Conquer Club

Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:55 pm

Nobunaga wrote:
Recent Japanese History wrote:The Osaka School Massacre took place at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers

Takuma was diagnosed with Borderline personality disorder, Antisocial personality disorder, and Paranoid personality disorder. He was later convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on September 14, 2004. The Osaka School Massacre was the second largest mass murder, along with the Matsumoto incident, in recent Japanese history, exceeded both of the crimes only by the fatalities caused in the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. This incident, however, was set apart by the young age of the victims, by its occurrence at a school, and by the murderer's history of mental illness.


Do you remember hearing about this one? No?

Because the massacre in Connecticut took place where it took place, everybody screams.

I'm not a fan of teachers having guns in public schools... I've encountered more than a few teachers to whom I would never extend that level of trust.

You cannot stop this kind of tragedy from happening. If you have a madman with the intent to kill a bunch of kids... he will find a way. He'll use a gun if he has one. If not, a knife, as above.


While I certainly agree with the point you're making (I am not at all in favor of banning guns), there is a truth that a handgun does extend a level of damage capability that a knife does not. It makes superior damage far easier.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:57 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
GabonX wrote:Our society failed these kids. There should have been an adult prepared to protect the group. PERIOD
Gratefully our country is not like Mexico where guns are illegal and similar killings are a social epidemic.


I agree that guns should not be made illegal. I disagree that school shootings are a social epidemic in Mexico. I also disagree with the implication you are making that somehow having more guns in the school would prevent or make these situations less of a problem. That's certainly not a given, and ignores the other problems inherent in such an idea.


No, the kids in Mexico just get shot in their homes and on the streets on their way to school instead of inside a school.

Woodruff wrote:Absolutely. But the biggest problem isn't the street-person who is mentally unstable. They are largely harmless. The serious problems are the ones who aren't quite yet as far gone but who have access to equipment and facilities that make them far more dangerous.


So you would take away the rights of people to own a gun simply because they have a child that may have a mental disorder? Because from early indications, the guns used in this attack were the mother's guns, not the shooter's.


Do you even read the posts you respond to, or do you just immediately spout Fox-News-speak at the slightest indication of disagreement?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:00 pm

MegaProphet wrote:After reading this thread I've come to agree with Woodruff that the solution is to change the way mental illness is looked at in this country. However I think that may be more difficult to accomplish. Banning guns is being touted as the solution by many because it seems like an easy fix.


Correct...it's lazy thinking on the part of liberals to believe that it would fix this particular problem and it's a problem of selfishness on the part of conservatives who aren't interested in paying for someone else's mental health. It absolutely would be a more difficult thing to accomplish, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile nor more effective. Heck, this thread itself highlights exactly the point I was making...nobody wants to talk about the damn elephant in the room (for various reasons).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:02 pm

Night Strike wrote:
MegaProphet wrote:I think stricter gun control laws should be put into place. I do not know if they would prevent these tragedies, but I also do not know why a member of the general public would possibly need an assault rifle. I think the loophole that allows people to be sold guns online or at a gun show without a background check needs to be closed because minors, criminals, and people with known psychiatric problems should not be sold guns. I think these are reasonable restrictions.


Exactly none of those would have changed the circumstances in the Connecticut shooting.


How does that mean they're not still reasonable steps to take? Just because it would have made no difference in this specific instance doesn't mean it isn't worth at least considering and looking at seriously.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:04 pm

Borderdawg wrote: Oh, and woody, before you start telling us all about your superior weapons training as a lil' air doggy, please remember that I too am a veteran, and I too have been quite thoroughly trained in the care and feeding of firearms. At least as well as you, probably better. :D


I don't at all doubt that your training is superior to mine. That doesn't in any way negate that I have that training.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:05 pm

Woodruff wrote:
MegaProphet wrote:After reading this thread I've come to agree with Woodruff that the solution is to change the way mental illness is looked at in this country. However I think that may be more difficult to accomplish. Banning guns is being touted as the solution by many because it seems like an easy fix.


Correct...it's lazy thinking on the part of liberals to believe that it would fix this particular problem and it's a problem of selfishness on the part of conservatives who aren't interested in paying for someone else's mental health. It absolutely would be a more difficult thing to accomplish, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile nor more effective. Heck, this thread itself highlights exactly the point I was making...nobody wants to talk about the damn elephant in the room (for various reasons).


ELEPHANT!!!

Are you calling me fat just because I have mental health issues? :o

:lol:

Hmmm maybe humour isn't the most called for thing right there - as you were.....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:07 pm

GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:I would suggest that a criminal that was concerned with the signs posted on the establishment is a criminal looking at a very short and ill-fated career.


These mass murdering spree killers tend to have very short and ill-fated careers, actually...


You may have missed it, but my statement there is in response to Phatscotty's idea that criminals (apparently of all types) would hesitate over signs.


I got that actually. I think you missed the point, that being that if mass murdering spree killers destined for very short and ill-fated careers thought that a given location had people legitimately prepared to defend themselves present, they probably wouldn't go there.


In almost all cases, they want to die. Yes, they want to go out in some sort of a splash, but the idea of weaponry against them really isn't a serious deterrent. It's an expectation and part of their plan, many times.

GabonX wrote:In all seriousness though, adults in right to carry states that choose not to exercise their rights are the ones who are truly responsible for these mass killings.


If that's actually being serious on your part, then I have to question your perspective. It's even dumber than blaming the gun for the violence.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:10 pm

Gun-control laws failed Connecticut children

In the wake of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., voices across nation, and indeed across the globe, have been calling for stricter gun-control laws.

Yet what gun-control measure could have prevented this crime?

The state of Connecticut already has certain gun-control laws in place, at least three of which the shooter broke, as he could have only obtained the weapons through illegal means.

According to news reports, Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother Nancy Lanza dead at their family home before driving to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, where he gunned down more than two dozen people, 20 of them children, and then killed himself.

The Associated Press reports Lanza brought three guns into the school: a Glock pistol, a Sig Sauer pistol and Bushmaster rifle, which the New York Post further reports was a semi-automatic ā€œassault rifleā€ chambered for a .223 caliber round, matching casings found at the crime scene.

Lanza, therefore, if you count theft, murder and breaking and entering – since CBS New York now reports it likely Lanza broke into the school through a window to circumvent a locked-door and intercom security system – would have violated a half-dozen laws in his crime, including the following gun-control statutes:

First, Connecticut law requires a person be over 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza was 20.

Second, Connecticut requires a permit to carry a pistol on one’s person, a permit Lanza did not have.

Third, it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored.

Fourth, with details on the Bushmaster rifle still sketchy, it’s possible Lanza may have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of ā€œassault weapons.ā€

Of course, these laws were violated because Lanza did not own any of the firearms in question, but rather stole them, and he clearly had no regard for the law in committing his crime.

The Associated Press reports the weapons were registered to Lanza’s first victim, his own mother, according to a law enforcement official not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The facts of the case mark one of the largest quandaries with cries for additional gun control: The guns already exist, and the criminals who have broken laws to use them have also demonstrated they’re willing to break laws to obtain them.

Unless the government somehow mandates and is able to effectively destroy the millions of guns already in circulation, gun-control laws primarily affect the already law-abiding, rather than the criminal element.

Yet legislators have been swift to suggest the answers lie in even more laws.

In Congress, Fox News reports, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a leading gun-control advocate on Capitol Hill, has called for members to address the issue when a new session starts in January.

ā€œI hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,ā€ said Feinstein, who co-sponsored a 1994 bill that resulted in a 10-year ban on many semi-automatic guns classified as ā€œassault weapons.ā€

ā€œWe have been through this too many times,ā€ President Obama agreed. ā€œWe’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.ā€

New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading voice for more gun-control legislation pushed the president to do more.

ā€œCalling for ā€˜meaningful action’ is not enough,ā€ said Bloomberg, who leads the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. ā€œWe have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today.ā€

The New York Times reports at least one Capitol Hill Republican, however, argued tighter control is not the answer.

ā€œThat’s one thing I hope doesn’t happen,ā€ New York Rep. Mike Rogers told the Times. ā€œWhat is the more realistic discussion is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?ā€

The New York Daily News reports Lanza was ā€œdark and disturbed, a deeply troubled boyā€ who suffered from a troubled mental state, perhaps related to Asperger’s syndrome or a form of personality disorder.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/gun-control- ... xDFQXW7.99
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby GabonX on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:13 pm

Woodruff wrote:If that's actually being serious on your part, then I have to question your perspective. It's even dumber than blaming the gun for the violence.


I think it's sad that people are willing to let children die because they're cowardly and try to impose weakness on themselves and fellow citizens instead of empowering themselves.

We make such a stink about how important it is to vote in this country even though we know a huge proportion of people are uninformed in regards to the issues. Where are the calls for people to exercise their second amendment rights to defend themselves and their neighbors?

This is hypocrisy at it's most transparent...
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:22 pm

GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If that's actually being serious on your part, then I have to question your perspective. It's even dumber than blaming the gun for the violence.


I think it's sad that people are willing to let children die because they're cowardly and try to impose weakness on themselves and fellow citizens instead of empowering themselves.


I think it's sad that you believe the only reason people aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society is because they're cowardly and trying to impose weakness on themselves. Your perspective is showing to be worse rather than better. Is that intentional?

GabonX wrote:We make such a stink about how important it is to vote in this country even though we know a huge proportion of people are uninformed in regards to the issues. Where are the calls for people to exercise their second amendment rights to defend themselves and their neighbors? This is hypocrisy at it's most transparent...


It has nothing at all to do with hypocricy.
What are the potential negative consequences of voting?
What are the potential negative consequences of carrying weaponry around our society?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:30 pm

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby GabonX on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:34 pm

Woodruff wrote:I think it's sad that you believe the only reason people aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society is because they're cowardly and trying to impose weakness on themselves. Your perspective is showing to be worse rather than better. Is that intentional?


Primarily it's because they want to impose weakness on their neighbors because they see themselves as benefiting from a dis-empowered populace.

Woodruff wrote:It has nothing at all to do with hypocricy.
What are the potential negative consequences of voting?


The potential negative consequences of voting in the US are that the nation elects a President who destroys the economy, our liberties, and damages our foreign interests.

As a result, billions of people around the world may be stricken to poverty and/or die.

Woodruff wrote:What are the potential negative consequences of carrying weaponry around our society?


A couple people might get hurt if all of the adults present choose not to exercise their right of self defense.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:35 pm

PS doesn't your post about the fact the guy broke several laws just to get the guns in the first place kinda go against your stance that gun owners are safer due to owning guns. His mother certainly wasnt protected by owning the guns she did...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:23 pm

GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:I think it's sad that you believe the only reason people aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society is because they're cowardly and trying to impose weakness on themselves. Your perspective is showing to be worse rather than better. Is that intentional?


Primarily it's because they want to impose weakness on their neighbors because they see themselves as benefiting from a dis-empowered populace.


Your perspective just looks worse and worse. It's almost as if you're intentionally mischaracterizing those in opposition to you. But you wouldn't do that, would you? Surely not...

GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:It has nothing at all to do with hypocricy.
What are the potential negative consequences of voting?


The potential negative consequences of voting in the US are that the nation elects a President who destroys the economy, our liberties, and damages our foreign interests.


Then let me ask you this...isn't that also a potential negative consequence of NOT VOTING in the US? In other words, that is a potential consequence regardless of what you do.

GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:What are the potential negative consequences of carrying weaponry around our society?


A couple people might get hurt if all of the adults present choose not to exercise their right of self defense.


You didn't answer the question at all. Would you like to try again, this time perhaps honestly instead of trying to just push your agenda?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Woodruff on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:24 pm

crispybits wrote:PS doesn't your post about the fact the guy broke several laws just to get the guns in the first place kinda go against your stance that gun owners are safer due to owning guns. His mother certainly wasnt protected by owning the guns she did...


Phatscotty also believes that public school teachers are incompetent and get paid too much for what they do, but that they'd certainly be the right people to arm in our schools. So I do hope you're not looking for consistency from him...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:41 pm

The shooter attempted to buy a gun earlier this week and was denied according to the Today Show. Sounds like gun laws worked as intended. So why do we need MORE gun laws?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby GabonX on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:43 pm

Woodruff wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:It has nothing at all to do with hypocricy.
What are the potential negative consequences of voting?


The potential negative consequences of voting in the US are that the nation elects a President who destroys the economy, our liberties, and damages our foreign interests.


Then let me ask you this...isn't that also a potential negative consequence of NOT VOTING in the US? In other words, that is a potential consequence regardless of what you do.


On the individual level voting is essentially irrelevant. Rarely does a single vote sway an election and this only happens on the local level. On the state and federal levels, if a candidate truly did have a majority of only one vote, this single vote would be within the margin of error, but I digress...

Assuming that voting does bear some kind of social responsibility (I don't vote because of this, but rather because the government keeps track of voting attendance records which are made public knowledge and also because the government gives preferential treatment to voters...) the consequences of not voting would be similar to not carrying a gun. That's to say that in choosing to do or not do something, you've made a choice which will impact your surroundings, (by direct impact or lack thereof):



You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.


Woodruff wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:I think it's sad that you believe the only reason people aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society is because they're cowardly and trying to impose weakness on themselves. Your perspective is showing to be worse rather than better. Is that intentional?


Primarily it's because they want to impose weakness on their neighbors because they see themselves as benefiting from a dis-empowered populace.


Your perspective just looks worse and worse. It's almost as if you're intentionally mischaracterizing those in opposition to you. But you wouldn't do that, would you? Surely not...


If not because they don't want fellow citizens to have the ability to project force, a means of empowerment, why do you think people oppose gun ownership?

Woodruff wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Woodruff wrote:What are the potential negative consequences of carrying weaponry around our society?


A couple people might get hurt if all of the adults present choose not to exercise their right of self defense.


You didn't answer the question at all. Would you like to try again, this time perhaps honestly instead of trying to just push your agenda?
[/quote]

I thought I did a good job of answering the question. What kind of answer would you have liked?
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby HapSmo19 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:50 pm

Night Strike wrote:The shooter attempted to buy a gun earlier this week and was denied according to the Today Show. Sounds like gun laws worked as intended. So why do we need MORE gun laws?

We need to make stealing guns illegal.
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:56 pm

don't worry about these gun control people. Give them a couple days so they can start thinking about it with a clear mind. They are just panicking, and going through the motions of their preprogramming to knee jerk reaction demand larger government and more central authority while at the same time demanding our freedom be taken away.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:57 pm

:lol:
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Private 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:03 pm

Assuming I lived in America (which thankfully I don't) can I have the freedom to live without the fear of someone being able to kill me from a distance with a device he is allowed to own only in case the government goes bat-shit crazy please?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:07 pm

crispybits wrote:Assuming I lived in America (which thankfully I don't) can I have the freedom to live without the fear of someone being able to kill me from a distance with a device he is allowed to own only in case the government goes bat-shit crazy please?


you assume guns are only for protection from the government? and not burglars, carjackers, or rapists, or even crazy mass murderers?????
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:12 pm

"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."

That doesn't say anything about the security of an individual, and I've never heard a police force being referred to as a militia....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby nagerous on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:15 pm

Night Strike wrote:The shooter attempted to buy a gun earlier this week and was denied according to the Today Show. Sounds like gun laws worked as intended. So why do we need MORE gun laws?


Image
Image
User avatar
Captain nagerous
 
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:39 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby HapSmo19 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:16 pm

crispybits wrote:Assuming I lived in America (which thankfully I don't) can I have the freedom to live without the fear of someone being able to kill me from a distance with a device he is allowed to own only in case the government goes bat-shit crazy please?

"in case"?
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users