forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

hcanes100 said:
Gun free zones: They are two types of Gun Free zones. 1. Fully enforced gun free zones. These are ones like at an airport, court house, etc. Where every single person is positively checked for a weapon. They are fairly effective, but expensive and hard to control. Schools are much more difficult to implement this, due to the nature of multiple entry points and staffing levels to maintain integrity of all entry points. 2. The "Gun Free Zones" that hang a sign up and say no guns allowed. These become slaughter points, as only law abiding sane (loosely used here) try and obey the law. These absolutely have to be banned, cause almost every mass casualty gun related incident are here. This is absolutely where we need to look for CHANGE, they change everyone is saying needs to come, but no one is effectively identifying as the change they are calling for. BAN ALL NON ENFORCED GUN FREE ZONES. That is the answer. If it is a GUN FREE DECLARED ZONE, then the organization that is declaring it MUST BY LAW ENFORCE IT.
Click to expand...
Agree with your statement (and the remainder I removed for brevity).

But you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of pro-2A enthusiasts who believe fully enforced gun free zones as you described are unconstitutional, as are any restrictions on nearly any weapon, required registration, and any laws limiting open carry.
 
Advertisement
scrantoncane said:
I think most Americans, including gun owners, would disagree.

Most people that own guns have nothing to hide.

In fact, aren't most new purchases tracked already? Isn't that how guns are traced back to the purchaser?

I don't really see why this would be an issue that is more important than saving childrens' lives. But again, I am open to discussion.
Click to expand...
If I had to pass a background check before purchasing my long gun and the serial number is already in the system, why would I need to register it again. As a law abiding citizen why do i need to let the govt know that I still have my deceased father in laws collection?

-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with;

So will that generation have to delete the second amendment?
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
They can't even keep drugs out of fully locked down prisons. How do they expect to keep it out of a relatively free country. However, I disagree that the war on drugs was a failure. It was a great success, it accomplished its goal.

Get a ton of blacks and other undesirables off the street/no longer able to vote. Fill up prisons for labor reasons and keeping COs employed/receiving overtime. Justify spending more on police equipment, overtime, salaries, etc. Among other things.
Click to expand...
Bro! Nancy Reagan smokes crack!
 
Advertisement
BenicioDelToro said:
If I had to pass a background check before purchasing my long gun and the serial number is already in the system, why would I need to register it again. As a law abiding citizen why do i need to let the govt know that I still have my deceased father in laws collection?

-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with;

So will that generation have to delete the second amendment?
Click to expand...
He wasn't even a "good guy with a gun" in the traditional sense. He was a paid security guard. When we think of "guns should be legal because good guy with guns stop shooters" we should be thinking of CCW or open carry civilians. Even if guns are made illegal, there will still be cops and security guards with guns.

But you are 100% correct. IIRC he hit the kid center of mass but his hard armor stopped it. Your average GGWG or security guard or cop. Is not beating an ar-15 wielding guy with hard armor and some training with a pistol.
 
Roncaneefc said:
Other developed countries that don't have the same gun violence prove that gun control works. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

Why is it when someone says its a fact they usually are spouting off something they don't really know that well. You say gun violence but I don't think anyone would be happy if these kids were murdered via some other means.

The point I am going to hammer down for you is that all violent crime decreased and murders decreased over the last 30 years all over the world. Here is a direct comparison of the murder rates in the US vs Australia that covers the period that everyone wants to use as the standard for gun control. Which one decreased the most over this 30 year period? Why are you using ones decline and attributing it to your one point and why does your argument ignore the also equally large decrease that clearly refutes your point? You cant use one country and say this will work. I will put the links below the pics.
violent crime us vs austrailia.jpg


Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net

U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
You can have the best mental health system in the world and you still may get some guy who just enjoys killing and slips through the cracks and decides to shoot up a school.
Click to expand...
That's because increasing spending on mental health as a percentage of the national budget is not going to help reduce this country's gun violence epidemic, in any meaningful way whatsoever. That's just a myth that continues to get perpetuated by gun right advocates. The same story applies to conceal & carry permits as well. The research says that conceal & carry permits don't increase the likelihood of preventing active shooter situations. That's what the research is saying. Both of these arguments are nothing more than gutter trash, and worth less than the toilet tissue we wipe our *** with every morning.

If this country actually wants to address this issue, then it needs to stop focusing on symptoms, and instead on the actual underlying reasons for why this is happening. Structural inequality, addiction, and firearm accessibility.
 
Advertisement
BenicioDelToro said:
If I had to pass a background check before purchasing my long gun and the serial number is already in the system, why would I need to register it again. As a law abiding citizen why do i need to let the govt know that I still have my deceased father in laws collection?
Click to expand...

Because so many guns are not registered, or are not currently owned by, or in the possession of, the original owner. Registration is a way to take inventory of what is out there on said date.

BenicioDelToro said:
-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with;

So will that generation have to delete the second amendment?
Click to expand...
Again, are you really going back to the constitutional argument? It is a cop-out, IMO. We don't know what they would say about the current state of affairs.

When the constitution was drafted, slavery was legal. Should we legalize that again too? (Is the right to own slaves in the Constitution? No. But the failure to recognize how wrong slavery was is proof perfect that the Founding Fathers DID NOT, in fact, know everything.)

I would also argue that the "right to bear arms" would not be taken away by my hypothetical; the "right to purchase arms" would.
 
Advertisement
Trafficante said:
That's because increasing spending on mental health as a percentage of the national budget is not going to help reduce this country's gun violence epidemic, in any meaningful way whatsoever. That's just a myth that continues to get perpetuated by gun right advocates. The same story applies to conceal & carry permits as well. The research says that conceal & carry permits don't increase the likelihood of preventing active shooter situations. That's what the research is saying. Both of these arguments are nothing more than gutter trash, and worth less than the toilet tissue we wipe our *** with every morning.

If this country actually wants to address this issue, then it needs to stop focusing on symptoms, and instead on the actual underlying reasons for why this is happening. Structural inequality, addiction, and firearm accessibility.
Click to expand...
For sure. I was just talking about this particular instance with the school shooters. Most of the gang violence in places like chicago are from poverty. I grew up in Harlem during the 90s when gang violence made chicago look like a safe little city. It was all because of poverty. Pretty much none of the gang members were crazy or sociopaths or anything. They just were poor people that needed money and when another poor person that needs money, kills a family member, even if it was justified(owed money or whatever) you retaliated.
 
Trafficante said:
That's because increasing spending on mental health as a percentage of the national budget is not going to help reduce this country's gun violence epidemic, in any meaningful way whatsoever. That's just a myth that continues to get perpetuated by gun right advocates. The same story applies to conceal & carry permits as well. The research says that conceal & carry permits don't increase the likelihood of preventing active shooter situations. That's what the research is saying. Both of these arguments are nothing more than gutter trash, and worth less than the toilet tissue we wipe our *** with every morning.

If this country actually wants to address this issue, then it needs to stop focusing on symptoms, and instead on the actual underlying reasons for why this is happening. Structural inequality, addiction, and firearm accessibility.
Click to expand...

OK Santo, how do you answer the underlying reasons. The three you mentioned, and show your work.
 
clg003 said:
Why is it when someone says its a fact they usually are spouting off something they don't really know that well. You say gun violence but I don't think anyone would be happy if these kids were murdered via some other means.

The point I am going to hammer down for you is that all violent crime decreased and murders decreased over the last 30 years all over the world. Here is a direct comparison of the murder rates in the US vs Australia that covers the period that everyone wants to use as the standard for gun control. Which one decreased the most over this 30 year period? Why are you using ones decline and attributing it to your one point and why does your argument ignore the also equally large decrease that clearly refutes your point? You cant use one country and say this will work. I will put the links below the pics. View attachment 187130

Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net

U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
Click to expand...
Thanks man I'm English . No guns definitely equals less gun crime. It doesn't erase homicides. It does however lower gun violence which is as stated a fact. Your charts are great your point isn't.
 
Advertisement
Roncaneefc said:
Thanks man I'm English . No guns definitely equals less gun crime. It doesn't erase homicides. It does however lower gun violence which is as stated a fact. Your charts are great your point isn't.
Click to expand...
Your just mad cause we kicked your **** in 1781.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
For sure. I was just talking about this particular instance with the school shooters. Most of the gang violence in places like chicago are from poverty. I grew up in Harlem during the 90s when gang violence made chicago look like a safe little city. It was all because of poverty. Pretty much none of the gang members were crazy or sociopaths or anything. They just were poor people that needed money and when another poor person that needs money, kills a family member, even if it was justified(owed money or whatever) you retaliated.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Many of these people are getting entangled in cycles of gun violence because of geography or retaliation. Simply based on where you live could put you in direct conflict with adjacent blocks or warring factions even if you don't have gang affiliation.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top