Just thinking (shooting)
- Thread starter roadtrasheer
- Start date
I actually think that's a good reason why you don't want only the Military to have them! 300 million plus armed citizens with those as part of their arsenals make Government swamp dwellers who don't think they have to follow the Constitution or our Laws think twice about ignoring us (the people) if they go too far or forget who they work for.
Imagine if the N. Korean people had them. Think that nut Kim Jong Un would still be around starving his own people?
You admit that you don't know and that you are guessing. Ban assault weapons so that the only way they can be obtained is illegally. Why provide mass murderers their weapon of choice?
I agree. Your comment on heroin was baffling, unless you are advocating for its legalization?Jesus.... the lack of critical thinking..... that's why these debates on the national level go nowhere.
That's because you don't live under a Dictator. Where they are in control, no one other than the Dictator's troops is allowed to have them either. Why do you suppose that is?
What is the point? We can't solve a problem because one solution doesn't work? Should heroin be legal? That's apples and oranges. Hell, he couldn't have a beer at 19 but he can own an AR-15 legally? Can we look at countries that don't have this problem, like maybe England, and see how their laws prevent this?
I say the more of us who are armed with them or other weapons of choice the more criminals have to think about who they are going to threaten with their illegal guns. Criminals aren't as anxious to confront armed targets.
I think smaller schools would help a lot for a lot of different reasons , school vouchers would help with that since public schools went to bigger not better , now if there is a better way ok then
I think school vouchers work better because they get unnecessary layers of wasteful bureaucrats out of the way in the business of educating our kids.
It's not baffling if you can at least apply kindergarten logic to the topic, as banning an items does not make it inaccessible.
Now stop being....
Soooooooo.... you go to "apples and oranges" but want to see how England goes about preventing these killings?
I guess missed the school shootings that took places in schools with less than 1,000 students, or even fewer........
but it makes them harder to obtain. If assault weapons were banned then they'd only be available on the black market so you'd have to find someone to sell you one and they would likely be way more expensive. In that scenario it might have been near impossible for a recent high school grad to find one and afford it. Maybe if he (or anyone) couldn't find or afford the best human killing weapon available then maybe they wouldn't try a mass killing at a school to begin with. This "they could still get them" so let's do nothing about assault weapons sales approach should be ignored by responsible lawmakers.It's not baffling if you can at least apply kindergarten logic to the topic, as banning an items does not make it inaccessible.
Now stop being....
So you're for large central schools where kids with problems can easily slip through the cracks, kids have less of a chance to be involved with extracurricular activities that they can enjoy & help keep them out of trouble in that juvenile state of mind
This board is a microcosm of why Congress does nothing to address the issue. The usual players take their usual positions and offer no compromises. One side wants to talk about 2nd Amendment rights with no limitations.
I don't have a problem if they ban them since I don't see the need for them. The point is that banning something rarely solves the problem. A lot of other countries don't have the problem of a general lack of respect for law that we seem to have in this country....and it's getting much worse with each generation. Take a look at our culture and you will probably see what I mean.
And what does the other side want? I don't have a problem with limiting some 2nd amendment rights. What about the one side of the immigration issue that wants zero limitations about following the rule of law.
No one thing will solve the problem. Right now I'd say lets shoot for fewer mass killings with fewer people killed in each event and do everything possible to accomplish either goal.
& the other side don't want to fix the root problem they want the way it's achieved outlawed but let the reason fester. The common factor in all killings is people ...my guns have never been pointed at no human
I'd rather have more people pissed that they can't indulge their assault weapons fetish and fewer people grieving over lost loved ones (if the combined efforts to reduce gun violence were helpful).
Take some money from other social issues & put more in to schools, build more schools , I'm not saying it's a cure all fix all but making something illegal don't fix the problem...have to fix the problem , you don't a fix a roof leak with a bucket
Or take some money from other issues (ex. The Wall) and put it in educational security nationwide?
Banning guns from Law abiding citizens to reduce gun violence by criminals makes about as much sense as banning food from ordinary folks because we have fat people.
Criminals don't obey the Law and fat folks don't know when they've had enough food to eat. What we need is more personal responsibility, not fewer ways to be irresponsible.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a ban will result in zero of these incidents, but by all means - I'm the one using kindergarten logic.It's not baffling if you can at least apply kindergarten logic to the topic, as banning an items does not make it inaccessible.
Now stop being....
I'm on record as supporting that approach. However....I doubt it would do any good because those weapons are out there and easily obtained.