Cinga Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I like the VA tech approach. They banned all guns on campus after that shooting massacre a few years back. Too bad they didn't have that policy before. They could have saved a lot of lives if the shooter wasn't allowed to bring his gun that day. How much gang violence do they have in Norway? I hope that's being sarcastic. VT HAD a ban on guns in place at the time of the horrible incident, as did, and still do, every major college I'm aware of.... Just saw your post about your friends.. sarcasm font might help... Edited July 21, 2012 by Cinga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I hope that's being sarcastic. VT HAD a ban on guns in place at the time of the horrible incident, as did, and still do, every major college I'm aware of.... I can assure you he was being sarcastic. The Norwegian guy was like on an Island and was the only one to have a weapon. If others were armed maybe he wouldn't have killed close to a hundred people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Criminals have guns, will get guns and will use them regardless of the law, bans, gun free zones etc... they break the law already do you think a gun free zone will stop them ? All that means is they know no one there can stop them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I can assure you he was being sarcastic. The Norwegian guy was like on an Island and was the only one to have a weapon. If others were armed maybe he wouldn't have killed close to a hundred people. Yeah, I realized that when I got further into the thread. Yet I can't help but KNOW, the gubment will use this to try to force more gun control. But, can you imagine, how far would this have gotten if carry by honest Americans was more prevalent? Say only a couple people, in the front row, were packed....Reports say he came in one of the fire exits, I'm assuming, one on either side of the screen. Threw smoke/gas bombs, and people panicked and ran, FOR THE OPPOSITE DOORS and the other end of the theater... Hindsight, I know... If I'm one of those in the front row packed, and see someone bust in a door, I'm reaching... He throws the bombs, I'm pulling... He might, get off a shot before I hit him... I always shoot body first... bigger target.. he'd fall or stagger from the impact, but if he looks capable, and willing to fire again, I empty my gun, aiming for the smaller target, his head... Oh, and since I mentioned 2 people packing.... It never got as far as mentioned above... The "other" guy, was carrying a S&W 29 with wad cutters... game over... Criminals have guns, will get guns and will use them regardless of the law, bans, gun free zones etc... they break the law already do you think a gun free zone will stop them ? All that means is they know no one there can stop them DING-DING!!! We have a winner!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) No. The harsh reality is that ultimately crime is unpreventable, and tragedies like this will always happen. Removal of guns from the public only serves to create a larger black market, because the demand is there and the market will not be disuaded. The key difference being that once you've driven an entire market underground, you've lost all ability to police it whatsoever, sunlight being the best disinfectant. Black markets always lead to more crime rather than less, because victims have no legal protections and violent criminals flock there because of the opportunity to make big dollars establishing cartels. You need look no further than our southern border to see the truth of this. You're just spouting out theoretical BS trying to sound smart. With no supporting evidence or logical test because when the rubber hits the road (bullet hits the bone in this case), your position is immediately cratered. Let's consider your latest drivel: by your thinking there should be no vice laws whatsoever, none, nada, nunca. Because after all "Black markets always lead to more crime rather than less." Which means the capacity of legalized weaponry would have no limitation. And everyone can stockpile tactile nukes in their backyard, so they can be "disinfected by the sunlight". Yeah get em' all shiny and clean right before the armegeddon. Jerk Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 You're just spouting out theoretical BS trying to sound smart. With no supporting evidence or logical test because when the rubber hits the road (bullet hits the bone in this case), your position is immediately cratered. Let's consider your latest drivel: by your thinking there should be no vice laws whatsoever, none, nada, nunca. Because after all "Black markets always lead to more crime rather than less." Which means the capacity of legalized weaponry would have no limitation. And everyone can stockpile tactile nukes in their backyard, so they can be "disinfected by the sunlight". Yeah get em' all shiny and clean right before the armegeddon. Jerk For a "Libertarian" you certainly aren't displaying the normal qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales. Are you against that 3rd? Not saying you can't have your hunting gun. Or even a handgun in the home...both after a background check. Or that you can't even acquire a concealed weapons permit. But assault weapons gone, and background checks on all guns sold. Are there problems with that as you see it? And this isn't saying this will prevent all tragedies or would have impacted this incident one way or the other. This is just gun policy in America talk. Edited July 21, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 For a "Libertarian" you certainly aren't displaying the normal qualities. He's also an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The shooter didn’t need body armor. He just needed to look for a no-guns sign. And he found one at Cinemark. “Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry with 459 theatres and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of March 31, 2012,” their website reports. Cinemark owns the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, scene of last night’s mass shooting. Cinemark doesn’t allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry legal firearms in their theaters. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Positions aside it's a low blow IMO to say someone is "supposed to be a Libertarian" so they can't break from staunch ideology on particular issues they feel there is a different answer for. IMO that's just garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) For a "Libertarian" you certainly aren't displaying the normal qualities. I don't speak for any party or platform, partly because I don't know who ultimately defines their positions. It's true I favored Paul in the latest Republican primaries because of his foreign policy, which I see as the #1 issue right now. Beyond that I couldn't tell you much about Libertarians other than they consider themselves strict defenders of the constitution, which again opens some serious room for interpretation. Now are you going to offer any legitimate analysis of the gun control topic at hand? Or will you continue to try defeat mine by attaching labels to me, trivializing a highly important issue related to the slaughter of at least 12 innocents yesterday. Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Positions aside it's a low blow IMO to say someone is "supposed to be a Libertarian" so they can't break from staunch ideology on particular issues they feel there is a different answer for. IMO that's just garbage. I agree. I mean it's obvious that you're a communist but every once in a while, you break off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales. Are you against that 3rd? Not saying you can't have your hunting gun. Or even a handgun in the home...both after a background check. Or that you can't even acquire a concealed weapons permit. But assault weapons gone, and background checks on all guns sold. Are there problems with that as you see it? And this isn't saying this will prevent all tragedies or would have impacted this incident one way or the other. This is just gun policy in America talk. Are you calling assault weapons just the fully automatic ones? I'm ok with semi-automatic. I have no problem with background checks. In fact I welcome them. Limited gun control will not prevent tragedies. Complete gun control will increase tragedies---one of them the Constitution. Anyway I doubt we disagree. It would be like arguing which chick on "The Five" is the hottest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Are you calling assault weapons just the fully automatic ones? I'm ok with semi-automatic. I have no problem with background checks. In fact I welcome them. Limited gun control will not prevent tragedies. Complete gun control will increase tragedies---one of them the Constitution. Anyway I doubt we disagree. It would be like arguing which chick on "The Five" is the hottest. The definition could be debated. But in general many semi-autos qualify IMO. The way I see there are a lot of guns that are basically killing machines. I probably wouldn't favor taking everybodys gun away. People are going to arm up, want protection, that'll never change. But as I see it...some of these weapons...regular cops don't carry this stuff. I may be naive on this, I admit, but if a cop isn't carrying it I don't think there's a very strong argument you need to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The way I see there are a lot of guns that are basically killing machines. Let's go with "all," shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Let's go with "all," shall we? I mean with no other protection/sport aspect. I don't really know much about guns I have never owned one and nobody in my family growing up even extended had any. So I get that I'm not a "gun person" (and I don't mean to suggest that gun people are bad or anything). But from my narrow views of this...some guns are greater than others. Some are for hunting. Some can be legitimized as sensible for protection. Others are plain and simple killing machines that allow people to shoot 70 other people very quickly. I don't know all the aspects of this guys guns. But I know he bought everything legally and his AR-15 probably was illegal when we had the weapons ban in the 90s Congress let expire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I don't speak for any party or platform, partly because I don't know who ultimately defines their positions. It's true I favored Paul in the latest Republican primaries because of his foreign policy, which I see as the #1 issue right now. Beyond that I couldn't tell you much about Libertarians other than they consider themselves strict defenders of the constitution, which again opens some serious room for interpretation. Now are you going to offer any legitimate analysis of the gun control topic at hand? Or will you continue to try defeat mine by attaching labels to me, trivializing a highly important issue related to the slaughter of at least 12 innocents yesterday. I'll answer you very directly. No amount of gun control would have stopped what went on in Aurora. It's obvious that the guy was determined and smart and would have found a way to get all the weapons and ammo he wanted. It is possible that if some patrons of the theater were "packin" he might have done just a fraction of the damage. As far as me "defining" you, my general impression is that you pretend to be something that you are not. It comes out with your inconsistencies. People give off general impressions and if I had to guess, you are probably a "Nanny State" kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'll answer you very directly. No amount of gun control would have stopped what went on in Aurora. It's obvious that the guy was determined and smart and would have found a way to get all the weapons and ammo he wanted. It is possible that if some patrons of the theater were "packin" he might have done just a fraction of the damage. As far as me "defining" you, my general impression is that you pretend to be something that you are not. It comes out with your inconsistencies. People give off general impressions and if I had to guess, you are probably a "Nanny State" kind of guy. Nice work, back to the vague unsubstantied claims, concluded with convenient labels attached to me. You're a real "pistol" aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'll answer you very directly. No amount of gun control would have stopped what went on in Aurora. It's obvious that the guy was determined and smart and would have found a way to get all the weapons and ammo he wanted. It is possible that if some patrons of the theater were "packin" he might have done just a fraction of the damage. As far as me "defining" you, my general impression is that you pretend to be something that you are not. It comes out with your inconsistencies. People give off general impressions and if I had to guess, you are probably a "Nanny State" kind of guy. Assuming that is true, make him work for it then. Make him go to the black market. Make it tougher. If someone was armed in the theater they were certainly not going to be equal to this guy. This guy bought 4 guns fairly recently if reports can be trusted including an assault rifle. The argument is not that we can remove all mass murder w/ guns, or that there aren't a million ways to murder a lot of people w/ out guns...it's simply that one clear thing that we can do is make it more difficult to buy large quantities of extremely dangerous guns (potentially w/ out background checks...for what they're worth) that nobody "packing" is carrying around w/ a concealed license anyway. As I think about it I can't help but come back and say "If it's too heavy for police policy to have a street cop carry it, then why do we need them sold in a gun show w/ no background check or even in a store w/ a check?" I just don't understand why the Constitution is used to justify some of the weapons used in these mass murders. These things aren't for protection. They aren't for hunting. They are for shooting other people. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I mean with no other protection/sport aspect. I don't really know much about guns I have never owned one and nobody in my family growing up even extended had any. So I get that I'm not a "gun person" (and I don't mean to suggest that gun people are bad or anything). But from my narrow views of this...some guns are greater than others. Some are &or hunting. Some can be legitimized as sensible for protection. Others are plain and simple killing machines that allow people to shoot 70 other people very quickly. I don't know all the aspects of this guys guns. But I know he bought everything legally and his AR-15 probably was illegal when we had the weapons ban in the 90s Congress let expire. No, they're unique utility is derived from portability, ease of concealment and great potential to cause death and serious injury. Any other purpose beyond killing attributed to them can be gotten from non-lethal substitutes (e.g. paint ball, tazers, etc.) Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts