Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[colourwheel]

There is no proof that legislation wouldn't make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Yet there is proof making things less easy to access or obtain or banned is more of an effective deterrent.

Dead wrong. Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

 

The reference link you have posted is a bit outdated from research done over a decade ago without showing any real data break down and inconsistencies related to research done. Also it's news for another country.

 

Here is a more consistant link with more informative data... Here! <--- click

 

You think i'am "trolling" you? Tell you what, i get very aggressiv if someone wanna take a right from me. If you continue with this "i just wanna reform..." and "the evil NRA..." BS you will meet way more aggressiv reactions down the road.

 

Don't you get it? We don't need gun controll! We don't need prohibition! I want more freedom!

 

If you don't like it, MOVE. Tell it again : Leave the US and go to Canada, Australia, UK or some place else where they have restrictiv gun laws.

 

ColdHeartonIce tell you what if you keep at attacking me personally you might endup loosing your right to access this forum. play nice please.

Edited December 29, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

Switching gears!

 

Dianne Feinstein *spits* has proposed an AWB: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

Good news: it's not likely to succeed. Why? Because this bill would tear the country asunder.

[colourwheel]

Switching gears!

 

Dianne Feinstein *spits* has proposed an AWB: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

Good news: it's not likely to succeed. Why? Because this bill would tear the country asunder.

 

I will agree, the legislation is quite extreme and I don't see the people currently in legislative power to pass this bill without it being reformed a bit. But honestly even if the bill was passed I doubt it would tear the country appart.

[Ghogiel]

 

Cars/trucks kill more folks than guns. There is no "need" for anyone to own more than one car. Should we restrict car ownership?

Possibly not for much longer.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

 

 

Dead wrong. Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

 

That is over a decade ago. And that increase was in part do to the new laws and a massive crack down.

 

The actual gun crime now is as low as it has been since the ban. there was an immediate increase yes, but saying that the gun crime today is actually rising or is more than it was prior to the ban is incorrect.

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/01/21/CrimeGunKnife.gif

Edited December 29, 2012 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

Chicago had a record number of murders in 2012. They also have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

 

No, death by alcohol (either the victim drinking, or someone else) isn't considered a violent crime, but, the victims are still just as dead. In the last year, we have had a number of accidents resulting in fatalities that were alcohol related. Trouble is, the one drinking WASN'T the one killed...... four teenagers in one incident, when the drinker ran a red light. An entire family in another, when a drunk driver blew thru a stopsign, and t-boned their car. How is this not worse than shooting them?

 

Want to get away with murder? Get drunk, and run your chosen victim over. If it's your first offense, you probably won't even get jail time...... it you do it a couple times, you might get a year or three. That's it. Shoot them with a gun though, and it's life...... Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

 

I would also point out that most crimes committed with assault rifles, the weapon in question was acquired illegally anyway. Even if you ban them, those that want to acquire them will indeed find a way. A ban will have zero net affect on it. There are just way to many already in circulation, and it is far too easy to smuggle just about anything you want over our various borders. Even our GOVERNMENT is doing it...... (fast and furious anyone?)

 

Gun laws aren't going to matter. They have made all of zero difference in the various locations thoughout the US. Please have a look at the most dangerous cities here, then compare that to the cities with the strictest gun regulations. Please note that the lists are quite similar....... All the politicians grandstanding, and banning this, that, and the other thing, have done NOTHING to change crime rates. It is simply the wrong approach to the problem.

[colourwheel]

No, death by alcohol (either the victim drinking, or someone else) isn't considered a violent crime, but, the victims are still just as dead. In the last year, we have had a number of accidents resulting in fatalities that were alcohol related. Trouble is, the one drinking WASN'T the one killed...... four teenagers in one incident, when the drinker ran a red light. An entire family in another, when a drunk driver blew thru a stopsign, and t-boned their car. How is this not worse than shooting them?

 

Want to get away with murder? Get drunk, and run your chosen victim over. If it's your first offense, you probably won't even get jail time...... it you do it a couple times, you might get a year or three. That's it. Shoot them with a gun though, and it's life...... Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

 

The difference is intent. A person with a leathal fire arm has a clear intent to cause murder when off in a shooting spree. If you have the intent to murder someone with a car I wouldn't doubt you would be charged the same way one would mudering someone with the intent using a fire arm.

 

Also there is really not enough evidence in the U.S. that any laws made would make a difference or not if legislation is made to gun laws concidering that the U.S. has never really had enough to show for to be conclusive.

 

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq." - CDC task force

Edited December 30, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

Switching gears!

 

Dianne Feinstein *spits* has proposed an AWB: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

Good news: it's not likely to succeed. Why? Because this bill would tear the country asunder.

 

I will agree, the legislation is quite extreme and I don't see the people currently in legislative power to pass this bill without it being reformed a bit. But honestly even if the bill was passed I doubt it would tear the country appart.

There are thousands, If Not Hundreds Of ThOusands That Will Absolutely Refuse To Comply With That Law. What DoYou Think Is Going To Happen When The ATF gathers Up The Bound Books And Starts Doing confiscationS? PeopleAre Going To shoot Back. States Are Going To Get Pissed Off. Texas will Go crazy, The Gun Owners Will Be Too Much For Local Law Enforcement, Feds Won't Be Able To Handle It And They'll Try ToCall OutThe National Guard. The States Will RecallThe National Guard And The Fed will Call Out TheMain Forces. But A Lot, If Not Most, Will Refuse Orders, SomeWill Even Join The other Side. It Will Lead To Civil War And The Country Will Fracture.

[colourwheel]

Switching gears!

 

Dianne Feinstein *spits* has proposed an AWB: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

Good news: it's not likely to succeed. Why? Because this bill would tear the country asunder.

 

I will agree, the legislation is quite extreme and I don't see the people currently in legislative power to pass this bill without it being reformed a bit. But honestly even if the bill was passed I doubt it would tear the country appart.

There are thousands, If Not Hundreds Of ThOusands That Will Absolutely Refuse To Comply With That Law. What DoYou Think Is Going To Happen When The ATF gathers Up The Bound Books And Starts Doing confiscationS? PeopleAre Going To shoot Back. States Are Going To Get Pissed Off. Texas will Go crazy, The Gun Owners Will Be Too Much For Local Law Enforcement, Feds Won't Be Able To Handle It And They'll Try ToCall OutThe National Guard. The States Will RecallThe National Guard And The Fed will Call Out TheMain Forces. But A Lot, If Not Most, Will Refuse Orders, SomeWill Even Join The other Side. It Will Lead To Civil War And The Country Will Fracture.

 

If you look at the Gallup polls as well as other independent studies done recently since the Sandy Hook shooting over a majority of the public is in favor of banning high power assault weapons in the U.S.A. Hundreds of thousands of people is not enough to tear the country appart, they amount to just less than 1% of the nation.

 

If you really think it would lead to Civil War, it will endup being a failed rebelion. Hundreds of thousands could be easily dominated by just Hundreds of millions of the nation. The fictional rebelion could be easily crushed. And this is giving the benifit of the doubt there is an actaul organized effort behind this fictional rebelion concidering in reality these hundreds of thousands would be actually scattered around the nation and pretty much on their own. Most people complain about gas prices where i live i doubt they would quit thier job and decide to become an enemy of the state just because they want to own an AK-47. Most of them would probably run out of food before they would run out of ammo.

 

Also think about how cold it would be for those people in the winter time. No internet, no heat, no power, and no fresh supplies. It would be a lonely way of life as i see it....

Edited December 30, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

Possibly not for much longer.

 

http://www.bloomberg...es-by-2015.html

You know what that article didn't mention? About two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. How many of those car related deaths are the negligent driver and how many are the 'victims' so to speak?

 

If you look at the Gallup polls as well as other independent studies done recently since the Sandy Hook shooting over a majority of the public is in favor of banning high power assault weapons in the U.S.A. Hundreds of thousands of people is not enough to tear the country appart, they amount to just less than 1% of the nation.

 

If you really think it would lead to Civil War, it will endup being a failed rebelion. Hundreds of thousands could be easily dominated by just Hundreds of millions of the nation. The fictional rebelion could be easily crushed.

You're assuming that everyone in the country would oppose the rebellion. You're way, way wrong. More than just the few I mentioned are more than fed up with the government. It's just that these few are the crazy rednecks living in the woods, already distrustful of the government. They're the ones that'll take the first stand. Other gun owners will surely follow, and remember, about half the country owns enough guns for the other half.

 

And once again, if that were to happen, states like Texas would get involved against the fed. So yeah, the end result would the country falling to pieces.

[colourwheel]

If you look at the Gallup polls as well as other independent studies done recently since the Sandy Hook shooting over a majority of the public is in favor of banning high power assault weapons in the U.S.A. Hundreds of thousands of people is not enough to tear the country appart, they amount to just less than 1% of the nation.

 

If you really think it would lead to Civil War, it will endup being a failed rebelion. Hundreds of thousands could be easily dominated by just Hundreds of millions of the nation. The fictional rebelion could be easily crushed. And this is giving the benifit of the doubt there is an actaul organized effort behind this fictional rebelion concidering in reality these hundreds of thousands would be actually scattered around the nation and pretty much on their own. Most people complain about gas prices where i live i doubt they would quit thier job and decide to become an enemy of the state just because they want to own an AK-47. Most of them would probably run out of food before they would run out of ammo.

 

Also think about how cold it would be for those people in the winter time. No internet, no heat, no power, and no fresh supplies. It would be a lonely way of life as i see it....

You're assuming that everyone in the country would oppose the rebellion. You're way, way wrong. More than just the few I mentioned are more than fed up with the government. It's just that these few are the crazy rednecks living in the woods, already distrustful of the government. They're the ones that'll take the first stand. Other gun owners will surely follow, and remember, about half the country owns enough guns for the other half.

 

And once again, if that were to happen, states like Texas would get involved against the fed. So yeah, the end result would the country falling to pieces.

 

You are also assuming things too. Concidering this is completely fictional in this day and age civil war in the U.S.A. is not very possible. Even If this organized effort was to rebel and eventually all gather in one place (they would have to, to stand even a slight chance.) would it really be worth giving up your entire life as you know it, just to own an assault rifle?

 

I would think most people would be thinking "I need to go pick up more diapers at walmart and buy a lata at Star Bucks before dropping off my kids at school. Also have to remember to pick up my wife at work at 5pm" lol

 

The priority of owning an assault rifle would be the last thing most people would worry about in todays world.

 

We live in an age where the means of dependency are beyond what one person can or even a few can collectively conjure or provide themselves. It would be very hard for people to completely cut themselves off from society when even the average gun owner probably doesn't know how to construct or begin to design a basic electronic operational amplifier let alone script and write programs for software. There are way to many ways to dominate a civil rebelion without the means of fire arms today. Technology has advanced so far to the point the government would only have to wait things out...

 

Just look at how the North won during the American civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 and then imagine what could be done today. (drones alone would be effective enough if the idea was termination)

Edited December 30, 2012 by colourwheel