(06-14-2016, 01:18 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: you cannot remove a constitutional right without due process

(06-14-2016, 12:58 AM)V Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:45 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: He had no criminal history (being investigated is not the same as being charged or convicted of anything).

Semi-automatic weapons and sidearms serve no purpose beyond the efficient infliction of mass casualties in a combat zone. There is no reason for them to exist in any capacity in the private sphere.

Also, if the government can restrict your freedom to travel because they don't like how your name sounds, they should restrict your freedom to buy murder toys because you openly claim ties to Al Qaeda.

(06-14-2016, 01:30 AM)Valeera Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:18 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: you cannot remove a constitutional right without due process

You totally can, and we've been doing it since 2001. Not the happiest state of affairs, but might as well wring some good out of it.

(06-14-2016, 01:33 AM)McBeef© Wrote: Do you think Cops should be able to have semi automatic weapons? Security guards? Armored car drivers? 

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)Valeera Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:33 AM)McBeef© Wrote: Do you think Cops should be able to have semi automatic weapons? Security guards? Armored car drivers? 

Nope. When are they even going to use them? They didn't use them here. If a situation requires an application of force most efficiently delivered by semi-automatic and automatic weapons, that is a situation that should be handled by SWAT or the National Guard.\

I'll even go so far as to state my belief that the regulars among the police should be as equally disarmed as the public.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia.  Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.

(06-14-2016, 08:54 AM)Arrelaine Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia.  Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.

But they wouldn't not have access to guns. Look at drugs. Prohibiting drugs certainly didn't make it harder to aquire them. The Cartels from Mexico smuggle them in on an hourly basis. They would still have access to guns. If you put in gun laws, guess who doesn't have access to guns? The people who are willing to protect themselves. All of those places had no-gun rules. What would have been the outcome had someone else other than the police officer outside had a gun there, who had their permits, their classes and their training?

Also, all of those incidents, people had guns illegally. None of those people were legal gun owners. Even the guy in Florida would have been an illegal owner had his ex-wife reported him for domestic violence. They all either had a rap sheet, or they had mental health histories, and they got their guns from legal gun owners (which is also illegal). You can't own a gun legally if you have any sort of mental health history, drug abuse, or really anything on your rap sheet that would have landed you in jail. They -already- 'do it anyway', it's already supposed to be 'harder' for them to get it.

Everyone here where I live conceal carries. We have almost no gun-related violence. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun, and the rare occurrence is a robbery at a gas station.

(06-14-2016, 09:00 AM)Warren Castille Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 08:54 AM)Arrelaine Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia.  Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.

But they wouldn't not have access to guns. Look at drugs. Prohibiting drugs certainly didn't make it harder to aquire them. The Cartels from Mexico smuggle them in on an hourly basis. They would still have access to guns. If you put in gun laws, guess who doesn't have access to guns? The people who are willing to protect themselves. All of those places had no-gun rules. What would have been the outcome had someone else other than the police officer outside had a gun there, who had their permits, their classes and their training?

Also, all of those incidents, people had guns illegally. None of those people were legal gun owners. Even the guy in Florida would have been an illegal owner had his ex-wife reported him for domestic violence. They all either had a rap sheet, or they had mental health histories, and they got their guns from legal gun owners (which is also illegal). You can't own a gun legally if you have any sort of mental health history, drug abuse, or really anything on your rap sheet that would have landed you in jail. They -already- 'do it anyway', it's already supposed to be 'harder' for them to get it.

Everyone here where I live conceal carries. We have almost no gun-related violence. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun, and the rare occurrence is a robbery at a gas station.

"The system works, it's just everyone else failing it?" Sandy Hook took his mom's weapon. Orlando bought his weapons legally. I don't recall off the top of my head where Virginia Tech bought his, but VA has such lax gun laws it's laughable.

Again, if "everyone would do it anyway" how come drugs are still illegal? Gambling, outside of select states? Speeding? Law in general? Why is it always guns that people clamp down on?

What's the last mass-shooting that was stopped by a heroic concealed-carrying citizen?

(06-14-2016, 08:50 AM)Askier Wrote: How many lives could have been saved Warren if someone had been armed and able to shoot back?

(06-14-2016, 09:14 AM)Arrelaine Wrote: There was a mass shooting that was stopped, just after the Pulse one in California. ISIS had called for more attacks just like it, and a member was on their way to a gay club there, but he was stopped before he even got there.

(06-14-2016, 08:50 AM)Askier Wrote: How many lives could have been saved Warren if someone had been armed and able to shoot back?

Why do we always rely on the military or police? Those men and women are just people in uniforms. Normal citizens can be trained just as well.  

The attack in Paris is a tragic example of how the laws don't stop people from getting guns if they really want to find them. They will find a way.  

Suppose guns disappear from regular circulation. Okay. So now all someone needs is about fifty dollars and a copy of the 'Anarchists Cookbook' and now they can make over the counter explosives.