Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #2461
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    take away my cellphone while driving, i don´t care, make cars automatically change cellphones/smartphones to freespeach (is that correct?)
    Speakerphone or Hands-Free are what you are looking for there in english

  2. #2462
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,877
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Speakerphone or Hands-Free are what you are looking for there in english
    thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  3. #2463
    They should be illegal for the public and not sellable from any weapon store, but they should be available for collectors, maybe it's eaiser to just ban them for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by kbarh View Post
    may i suggest you check out wowwiki or any similar site, it's Grom that orders the murder of Cairne

  4. #2464
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfingaz View Post
    5-10 is a great number. Forces you to carry less instead of 30 in one go. "The magazines will be smaller so you could carry more" they're bulky regardless and take up space" Yes you Could carry 2 30 round magazines, and conceal them fairly well, but 12 5 round magazines may show, same with 10, and plus the reload time, while removing a magazine and putting one in isn't hard, going through your pockets to get one more often slows you down.
    You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.

    Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.

    It's like the people writing and supporting this bill don't really understand what guns are or how they work, they've only read Wikipedia and editorials.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    How many bullets in a clip is enough to defend yourself? At what point does a clip become effective for self defense, and at what point does it become more about being able to shoot a bunch of people without reloading?

    The bill states 10, and it seems like a good maximum to me.

    But go ahead and keep using personal attacks to defend your position, it makes it seem very strong when your ability to back it up is name calling.
    I am attacking your position and argument as being silly and pointless. I'm not making personal attacks. You should read more carefully, because there's a difference.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 04:46 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Baracuda View Post
    They should be illegal for the public and not sellable from any weapon store, but they should be available for collectors, maybe it's eaiser to just ban them for everyone.
    Banning guns in America is ridiculous. It'll never happen; it's like locking the barn after the horse got out. I agree with better regulation and mandatory training and re-testing, but a ban of any kind?

    Absolutely ludicrous.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  5. #2465
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.

    Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.

    It's like the people writing and supporting this bill don't really understand what guns are or how they work, they've only read Wikipedia and editorials.
    Ok, Pizza, you've been attacking the bill quite a bit, which is certainly something you have the right to do as a citizen, but I'm curious.

    What do you suggest we do to firearms/ammunition that will allow people to keep guns for hunting and defense, but help cut down the amount of people that can die quickly if/when someone snaps.

    And before we go off into talking about mental health and identifying causes, I agree, but it seems like some firearm legislation is going to happen. What should the legislation say that will help curtail the mass shootings but not cause problems with people that hunt or who think they need weapons for self defense?

  6. #2466
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,877
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.

    Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.
    it reads different, it sounds different, still all you´re saying is, you could kill people with a car if you so chose

    ofcourse it would be possible, ofcourse people could just build their own weapons, but that´s not a very clever argument if the topic is "don´t give semi-auto weapons to allmost everyone who says 'please'" ... the ones who want to break the law, will break the law, the ones who want to kill, will find a way to kill, but the accidents and the ready available weapons are what do the most harm... because grabing your gun seems just to obvious when sorting out an argument these days and that is "stoopid"
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  7. #2467
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Ok, Pizza, you've been attacking the bill quite a bit, which is certainly something you have the right to do as a citizen, but I'm curious.

    What do you suggest we do to firearms/ammunition that will allow people to keep guns for hunting and defense, but help cut down the amount of people that can die quickly if/when someone snaps.
    I suggest we do nothing, because the guns themselves aren't the problem. There are other countries where guns are pretty available to the citizens (Sweden is the most commonly cited example) where people don't suffer a psychotic break and go murder a bunch of schoolkids.

    Maybe you can argue the access to guns contributes, but I wouldn't even call it a major factor in whether or not a Sandy Hook takes place.

    And before we go off into talking about mental health and identifying causes, I agree, but it seems like some firearm legislation is going to happen. What should the legislation say that will help curtail the mass shootings but not cause problems with people that hunt or who think they need weapons for self defense?
    For starters? Require mandatory training for all gun owners by a licensed instructor; since most decent gun shops already have instructors on hand anyway, this wouldn't really be an issue.

    Require gun owners to be re-tested on this training on an annual or semi-annual basis - somewhere between every six months and every two years. By the way, we need to do this with driving tests and drivers licenses, too.

    I'd like to also include something about requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a safe whenever it's not on their person, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented in a practical way.

    There are a lot of other things that need addressing to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening, but they aren't specific to gun legislation.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  8. #2468
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,877
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    I suggest we do nothing, because the guns themselves aren't the problem. There are other countries where guns are pretty available to the citizens (Sweden is the most commonly cited example) where people don't suffer a psychotic break and go murder a bunch of schoolkids.

    Maybe you can argue the access to guns contributes, but I wouldn't even call it a major factor in whether or not a Sandy Hook takes place.



    For starters? Require mandatory training for all gun owners by a licensed instructor; since most decent gun shops already have instructors on hand anyway, this wouldn't really be an issue.

    Require gun owners to be re-tested on this training on an annual or semi-annual basis - somewhere between every six months and every two years. By the way, we need to do this with driving tests and drivers licenses, too.

    I'd like to also include something about requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a safe whenever it's not on their person, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented in a practical way.

    There are a lot of other things that need addressing to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening, but they aren't specific to gun legislation.
    that sounds very reasonable, i like your ideas
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  9. #2469
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    that sounds very reasonable, i like your ideas
    He pretty much just quoted Sweden's gun laws, except it is illegal to carry in Sweden unless you are a security guard and have a special dispensation or going to or from the shooting club or hunting.

    I've actually stated pretty much the entire thing that you just said previously in this thread, too

    I still, however, think that fully automatic weapons should be illegal unless the entity purchasing is a shooting/firing range, and the gun must remain on site at all times, and it must be possible for ATF agents to check randomly should they feel the need.

  10. #2470
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.

    Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.

    It's like the people writing and supporting this bill don't really understand what guns are or how they work, they've only read Wikipedia and editorials.
    I understand quite well how guns work and understand quick loading methods. However taping magazines to each other makes them thicker and less concealable, whether you like to believe it or not and does not work with handguns quit as well. Also not going to put the fact that taping 2 magazines together will solve your first reload, but when you want more you still have to dig through your pockets to get the next two, and with the thickness depending on the pocket you may have them in, is much harder.

    This isn't Call of Duty son, your ammunition in these cases would be concealed and not on hand.

    As per making larger magazines, it would be illegal to make them and sell items in order to make them as Magazines would be limited. (Materials to store over X amount of bullets).

    It's like the pro-gun group is writing retorts without thinking of the difference between easy or harder. You put the road blocks in and things will slow down. It would be impossible to eliminate these things entirely, but there is nothing wrong with slowing people down or limiting them. Sitting there plugging your ears and repeating "Not going to help!", is in fact not going to help. We're coming up with possible solutions and you're simply saying "No.". Feel free to provide better solutions. "Oh, stricter gun sales check for mental disabilities.", because temporary insanity, or mental break downs etc do not exist am I correct?

    You're insults speak volumes about yourself and the group you are "Protecting". Try to come at it with the intent of having a discussion and valuable input rather than "It won't work so lets do nothing instead!".

    One thing is for certain, my Country has stricter gun laws and we don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per-capita as the US does, and I assure it has nothing to do with the people.

    @Eisaderfrau: Please try to read over what I have said entirely, rather than jumping into a mid conversation. I meant you only need guns suitable for Hunting to Hunt with and even to protect your family with. A Hunting rifle can kill and animal, it certainly can kill/wound a person in your home. Not to mention that in years to come if laws like this were in place, everyone would eventually be down to said guns. This isn't an "Instant cure" it is a "Will take time to have the proper effect.".

    I do not agree with removing what is there, you may keep them, however you may not give that weapon to anyone else. If you pass on (Die) you would not be allowed to pass said guns down the generations (Minus suitable guns for Hunting.), your children would have to dispose of them in some way. (I've nothing off hand because it's purely an idea)

    A gun suitable for Hunting, is still more than suitable for self defense. I'll tell you one thing for absolute certain, if you need more than 1-2 bullets to defend yourself from another gun wielding person, you've probably lost.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 06:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    I suggest we do nothing, because the guns themselves aren't the problem. There are other countries where guns are pretty available to the citizens (Sweden is the most commonly cited example) where people don't suffer a psychotic break and go murder a bunch of schoolkids.

    Maybe you can argue the access to guns contributes, but I wouldn't even call it a major factor in whether or not a Sandy Hook takes place.



    For starters? Require mandatory training for all gun owners by a licensed instructor; since most decent gun shops already have instructors on hand anyway, this wouldn't really be an issue.

    Require gun owners to be re-tested on this training on an annual or semi-annual basis - somewhere between every six months and every two years. By the way, we need to do this with driving tests and drivers licenses, too.

    I'd like to also include something about requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a safe whenever it's not on their person, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented in a practical way.

    There are a lot of other things that need addressing to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening, but they aren't specific to gun legislation.
    Ooo actual input thank you.

    Locking a gun in a gun safe? That completely destroys any chance of defending your home, thus it will not work in the pro second amendment people's eyes..

    Testing? What happens if you've not gone for your testing? Police come and search your house for your guns to make sure you do not have any? Do you go to jail and cost tax payers more money?

    This isn't about Sandy Hook it's about what the Country has become.
    Last edited by Goldfingaz; 2012-12-20 at 11:16 AM.

  11. #2471
    Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
    Thank you for your commentary, now, question, are you willing to give up your right of free speech to take my right to bear arms?
    I don't want to flame you or anything, but i just wonder why so many americans see the right to bear arms and free speech as equals? I mean, a weapon is a thing, you don't need it in your daily life. ( as a non cop/army guy etc ...) But freedom of speech, you'd be living in a dictatorship without that. Personally i'd prefer to be able to say what i want instead of pulling a trigger.
    I don't want to start a discussion, i'm just wondering :-)

    Edit: yay, 100th post! ^^
    Last edited by DeadKennedy; 2012-12-20 at 11:17 AM.

  12. #2472
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    He pretty much just quoted Sweden's gun laws, except it is illegal to carry in Sweden unless you are a security guard and have a special dispensation or going to or from the shooting club or hunting.
    Because, for the most part, I don't find any of Sweden's laws objectionable. I disagree with their restrictions on carrying, but otherwise they're pretty decent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfingaz View Post
    This isn't Call of Duty son, your ammunition in these cases would be concealed and not on hand.
    It's at this point I understand you're talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to bother with the rest.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 05:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadKennedy View Post
    I don't want to flame you or anything, but i just wonder why so many americans see the right to bear arms and free speech as equals? I mean, a weapon is a thing, you don't need it in your daily life. ( as a non cop/army guy etc ...) But freedom of speech, you'd be living in a dictatorship without that. Personally i'd prefer to be able to say what i want instead of pulling a trigger.
    I don't want to start a discussion, i'm just wondering :-)

    Edit: yay, 100th post! ^^
    Because as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, they are equals.

    For many of us, guns are a hobby. Computer games are a thing, and you don't need them in your daily life, but most people that like computer games like having them as part of their daily life.

    Does that make sense?
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  13. #2473
    Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
    Actually, I understand you quite well. You just dont realize it.

    Question, sir, 'I want you to', is you trying to enforce your will on me. Correct? 'we aren't trying to take anything away from you just portions of it'? Really? If you are trying to take away part of it then in fact, you ARE trying to take something, Yes?

    Let's try a simple exercise, you dont NEED a cell phone, because too many folks are using them while driving and they end up killing folks. So the solution is banning cars or cell phones, right? But you say, 'you cant ban my cell phone I NEED it.' So I'll say, 'I want you to use a phone that doesn't allow you to cause the deaths of innocent people, thats all I'm saying'.

    Or, lets go with banning cars because drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do in any given year, or at the very least mandatory breathalyzers. So lets put breathalyzers in ALL cars, because you never know when a drunk is gonna get behind the wheel of YOUR car... and you have to have a breathylzer installed to prevent them from taking your car and injuring or killing someone.

    Starting to see the slippery slope you are trying to create?

    And before you accuse me of being silly, stupid, uninformed or anything else insulting or offensive, I'll just point out that your logic about gun rights seems as flawed to me as you'll accuse me of being.

    and while you are at it, you dont have a 'right' to drive, its a privledge, you dont have a 'right' to a cell phone.
    Slippery slope arguments are a perfect example of why some people are just not worth debating with...

    You seem to think that everything is all or nothing. That one limit will lead to a complete ban. That losing the ability to do one thing puts all your rights in jeopardy. That is simply not the case. You are already quite limited in what you can or can't do without penalty. You have a right to free speech, but there are certain things that will get you in trouble with the law if you say them (and for good reason). You have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to arm yourself with whatever you want. As far as I know, you can't legally purchase Claymore mines, stationary machine guns, or fully automatic assault rifles in order to protect your home. Does that mean that your right to defend yourself is in danger? No. Last time I read it, the 2nd Amendment did not say that anyone has a right to own, for example, any of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook school massacre.

    Since the Amendment doesn't actually specify what type of arms you can bear, should that mean that anything and everything is up for grabs? Clearly the answer is NO. Limits have to exist in one form or another, so it all comes down to a reasonable interpretation. What is necessary for citizens to be reasonably well armed. Maybe you think that high capacity magazines and AR-15s are necessary for Americans to be properly armed, but I think you would be hard pressed to effectively argue that. Where do you draw the line between adequate protection/deterrent and overkill? When does the danger of having so many weapons readily available outweigh the benefit they may or may not give? When does force multiplier become redundancy?
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2012-12-20 at 11:51 AM.

  14. #2474
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    It's at this point I understand you're talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to bother with the rest.
    Am I wrong? Are you carrying your magazines on your belt? You would be concealing them, in your pockets. "A back pack!", well hey there would have been a statement , but you would still need to reach in for it.

    Thanks for showing your true colors on this one.

  15. #2475
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    Because as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, they are equals.

    For many of us, guns are a hobby. Computer games are a thing, and you don't need them in your daily life, but most people that like computer games like having them as part of their daily life.

    Does that make sense?
    Well, i understand that it's a hobby, but videogames don't kill people. Same goes here, i'd give up my pc in a heartbeat if i had to choose between free speech and a pc. I guess we (Europe-America) just have a completely different mentality as it comes to guns. I'm 28 now and never held a gun in my hands. It's not that i wouldn't want to, it's just not part of our culture. That does not mean that ours is better offcourse, it's just different :-)

  16. #2476
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Slippery slope arguments are a perfect example of why some people are just not worth debating with...

    You seem to think that everything is all or nothing. That one limit will lead to a complete ban. That losing the ability to do one thing puts all your rights in jeopardy. That is simply not the case. You are already quite limited in what you can or can't do without penalty. You have a right to free speech, but there are certain things that will get you in trouble with the law if you say them (and for good reason). You have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to arm yourself with whatever you want. As far as I know, you can't legally purchase Claymore mines, stationary machine guns, or fully automatic assault rifles in order to protect your home. Does that mean that your right to defend yourself is in danger? No. Last time I read it, the 2nd Amendment did not say that anyone has a right to own, for example, any of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook school massacre.
    I don't know if claymores are allowed, but you can definitely legally own heavy machine guns and selective-fire weapons. Hell, you can even legally own working (modern) field guns and even tanks, though I believe the tanks are required to have non-functional guns.

    It's mostly just a matter of money and some ridiculously thorough background checks.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  17. #2477
    Elemental Lord Flutterguy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Derpifornia
    Posts
    8,137
    Knee jerk legislation so politicians can pat each on the back and pretend they did something meaningful in response to a tragedy. Once it's passed, they will move on and people will forget about the event. Meanwhile it will happen again, likely with an assault weapon anyway because it didn't stop Columbine in 1999. It likely won't stop the next mass shooting either.

    What would have likely stopped it? An armed guard on campus.

    We have armed guards at banks, government buildings, airports, subway stations, even private office buildings, but we don't at schools. Is there a reason?

  18. #2478
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadKennedy View Post
    Well, i understand that it's a hobby, but videogames don't kill people. Same goes here, i'd give up my pc in a heartbeat if i had to choose between free speech and a pc. I guess we (Europe-America) just have a completely different mentality as it comes to guns. I'm 28 now and never held a gun in my hands. It's not that i wouldn't want to, it's just not part of our culture. That does not mean that ours is better offcourse, it's just different :-)
    Hey, people have died from playing computer games, just look at South Korea

    Additionally, going to the range and blasting some clay pigeons or shooting a bunch of holes in paper targets or beer cans in your back pasture isn't killing anyone, either. Hell, it's not even killing animals.

    And I can comfortably say that that kind of use - shooting targets - is the primary use for guns in the US, even over hunting.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  19. #2479
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    I suggest we do nothing, because the guns themselves aren't the problem. There are other countries where guns are pretty available to the citizens (Sweden is the most commonly cited example) where people don't suffer a psychotic break and go murder a bunch of schoolkids.

    Maybe you can argue the access to guns contributes, but I wouldn't even call it a major factor in whether or not a Sandy Hook takes place.



    For starters? Require mandatory training for all gun owners by a licensed instructor; since most decent gun shops already have instructors on hand anyway, this wouldn't really be an issue.

    Require gun owners to be re-tested on this training on an annual or semi-annual basis - somewhere between every six months and every two years. By the way, we need to do this with driving tests and drivers licenses, too.

    I'd like to also include something about requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a safe whenever it's not on their person, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented in a practical way.

    There are a lot of other things that need addressing to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening, but they aren't specific to gun legislation.
    and I agree with everything Pizza just said, I am and will always be for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Stupid people shouldn't have guns, the mentally ill should not have guns, criminals should not have guns. But they are getting them, but the solution isn't to ban them, as is the solution to stopping drunk drivers isn't to ban cars. Guns, cars, cell phones are all tools. they themselves Do not and Can not kill someone.... but, their MISUSE can lead to someone's injury and/or death.

    Sandy Hook could have been prevented, not with gun bans or gun legislation, as is the boy DID try and buy a gun, and refused the background check so the sale of the gun was denied. so the CURRENT gun laws DID work, what failed was he was mentally ill, folks knew he had issues and they didn't act fast enough or in the proper way to get him the help he needed.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  20. #2480
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Flutterguy View Post
    Knee jerk legislation so politicians can pat each on the back and pretend they did something meaningful in response to a tragedy. Once it's passed, they will move on and people will forget about the event. Meanwhile it will happen again, likely with an assault weapon anyway because it didn't stop Columbine in 1999. It likely won't stop the next mass shooting either.

    What would have likely stopped it? An armed guard on campus.

    We have armed guards at banks, government buildings, airports, subway stations, even private office buildings, but we don't at schools. Is there a reason?
    Because that's a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. Both answers are treating the symptom and not the problem.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •