And how would you suggest changing things? Now keep in mind that whatever you suggest is about as likely to work as well... actually less likely to work at all.
The country is too big and can't even secure itself and you want to talk about regulating something that can be made in someone's office these days?
More like the methods people are using are really hard to get mortal casualties. THem acid attacks though...
Last edited by mickybrighteyes; 2017-11-15 at 07:48 PM.
I was just reading, the rifles he had were hand built. Not registered. He had them illegally. The only thing which may have prevented this, is your suggestion earlier in this thread. A search of his home. But we need to keep in mind, it is not hard to hide weapons ether.
- - - Updated - - -
Knives are more regulated here than firearms are in Ohio. lol! I have a license to carry concealed, a handgun. I can not get a permit to carry concealed a switchblade if I wanted to. :P
Exactly, only 10-15%. And who steals those 10-15%? The criminal element.
And the other 85-90% are fed by the criminal element.
Which brings us up to 100% being fed by what? The criminal element...
- - - Updated - - -
We also have the longest contiguous government in the 1st world too. Coincidence?
Can an EU nation boast a 225 contiguous government without take over?
Last edited by Allybeboba; 2017-11-15 at 10:05 PM.
Well, that's just how it is when you throw your life away. Dude had no intention of being captured alive and wanted to tell the rest of the world "fuck you too" after offing his wife.
It's serious, but not serious enough to change our laws. every time something like this happens there is an uproar and people are like we need to change the laws and put this one in place requiring psychological evaluations to own a gun and keep fucked up people from getting their hands on them, which literally would have done nothing to prevent said fucked up person from acquiring the firearm they used as it was illegally obtained.
It's like putting up a sign telling men not to rape anyone. This doesn't bother rapists - If they did care, they wouldn't be rapists. The greatest effect something like that has is that it makes men look bad as a whole.
You start lowering it by enforcing the laws we have on the books now.
We stop letting dangerous felons free because we have too many non violent prisoners taking up room
Death penalty for murder in every state
Being a member of a Gang Life in prison, commit a murder while part of a gang..Death
Increase insane asylums. Stop being so Goddamn PC and worring about offending the fucking lunatics
Enforce the laws we have on the books.
Promote Family values again.
Stop making these fuckers into media heroes
Re-evaluate psychoactive drugs for controlling mood and emotions
When someone makes threats and says crazy shit on social media they are brought in for questioning and evaluation ( I.E saying things like I am going to kill everyone etc etc )
Lots can be done. But banning guns and more laws wont fix it or stop it. The gun does not cause people to do these things .
Last edited by Dystemper; 2017-11-16 at 12:09 AM.
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
Nope, no hypocrisy. Sorry, I value human life equally. Your freedoms are just as important as mine.
- - - Updated - - -
By the way, I picked "Machismo" many years ago, because to anyone who actually knows me, it's a very ironic name. I'm about the least macho person you will meet. I'm a big fan of irony.
Your equivalency is false as you compare an appeal to a restriction. An appeal does not make it any harder for any such criminal to conduct their crime.
But it is futile to even have this discussion, because it always goes the same. Restrictions do not stop determined shooters from acquiring their guns, one side says. Then you might as well not enforce any laws, says the other. The resulting weariness, of course, helps one side of the gun debate more.
My personal stance is that a policy that would not be very harmful for normal and moderate people - who would have it a bit harder to get guns/have to wait a bit longer - is useful if there is even a chance that it prevents one needless death. Of course, I am not American, so I do not see the former as too big a problem. But even if I was a lot into guns, I would be aware that this is putting a price tag on the lives of others. How high a chance to prevent a death does a policy need for someone to support it?
Didn't see anything in the linked story about being a pot farmer. Of course quite a few people have a few pot plants in that part of California under a medical permit.
But if you start to connect the dots:
- Likes weed
- Likes guns
- Paranoid that people are out to get him
Which describes most of the posts on any internet Libertarian forum.