The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's only because you're such a committed hard-boiled right-winger. You'd take issue with the way a lefty cooks Kraft dinner ffs.

You're nuts!  I might be the only one who has actually put forth realistic ideas to help the situation, including restrictions.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You're nuts!  I might be the only one who has actually put forth realistic ideas to help the situation, including restrictions.

Anyone who can look at a poll/survey and conclude that what 28% of respondents think trumps whatever the other 72 think is about as far from realistic as it gets.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, eyeball said:

Anyone who can look at a poll/survey and conclude that what 28% of respondents think trumps whatever the other 72 think is about as far from realistic as it gets.

 

Not really....lefty dopers thought they had it made in Canada with Trudeau but it still hasn't happened yet.

The druggies don't like too many rules and laws either.

[Hal 9000]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Anyone who can look at a poll/survey and conclude that what 28% of respondents think trumps whatever the other 72 think is about as far from realistic as it gets.

Nobody ever said that, sheesh, you're.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Hal 9000

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

...and Canada's firearms homicide rate is about 20 times that in the UK.

I don't "lose" on anything...facts are what they are....Mexico, Brazil, and Russia are "major" OECD nations, with populations much larger than Canada.

So why does Canada have so many more firearms homicides than the United Kingdom (or Australia) per capita ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-Kingdom/Crime

Maybe because of all the illegal handguns smuggled into Canada from the U.S. and obtained by criminals and gang members, would be a good guess.  I doubt the UK has many firearms per capita compared with Canada.  But we're deviating.  The problem we're trying to discuss is all the shootings in the U.S.  Do you really think all the guns and free for all killing is worth having when some gun control and strict screening would likely still allow rational people to have some guns?

[blackbird]

CNN was questioning a higher rank officer in a police department in Florida about why nothing was done when clear information came to light about the shooter.  He didn't seem too anxious to take responsibility for anything himself.  Perhaps passing the buck to some extent.  I guess that is what they will all do, pass the buck.  Too many people are pinning their hopes on filtering out the bad guys before any shooting happens.  I think they need to filter out the guns, especially the military type guns.  So many lives could probably be saved by that one step alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Maybe because of all the illegal handguns smuggled into Canada from the U.S. and obtained by criminals and gang members, would be a good guess.  I doubt the UK has many firearms per capita compared with Canada.  But we're deviating.  The problem we're trying to discuss is all the shootings in the U.S.  Do you really think all the guns and free for all killing is worth having when some gun control and strict screening would likely still allow rational people to have some guns?

 

I agree that such comparisons are of limited value.   The U.S. is worse than Canada, and Canada is worse than the U.K., for a variety of reasons.

I don't have any problem with additional layers of gun control restrictions/checks as long as they do not infringe on Americans' constitutional right to possess and bear firearms.   We already have waiting periods, background checks, storage restrictions, transport restrictions, permitted carry, unlawful discharge within city limits, etc. etc. compliance by lawful gun owners.   The NRA is expected to push back at any proposal that is a step towards gun bans, registration > confiscation, licensed private sales (FFL) if only because they are perceived as the path to the gun grabbers' ultimate goal of banning guns.

Not surprisingly, this is the identical opposition displayed by "abortion rights" groups/advocates when limitations are proposed on "free for all" reproductive services.  

 

[Hal 9000]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

CNN was questioning a higher rank officer in a police department in Florida about why nothing was done when clear information came to light about the shooter.  He didn't seem too anxious to take responsibility for anything himself.  Perhaps passing the buck to some extent.  I guess that is what they will all do, pass the buck.  Too many people are pinning their hopes on filtering out the bad guys before any shooting happens.  I think they need to filter out the guns, especially the military type guns.  So many lives could probably be saved by that one step alone.

How would you do that?  And, whose guns exactly?  Would you go into downtown Chicago and start confiscating guns?

[WestCoastRunner]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I agree that such comparisons are of limited value.   The U.S. is worse than Canada, and Canada is worse than the U.K., for a variety of reasons.

I don't have any problem with additional layers of gun control restrictions/checks as long as they do not infringe on Americans' constitutional right to possess and bear firearms.   We already have waiting periods, background checks, storage restrictions, transport restrictions, permitted carry, unlawful discharge within city limits, etc. etc. compliance by lawful gun owners.   The NRA is expected to push back at any proposal that is a step towards gun bans, registration > confiscation, licensed private sales (FFL) if only because they are perceived as the path to the gun grabbers' ultimate goal of banning guns.

Not surprisingly, this is the identical opposition displayed by "abortion rights" groups/advocates when limitations are proposed on "free for all" reproductive services.  

 

So bizarre. Health reproduction rights held up against massacres of children in public school settings. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

So bizarre. Health reproduction rights held up against massacres of children in public school settings. 

 

Not so bizarre..."reproductive rights" kill a lot more children than school shootings, and are relevant with respect to constitutional rights, Supreme Court rulings, and "advocates" lobbying hard to oppose any restrictions.

 

[Hal 9000]

15 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

So bizarre. Health reproduction rights held up against massacres of children in public school settings. 

 

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not so bizarre..."reproductive rights" kill a lot more children than school shootings, and are relevant with respect to constitutional rights, Supreme Court rulings, and "advocates" lobbying hard to oppose any restrictions.

 

You have to admit WCR, the fundamentals are pretty much the same.

[WestCoastRunner]

which is why I’m so glad I live in Canada and am on board with women in the USA who are demanding health reproduction rights or human rights 

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

 

You have to admit WCR, the fundamentals are pretty much the same.

Oh for god sake Hal. Educate yourself on women’s rights. Don’t embarrass your fellow man 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

 

You have to admit WCR, the fundamentals are pretty much the same.

Stirring a few cells to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a little different than firing a slug into a high school student.  

[Hal 9000]

Just now, Omni said:

Stirring a few cells to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a little different than firing a slug into a high school student.  

I said the fundamentals are the same, not the details.  The only real difference to the argument is "who's constitutional rights are we willing to take away"?

My kids were both born before 7 months, were they considered "cells". 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

I said the fundamentals are the same, not the details.  The only real difference to the argument is "who's constitutional rights are we willing to take away"?

My kids were both born before 7 months, were they considered "cells". 

I am quite willing to intervene into constitutional rights such that crazy people shouldn't have easy access to guns so they can kill their fellow students they have an issue with.

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

I am quite willing to intervene into constitutional rights such that crazy people shouldn't have easy access to guns so they can kill their fellow students they have an issue with.

But you wouldn't stop there, would you?

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

But you wouldn't stop there, would you?

You have heard of background checks have you?

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

You have heard of background checks have you?

My post on the preceeding page should tell you that I'm all for background checks, in fact, I recommended gun safety courses too.  My problem is that you people seem will to take guns away from ordinary people based on the fact that inner city gang bangers cant stop plugging each other.  That's why I say, there are at least 2 different issues to deal with here and until you people recognize that, you wont effectivey solve any of them.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

My post on the preceeding page should tell you that I'm all for background checks, in fact, I recommended gun safety courses too.  My problem is that you people seem will to take guns away from ordinary people based on the fact that inner city gang bangers cant stop plugging each other.  That's why I say, there are at least 2 different issues to deal with here and until you people recognize that, you wont effectivey solve any of them.

Typical over reaction from the gun lobby. Nobody is saying they want to take everybody's guns away. That's just LaPiere bullshit. But if American's hide under their beds with their heads up their arses, the next round of school shooting will proceed as per the previous. 

[Hal 9000]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Typical over reaction from the gun lobby. Nobody is saying they want to take everybody's guns away. That's just LaPiere bullshit. But if American's hide under their beds with their heads up their arses, the next round of school shooting will proceed as per the previous. 

You have said you want to take away semi-autos, haven't you?

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You have said you want to take away semi-autos, haven't you?

Yep. Why does the man in the street need an Assault Rifle?

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yep. Why does the man in the street need an Assault Rifle?

OK, well, taking away semi-autos, is taking away guns.  That's just a non-starter, and a policy killer.  However, I'd love to see what happens when the police go into downtown Chicago and start taking away their "semi-autos".

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

OK, well, taking away semi-autos, is taking away guns.  That's just a non-starter, and a policy killer.  However, I'd love to see what happens when the police go into downtown Chicago and start taking away their "semi-autos".

Yes, taking away guns, that nobody on the street should have had in the first place. Maaaaaaybe then, the US could start to rein  in it's out of control lack of gun control. Or would you just like to sit back and let the ongoing violence continue. BC04 is in complete concert with you if that's where you are so you have a friend there.

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yes, taking away guns, that nobody on the street should have had in the first place. Maaaaaaybe then, the US could start to rein  in it's out of control lack of gun control. Or would you just like to sit back and let the ongoing violence continue. BC04 is in complete concert with you if that's where you are so you have a friend there.

C'mon, did you even read my post on the last page?  As long as idiots think that they're just gonna say "no guns allowed" and the world will be good, nothing will get done - nothing!  You have to at least do things that are within reason.