Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.

Why? How can discussion hurt anything?

Discussion?

Is that what you call the nonsense that comes from the anti-gun folks?

Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Go after the people committing crimes, not the tool they choose to employ..

Nicely said, and I feel the same on this topic.

Criminals will continue to commit crimes, even if guns are 100% banned from civilians. You will not limit the access of these weapons. You will only make the black markets flourish more than usual.

You could head to downtown L.A. today and buy a .22 easily off the streets for like $50. So... why are we going after the retailers?

Even if you remove every single gun, from every single person in this country, it wouldn't stop the killing.

You could easily walk into any Sports Chalet or Sport Equipment stores, buy a bow gun and perform a simple less than $1 modifications to the sporting arrows to make them lethal.

Such as this: www.amazon.com...

That's not even considering some idiot nut job could take a FORD F350 doing 65mph at a Theater parking lot, crashing directly into the box office area killing whatever is in front it. Maybe backing up and then continue to make human burger patties? You can run, but you're trying to run away from a 400+ hp truck weighing 7000 lbs., good luck.

There are many many creative ways to destroy another human life, you could home make NAPALM, there are tutorials all over the web with simple house hold products.

How immature can you be? To actually believe that if you take away one toy/tool out of a plethora of arsenals, you can stop these crazy killings?

You can't change human nature by taking away gadgets. You can't reduce the number of killings and you can't reduce casualty counts by simply making guns go away.

Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Go after the people committing crimes, not the tool they choose to employ..

Nicely said, and I feel the same on this topic.

Criminals will continue to commit crimes, even if guns are 100% banned from civilians. You will not limit the access of these weapons. You will only make the black markets flourish more than usual.

You could head to downtown L.A. today and buy a .22 easily off the streets for like $50. So... why are we going after the retailers?

Even if you remove every single gun, from every single person in this country, it wouldn't stop the killing.

You could easily walk into any Sports Chalet or Sport Equipment stores, buy a bow gun and perform a simple less than $1 modifications to the sporting arrows to make them lethal.

Such as this: www.amazon.com...

That's not even considering some idiot nut job could take a FORD F350 doing 65mph at a Theater parking lot, crashing directly into the box office area killing whatever is in front it. Maybe backing up and then continue to make human burger patties? You can run, but you're trying to run away from a 400+ hp truck weighing 7000 lbs., good luck.

There are many many creative ways to destroy another human life, you could home make NAPALM, there are tutorials all over the web with simple house hold products.

How immature can you be? To actually believe that if you take away one toy/tool out of a plethora of arsenals, you can stop these crazy killings?

You can't change human nature by taking away gadgets. You can't reduce the number of killings and you can't reduce casualty counts by simply making guns go away.

originally posted by: Kali74
Seems people are arguing against changing gun laws when no one in the thread is arguing for it.

Really?

"Sensible measures" has already been brought up.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.

Why? How can discussion hurt anything?

Discussion?

Is that what you call the nonsense that comes from the anti-gun folks?

Exhibit A.

To have a rel discussion takes all kinds of people to bring out all kinds of points.

_____________

Back on topic...somewhat...

The NYTimes should know better. What a combination, eh? Liberals AND the government. They play us all with such finesse...the way they couch the stories.

a reply to: Answer

Where are the anti-gun posts in this thread?

a reply to: truthseeker84

Remove the tools and people will find different ways to accomplish the same task.


There are plenty of countries where private-ownership of firearms is common but they don't have our violence issues... maybe we should figure out what they're doing and take note.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.

Why? How can discussion hurt anything?

Discussion?

Is that what you call the nonsense that comes from the anti-gun folks?

Exhibit A.

To have a rel discussion takes all kinds of people to bring out all kinds of points.

I agree. A real discussion requires logical points presented from both sides, not the same old rhetoric about the non-existent gun show loophole and "sensible measures."

Let's have a discussion about the number of laws already on the books that are doing nothing to prevent something like this before we start talking about which ineffective law should be passed next.

There's a fundamental disagreement between both sides about how to address the problem and that will not change as long as people think passing more laws will fix criminals.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.

Why? How can discussion hurt anything?

It doesn't hurt anything; that is why I am discussing it here.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

Where are the anti-gun posts in this thread?

You're really going to pretend they don't exist?

Check the first 4 pages and read anything from Muse7 or LeathernLace for obvious examples.

a reply to: Answer

Both quite a bit more nuanced than just anti-gun. So just two people then?

Ah, I was wrong and shown so in another thread.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

Both quite a bit more nuanced than just anti-gun. So just two people then?

You know good and well that there are more. I'm not playing this game with you.

a reply to: Answer

Discussion seems to be centered on the call for new, or "sensible" gun laws to be created in the wake of incidents like yesterdays in Lafayette to curtail future occurrences. The problem I have is in the definition. As in who defines "sensible".
To some it would entail draconian restrictions, ineffectual mandates(based on similar laws previously enacted with negligible effects), outlandish taxation on ammo/firearms, insurance, and so on. To constitutional absolutists, there can be nothing proposed that infringes.

Meaningful discussion is possible, without those entrenched in ideology, attempting to out shout each other because they're right. Center on the reoccurring causation, and address that first. I realize it won't be that easy, and solutions complex, but a reactionary "do something--anything!" will not provide viable answers. The majority of legal gun owners don't want crazies or criminals to access guns, but aren't willing to support actions that don't address the root cause, and further erode rights as the VPC envisions.

For those interested in the event - it appears that all victims are out of the hospital except for three. One hospital said they received five patients and only admitted three.

I'm not 100% on this but that's the best I could find. It sounds like at least a few of the victims are already back at home.

a reply to: Answer

There really isn't though. I'm not playing games.

An honest, simple question.

What style of government would have prevented an act like this?

Breitbart has an interview with a Tea Party leader talking about emails she received from Houser. Dude is clearly in outer space.

www.breitbart.com...

Sheriff is saying they denied his concealed carry permit because of his arson arrest not the mental illness. Still unknown how and when the gun used in the shooting was obtained.

For what it's worth.

a reply to: Rocker2013

So you claim that control of dangerous substances is pointless, because use of those drugs is already illegal.

Oh now there is no claim to it.

Drugs, are suppose to be ILLEGAL.

Doesn't stop people from getting them.

The regulation on them doesn't stop people from abusing them.

The difference people are trying to LEGALIZE drugs, and ban guns.

That might make sense to some, but it brings the point rather nicely.

You can not LEGISLATE human behavior.

About 570,000 people die annually due to drug use. That breaks down to about 440,000 from disease related to tobacco, 85,000 due to alcohol, 20,000 due to illicit (illegal) drugs, and 20,000 due to prescription drug abuse. If you want more information, check out NIDA's site at www.drugabuse.gov

570,000 per YEAR die from drugs.

And people are crying about guns.