Is that not the point?
  • Mulva
    OSH;1231520 wrote: and vending machines (13 people a year).
    A vending machine is more deadly than a gun, huh?
  • Devils Advocate
    Fly4Fun;1231720 wrote:.

    And I was just responding to your post with my thoughts on it. Is that not the point?
    If your point was that you wished I wouldn't post a link, I was going to blow this effin thread up. but if it wasn't, consider it a passive agressive post. :)
  • Fly4Fun
    Devils Advocate;1231750 wrote:If your point was that you wished I wouldn't post a link, I was going to blow this effin thread up. but if it wasn't, consider it a passive agressive post. :)
    It wasn't targeted specifically at you. It was more to the overall theme of my post that they are like trolls in effect that they want the attention. The more they receive, the more they will act in the way that is getting them attention.

    While you not posting the link probably wouldn't have any kind of noticeable impact on the amount of attention they receive. It was more of just an illustration.
  • tk421
    For those of you who think an "assault" weapons ban will do anything, how did the other ban from 94-04 do? I bet not much. I hate that term, "assault" weapon. It was coined by the media before the ban in 94, and now it's stuck. Semi auto is not assault weapon, assault weapons MUST include full auto. Those are class 3 and include tons of paperwork, a background check, and a tax stamp. You can't just stroll into a gun shop and by an "assault" weapon. Wish the stupid media would quit misleading the gullible American public.
  • hasbeen
    tk421;1231761 wrote:For those of you who think an "assault" weapons ban will do anything, how did the other ban from 94-04 do? I bet not much. I hate that term, "assault" weapon. It was coined by the media before the ban in 94, and now it's stuck. Semi auto is not assault weapon, assault weapons MUST include full auto. Those are class 3 and include tons of paperwork, a background check, and a tax stamp. You can't just stroll into a gun shop and by an "assault" weapon. Wish the stupid media would quit misleading the gullible American public.
    I wish the American public wasn't so damn gullible.
  • tk421
    hasbeen;1231780 wrote:I wish the American public wasn't so damn gullible.
    I think we've got a better chance of Richard Simmons marrying a woman and having kids than that ever happening. Maybe we should have elections like American Idol, that seems to be the only way to keep anyone's attention. Can have the candidates go up and sing a number, do a little dance and you can call in and pick which one you like best. Probably would be about the same result.