VA shooting

[ark steel]

So, you are supposed to wash sex toys?

 

[Superman]

11,208 homicides involving firearms in 2013.

29,000 more people died from falling.

obviously we could do a better job by banning gravity.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

 

[Superman]

35k people killed in automobile accidents raises the question of why are we making our focus so narrow? obviously if we get rid of cars and gravity, we'd be better off.

 

[Tibs]

 

[IndySteel]

.......................

 

[Vader]

No let's treat it like gravity. See cars kill MORE people.. a great deal more. Also driving is a privilege NOT a right found in the bill of rights. Maybe we should treat the 1st amendment like you want to treat the 2nd? Get background checks for reporters right? How about jail time for false stories like Dan Rather? No huh?

 

[ark steel]

There are already education and/or fines for misdemeanor offenses with handguns (i.e. unlawful discharge, etc.), suspensions/confiscations can be done for multiple offenses, some single one-time misdemeanor offense (misdemeanor domestic violations) may cause loss of CC permit, and extra jail time if guns are used in commission of another crime in addition, I'm sure, that use of weapons while under the influence also result in jail time (unless a misdemeanor).

If only, you know, there was something, you know, written down in some obscure document about the right to bear arms just as there is about the right to drive a car it would be awesome and we could actually make a reasonable comparison of the two.

For years, I have advocated government regulations that require all automobiles to be equipped with regulators that only allow speeds up to 5-10 mph. This of the lives and money saved. Very few accidents would even happen, but those that do would be, unlikely, to require medical assistance and, maybe, result in very little damage. Cars would be less likely to need expensive add-ons like air bags, anti-lock breaks, etc. causing car prices to plummet. Car prices would plummet even more as people flocked to government owned public transportation which would, obviously, be exempt from the new rules because no government vehicles would be subject to the new rules.

Drunk driving fatalities should approach zero and we could save tons of money by raking back drunk driving rules since it should result in less complications of drunk driving.

Not to mention all the fossil fuels saved since more public transportation use and slow driving should, overall, result in lower demand of fossil fuels causing gas prices to also plummet. Of course, all of these thousands of lives saved may offset this since their carbon footprint would continue to live on and result, possibly, in more Global Warm.., err Climate Change.

WON'T SOMEONE, PLEASE GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

 

[Superman]

There are already education and/or fines for misdemeanor offenses with handguns (i.e. unlawful discharge, etc.), suspensions/confiscations can be done for multiple offenses, some single one-time misdemeanor offense (misdemeanor domestic violations) may cause loss of CC permit, and extra jail time if guns are used in commission of another crime in addition, I'm sure, that use of weapons while under the influence also result in jail time (unless a misdemeanor).

If only, you know, there was something, you know, written down in some obscure document about the right to bear arms just as there is about the right to drive a car it would be awesome and we could actually make a reasonable comparison of the two.

For years, I have advocated government regulations that require all automobiles to be equipped with regulators that only allow speeds up to 5-10 mph. This of the lives and money saved. Very few accidents would even happen, but those that do would be, unlikely, to require medical assistance and, maybe, result in very little damage. Cars would be less likely to need expensive add-ons like air bags, anti-lock breaks, etc. causing car prices to plummet. Car prices would plummet even more as people flocked to government owned public transportation which would, obviously, be exempt from the new rules because no government vehicles would be subject to the new rules.

Drunk driving fatalities should approach zero and we could save tons of money by raking back drunk driving rules since it should result in less complications of drunk driving.

Not to mention all the fossil fuels saved since more public transportation use and slow driving should, overall, result in lower demand of fossil fuels causing gas prices to also plummet. Of course, all of these thousands of lives saved may offset this since their carbon footprint would continue to live on and result, possibly, in more Global Warm.., err Climate Change.

WON'T SOMEONE, PLEASE GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

.....................

 

[Tibs]

If only, you know, there was something, you know, written down in some obscure document about the right to bear arms just as there is about the right to drive a car it would be awesome and we could actually make a reasonable comparison of the two.

And they call that obscure document an amendment for a reason. It should be amended again, to better reflect common day reality, and not a day and age when people carried muskets around to protect themselves against a tyrannical goverment.

 

[ark steel]

And they call that obscure document an amendment for a reason. It should be amended again, to better reflect common day reality, and not a day and age when people carried muskets around to protect themselves against a tyrannical goverment.

Would you say the same for the Freedom of the Press when all they had was a quill and/or a pony with which to spread the "news"?

 

[Tibs]

Would you say the same for the Freedom of the Press when all they had was a quill and/or a pony with which to spread the "news"?

Not necessarily, as freedom of the press has not caused an epidemic of murders around the country with no end in sight.

 

[Superman]

Not necessarily, as freedom of the press has not caused an epidemic of murders around the country with no end in sight.

Black Lives Matter!
Hands Up! Don't Shoot!
I can't Breathe!

nah, just good ol' fashioned protesting with signs made on homemade poster boards and everyone's aunt serving up lemonade at the street corner.
this isn't the same country you left, Tibs.

 

[Vader]

Not necessarily, as freedom of the press has not caused an epidemic of murders around the country with no end in sight.

Tell me about the murder rate. What instrument is used more in murders? What is the murder rate trend the past 40 years?

 

[Tibs]

I dunno Vader, probably hammers, shovels, #2 pencils, knitting needles, rat poison, corrosive acid, grand pianos dropped from great heights.... and then waaaay down on the list would be firearms. The murder rate as far as I know has gone down over the past 40 years. But I still say we need stricter gun laws nonetheless.

 

[diver]

Some would argue we live under a tyrannical government now.

 

[Vader]

I dunno Vader, probably hammers, shovels, #2 pencils, knitting needles, rat poison, corrosive acid, grand pianos dropped from great heights.... and then waaaay down on the list would be firearms. The murder rate as far as I know has gone down over the past 40 years. But I still say we need stricter gun laws nonetheless.

So let's throw away a pillar of the best document ever written for government because real evidence suggests that the murder rate is going down and millions of other things kill tons more people than guns... Seriously, does that make any sense to anyone? Let's solve a problem that doesn't exist because... reasons.

Also what exactly would you want to do to solve this problem that doesn't exist? What would you change?

 

[ark steel]

Some would argue we live under a tyrannical government now.

Not me, because I love, love, love big brother, err, the government.

 

[hamster]

Tell me about the murder rate. What instrument is used more in murders? What is the murder rate trend the past 40 years?

Lead poisoning.

 

[Spike]

White House concedes new gun laws wouldn’t have stopped Va. gunman

The White House conceded Friday that new gun regulations probably wouldn’t have prevented the gunman who murdered two television journalists in southwestern Virginia this week.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said it appears that a proposal championed by President Obama to require background checks on purchases at gun shows “would not have applied in this particular case.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ve-stopped-va-gunman-wh/#.VeCfPQPu1Do.twitter

 

[Tibs]

Also what exactly would you want to do to solve this problem that doesn't exist?

That's total bullshit there isn't a gun problem in the US. Keep telling yourself that. Just look around the world at other industrial, western nations and study the firearm death/murder numbers. It's crazy for you to think that, or it just proves that you - among many others - live entirely in a vacuum.

What would you change?

Really, not much at all. Just tighten up current gun laws, from who gets to buy them, to how long it takes, to what type of background checks are involved. Get rid of military-style automatic weapons, or significantly reduce access to them. Legitimate gun owners would have no issues keeping and purchasing guns as they wish. But it shouldn't be as easy as buying a friggin' scoop of ice cream. Reduce access to guns, clamp down on black market, gun show sales, do a buy-back program like they had in Australia and try to get lowlife bums to sell off some of their weapons. Not even sure it would work, but at this stage, with as many mass shootings that have taken place, it's worth a try.

 

[Superman]

That's total bullshit there isn't a gun problem in the US. Keep telling yourself that. Just look around the world at other industrial, western nations and study the firearm death/murder numbers. It's crazy for you to think that, or it just proves that you - among many others - live entirely in a vacuum.


Really, not much at all. Just tighten up current gun laws, from who gets to buy them, to how long it takes, to what type of background checks are involved. Get rid of military-style automatic weapons, or significantly reduce access to them. Legitimate gun owners would have no issues keeping and purchasing guns as they wish. But it shouldn't be as easy as buying a friggin' scoop of ice cream. Reduce access to guns, clamp down on black market, gun show sales, do a buy-back program like they had in Australia and try to get lowlife bums to sell off some of their weapons. Not even sure it would work, but at this stage, with as many mass shootings that have taken place, it's worth a try.

so create a 90-degree slippery slope.
who gets to decide who gets a gun?
gay black liberal men get guns, right? oh... wait.

 

[Tibs]

So let's throw away a pillar of the best document ever written for government...

I would hardly call the 2nd Amendment "a pillar" of the Constitution, but if you see it that way, I'm sure it is.

 

[Booted]

....and a "journalist".......the media's all ****** up on how to report this one and who /what to blame.

You would think the media would have made a flow chart for these scenarios.

 

[Vader]

I would hardly call the 2nd Amendment "a pillar" of the Constitution, but if you see it that way, I'm sure it is.

I'm sure you don't think much about any of it. Most liberals don't. They want to "fundamentally" change the country. They don't really like the country. I'm not surprised that you want the amendments changed. If you had your way the U.S. would look like western Europe.

Also other western, industrial countries aren't the U.S. I understand you don't like it but that's no reason to change the bill of rights. Anybody that is talking about gun control is doing it based off of emotions not stats or logic. Again there is no gun problem in the U.S. There is a mental health problem. But instead of dealing with real crime like car crimes, death by falling etc... you have a political agenda you want to push that will do nothing to stop anything. It will just take guns away from law abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms. As much as you hate them having that right.

 

[Tibs]

It will just take guns away from law abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms. As much as you hate them having that right.

No I don't, not at all. There are shades of grey, you know, not just white (guns for all!) and black (no guns for anybody!).