Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Mass shooting


PIK

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman
Good job. But can you explain your point? Do you really think the status quo is fine where individuals can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to? Do you really think they shouldn't look at how that individual got access to those guns and do something about it? If so, do you really think you would feel the same way if you had a six-year-old family member shot in the head in that incident?

They can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to in Canada, too. I've already pointed out that the Ruger mini 14 doesn't even have to be registered outside of Quebec, despite efforts on the part of the family members of the victims of Canada's mass killings. Again. The weapons were his mother's, not his. There was no reason she should have been prevented from gun ownership. So what should they do about that? Somehow apply "hindsight" when determining who can purchase weapons from here on in?

As for how I'd feel if I had a six year old family member killed in that incident - I'm not sure why I should feel any differently than if I had a six year old child killed by a drunk driver - or a six year old killed in a single murder rather than a mass murder - or a 33 year old child killed and dismembered and his body parts mailed to politicians per the "Canadian Psycho:"

The Montreal slaying touched regions across Canada after Lin's hands and feet were mailed separately to four locations in British Columbia and Ottawa.

The news landed in Lin's native country of China, where his parents still live. He had left his homeland to study computer engineering in Canada.

The 33-year-old Lin's torso was found in a suitcase outside Magnotta's apartment building, his hands and feet were mailed to political offices in Ottawa and schools in B.C., and his head was discovered in a Montreal park.

And what does the Canadian press do? - Vote him "Newsmaker of the Year." You think that might be the kind of attention that he wants?

At any rate, a child's death is something a parent should never have to experience, whether 6 or 33, whether by gun or knife or drunk driver - or any other cause, for that matter - and I don't doubt that I'd feel indescribable pain regardless of the reason.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, at least the NRA is offering a solution. A reasonable one. And free to taxpayers, because the NRA membership is paying for it. I say give them a chance. It's a better and more practical solution than banning guns.

And we still seem to overlook the mental health issues of these mass shooters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's all you think matters? Really?

It doesn't matter because it is a lie. That was not the question asked, he is just lying about the poll results to strengthen his argument. Problem with doing that is polls don't change opinion. I thought Conservatives learned that when Romney got crushed when they lied about poll result but no they just keep on doing it. Polls are public opinion they change public opinion so lying about them just leads to you losing in the future when you run on that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least the NRA is offering a solution. A reasonable one. And free to taxpayers, because the NRA membership is paying for it. I say give them a chance. It's a better and more practical solution than banning guns.

And we still seem to overlook the mental health issues of these mass shooters.

It is a solution which is unacceptable to the public. They don't support it so it is a none-starter. Even Republicans are rejecting it it is such a bad solution and if they do, do it and someone gets hurt it will drive people into the gun control lobby. It is a stop gap, it is a give us time solution, It a solution being put on the table in hopes that the next gun attack is far enough away that people wont be as outraged. It is a political move not a real one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a solution which is unacceptable to the public. They don't support it so it is a none-starter. Even Republicans are rejecting it it is such a bad solution and if they do, do it and someone gets hurt it will drive people into the gun control lobby. It is a stop gap, it is a give us time solution, It a solution being put on the table in hopes that the next gun attack is far enough away that people wont be as outraged. It is a political move not a real one.

And the calls for gun bans are nothing but political moves as well. And still ignoring the real issue of the mental health of the people who are committing these mass murders. Gun bans cannot solve these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the calls for gun bans are nothing but political moves as well. And still ignoring the real issue of the mental health of the people who are committing these mass murders. Gun bans cannot solve these issues.

If there has to be a solution where no money is spent, then it is a better solution then putting relatively untrained individuals in schools with guns. I am sorry the political relativity of it all right in America is taxes can't go up so most solutions will be stop gap solutions that cost no money. The easiest one which will help in someway is more regulation on guns. Another cheep solution would be to lift the government ban on the study of firearms and how they relate to all these problems. I think those are the first two steps. Let medical professionals study how gun culture influences people, and put some form of gun control (not banning but more then there is now) into place. Those are a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
You would be happy with the status quo if your grandchild was shot in the head because they could do it in Canada too? You've been reading too much BushCheney. laugh.png

Did I say anything of the sort? No, I did not. In fact, I said nothing at all about "the status quo," so perhaps you should try to refrain from making such ignorant deductions. In the meantime, I won't be wasting my time responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you did. You said "So what should they do about that?" in reference to the shooter having access to assault weapons, suggesting there is nothing to be done so they shouldn't try to do anything. That is called "defending the status quo."

Glad to help you out with the definition of simple terms.

But do you always have to deny you said what you said and then declare you are done debating whenever you lose an argument? :lol:

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to in Canada, too.

True...there is no overt regulatory scheme in Canada to prevent this from happening. The recent assassination attempt in Quebec apparently involved a handgun and rifle. Oh, and arson just for extra credit.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns made on 3-D printers more of a reality

Idea of home made guns disquieting to U.S. gun-control advocates

While saddened by the Connecticut school killing, Wilson said Thursday that protecting the constitutional right to bear arms by giving everyone access to guns is more important in the long term than a single horrible crime.

"Clearly what happened in Connecticut was a tragedy," he told The Associated Press. "Still, by affording the Second Amendment protection, we understand events like these will happen."

He said he discussed with his partners whether they should suspend their effort, and they all decided it was too important to stop.

Gulp.

I doubt we'll be able to print the ingredients of gunpowder anytime soon. Making your own is certainly possible but not for the vast majority of gun owners or even for most of the industrious hard core ammo makers. Control of ammunition including precursor chemicals that make gunpowder will prove to be amongst the best tools available for controlling guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Control of ammunition including precursor chemicals that make gunpowder will prove to be amongst the best tools available for controlling guns.

Nonsense....the constituent parts are ancient (Han Dynasty - 200 B.C.) and readily available. I don't need smokeless powder to make a bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least the NRA is offering a solution. A reasonable one. And free to taxpayers, because the NRA membership is paying for it. I say give them a chance. It's a better and more practical solution than banning guns.

And we still seem to overlook the mental health issues of these mass shooters.

You really think so? It sounds to me like the mentally ill are in line for a far greater intrusion into their rights and lives by the state than any gun owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense....the constituent parts are ancient (Han Dynasty - 200 B.C.) and readily available. I don't need smokeless powder to make a bullet.

There's nothing nonsensical about it at all. Your very own government controls constituent parts of bomb making materials that are every bit as ancient all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
True...there is no overt regulatory scheme in Canada to prevent this from happening.

Exactly, though you'd never know it by what some have to say. No one has been able to tell me how this could have been prevented - short of banning guns. Of course that's still not saying it wouldn't have happened, but then the guns would have been illegal.

The recent assassination attempt in Quebec apparently involved a handgun and rifle. Oh, and arson just for extra credit.

But according to some, Canada's laws are just right - just the right blend of freedom and protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Nope. It is a bad idea. BTW 53% of Americans support "Increasing POLICE in schools" not what you say. Please don't lie about polls.

Having people at schools with guns who are not police polls somewhere in 30s for support.

When did the NRA call for?

Don't call me a liar.

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

<cough-cough> Reasonable? Fill the schools with a bunch of wannabee Death Wish stars armed to the teeth? Reasonable?

Where did the NRA call for that? As a member, I get the liner notes.......Haven't heard that one yet rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

If there has to be a solution where no money is spent, then it is a better solution then putting relatively untrained individuals in schools with guns. I am sorry the political relativity of it all right in America is taxes can't go up so most solutions will be stop gap solutions that cost no money. The easiest one which will help in someway is more regulation on guns. Another cheep solution would be to lift the government ban on the study of firearms and how they relate to all these problems. I think those are the first two steps. Let medical professionals study how gun culture influences people, and put some form of gun control (not banning but more then there is now) into place. Those are a start.

Where did the NRA call for that?

You understand the NRA provides firearms courses to police and military right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...