Not "because of some tweets and social media posts;" because of an 80-odd page manifesto where he explains in detail why he decided to do what he did.
Do you understand this distinction? It seems like you don't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Democrats Directly Responsible for Dayton Shootings (click bait title for educational purposes)
- Thread starter Stanyon
- Start date
Do you understand this distinction? It seems like you don't.
Missing the point once again.And we all started out like this:
Audie
Veteran Member
I guess! So plz tell us the difference.
All you asked was for me to explain. The post you quoted was meant to point out that, because of geography, local and state measures can't be expected to do much about the proliferation of guns in Chicago.
Probably not what you would consider a proper nationwide gun law. I think Canada's gun laws could stand to be stricter.
... but all of this is beside my point. People like to point to strict gun laws in Chicago as some sort of argument that strict gun laws don't work. What I was getting at is that gun availability in Chicago has very little to do with gun laws in Chicago itself.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Does your point include that humans have to make a lot of conscious decisions to break multiple federal and state laws punishable by mandatory prison sentences or does that even fit anywhere within your narrative?
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
No, we don't.
We have hate filled Liberals slandering our president because they think that will have an effect on his presidency.
The same mentality that assails Trump is the same mentality that seeks to murder innocent people and blame Trump for making them do it.
Hope the cops are close enough to take the suspect out before they can tally any victims. Or, hope someone with a CC permit can.
Guns aren't the problem. The sick mind of someone who wants to murder people is the problem.
Should we ban vehicles because a terrorist used one to mow down innocent joggers?
How about baseball bats? They can be used to beat someone to death with.
Knives, we know what those can do because a terrorist on a subway some time ago used one and cut up quite a few people.
Certain Boston retailers years ago pulled crock pots from the shelves in the wake of the Boston Marathon terrorists bombing attack. That was stupid, but it was a knee jerk reaction for fear of crock pots. Not Muslim terrorists who wanted to murder as many innocents as possible.
The great karma that followed was one of the terrorists ran over and killed his brother, the second terrorist, while making his escape.That terrorist was later found hiding in a boat in someone's back yard.
He was from Russia and his mom there was very upset at how her surviving son was being treated.
Poor baby.
Mental illness is the issue. Rage is the issue. Homicidal intent is the issue. Agenda's are the issue.
Terrorist attacks all over the world are the issue.
Gun's aren't.
vehicles aren't.
Baseball bats aren't.
Crock pots aren't.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
I'd go with Criminal Insanity. He's dead, so... Glad the Police got him.
As to the guy in El Paso, I hope that he never goes free.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Something we can agree on! I do give pause to the word insane though, I agree they are both criminals but they were both sane in the sense they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
sooda
Veteran Member
The Walmart in El Paso was full of armed shoppers. Wake up.
Which is more important to you:
- reducing the number of gun deaths, or
- keeping the number of gun deaths the same and punishing people after the fact?
The status quo - including all laws on the books - has allowed the status quo in terms of gun violence.
Are you satisfied with the status quo for gun violence in Chicago?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
No offense, but you still haven't answered the question (actually you've managed to effectively dodge me a couple of times). If you have an idea of a sensible gun control law that could be enacted nationwide, let's hear it.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
As was asked by BSM1, what do you propose as an answer to reduce gun deaths in the U.S. and how would you implement them?
Let's test your theories out in Canada first and we will see what happens
I have no interest in answering your question. I thought I made that obvious.
When I said that proper national gun laws could help Chicago, in my own head, I was emphasizing the "national" part. In retrospect, I guess that emphasis wasn't super clear, since both you and @Audie seized on the "proper" part. Fair enough, so I clarified myself.
At this point, though, I have no interest right this minute discussing the specifics of American gun policy. How many times have we argued about it before? What do you hope to gain by rehashing it? Are you finally open to having your mind changed?
If you feel like arguing with me, go search through the forums and find some old post of mine where I gave specifics and post your retort to that. I won't engage with it, but it'll give you something to do.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Any proof of this and where were they in relation to the shooter?
Nope. If you're not going to answer my question, don't expect me to play along with you.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
I assume that will go for me too, as I have said try your ideas out in Canada first and we will go from there.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
I know that you are not talking to me, but I have a suggestion: Only Revolvers of 6 shots or less, and not larger than .45 Calibre. In rifles, Only bolt action, no more than 6 shots. Nothing larger than 30.06. No slide action Pistols, or semi automatic rifles. This is for civilians.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Considering the U.S. has more guns than people how would you implement this?
Just a few questions:
- Would there be a grandfather clause?
-Would you demand gun turn in's or buy backs? (didn't work out very well in NZ even though politicians claimed they were getting a fair price some people lost thousands as they were being given far less than what they were actually worth)
-Will criminals turn theirs in? convicted felons have guns illegally anyway so making something even more illegal probably isn't going to work.
-Do you support house searches of people who are listed as having guns that have not turned them in (may have been lost, sold, given away to relatives etc.)
-Would you be comfortable making convicted felons out of previously law abiding citizens which may include seizure of property, children put in foster homes, etc.)
Uncommon Sense
Member
For the very few sane, it’s becoming embarrassing sharing an Earth with a bunch of morons.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
This won't happen unless a majority of the American people want it. We have to be sick of the violence and willing to put feet on our disillusionment.
I know lots of American "Gunners" who will get apoplectic if they think someone is going to take their guns. Portland Metro area has nearly 2.5 million people. The visible Gun culture here is relatively small, but I don't think there are more than a half dozen Gun shops here aside from people like Walmart, Dicks and Cabelas. Those stores are a menace because they put guns in people's hands without knowing they have an understanding of Guns. IMHO Slide type semi automatics are very dangerous, because even an expert can make all sorts of mistakes.
I don't expect any sort of gun regulation until we have suffered a lot more.