Why I believe gun control will never stopped a person's intent to kill.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Bhadhidar

And it is this type of willful ignorance of the topic that makes knowledgeable people not want to have folks like you making laws that affect them. You do not even know what a semi-automatic firearm IS, let alone why they are used.

If YOU don't need one, fine, great, don't buy one. But who are you to make that decision for everyone in the country?

Your needs do not reflect everyone's needs.

SMH

Your ability to comprehend what you have read seems to be somewhat lacking.

Obviously my “ignorance of the topic” cannot be “willful” if I am asking, in the very post you reference, why such weapons are “NEEDED “.

And I clearly made the distinction between “NEEDED” and not merely “WANTED”.

Regardless of your assumption as to my knowing what a semi-automatic weapon comprises, you have completely FAILED to explain why such a weapon would be “needed” by a civilian.

Did you not understand the question,
Or are you unable to answer the question?

Furthermore, I am in no, current, position to make, or even seriously influence the formation of any law that might affect your precious guns in any way,

yet.

Therefore I am not making decisions for anyone.

However, if YOU are a gun owner, and I pray, a responsibile one at that, then it is incumbent upon YOU, and those like you, to answer the questions I’ve posed honestly, regardless of ego and desire, in the best interests of yourself, your offspring (if any), and the society in which you all live,

Or hope to live.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AMPTAH

The problem is with the design of the gun.

How come no one has a problem with the design of
california looking like a high capacity magizine?

Same reason no one seems to have a problem with the state of Florida looking like an uncovered male appendage.

It's not the real thing.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Ban it anyway!

a reply to: starwarsisreal

McVeigh wouldn't seek help himself because he was likely smarter than those who would be proposing "help." Homicidal people don't seek help, they seek ways to better to commit the homicide. How do you stop that? patrolling search queries by the millisecond for every single person and shown up for a search warrant on someone who searched ingredients of a bomb in order to use in a short story they were working on?

originally posted by: AllKnowing
How do you stop that? patrolling search queries by the millisecond for every single person and shown up for a search warrant on someone who searched ingredients of a bomb in order to use in a short story they were working on?

Nah...we're going to microchip everyone.

Implant a wireless chip into the skull that reads thoughts, and up-links the data to the satellites, which will relay the info back down to the NSA supercomputer databases.

When we detect a mischievous thought, we just send out the thought police to arrest the suspect, and hold him in detention until we can clear his mind of any offending ideas.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Illegal search and seizure according to the 4th amendment, until the socialist/commies want to take it away so they can have their governmental appointed safe spaces filled with non binary doughnuts to keep the flab satisfied while their brains atrophized into oblivion.

If someone willingly puts a chip into their body, they deserve what happens to them.

Well it stopped me.

Ten dollars spent at the hardware store on chains and locks and a couple of bucks on a Jerry-can of gas and no one needs a gun to become a mass murderer....sick minds are sick minds....we simply need more healthy minds looking out for humanity....obviously every single school should have several armed guards in the form of Military people working with Civilians in this capacity...rotating in and out....no career school guards..but a viable Countrywide PROCESS.

a reply to: starwarsisreal
I understand that if a person is looking to kill, they will find a way.
That being said, when my child hits someone with a stick, I don't blame the stick, but I still take the stick away.

There has to be some sort of change. How are children getting a hold of guns??

a reply to: starwarsisreal

More are killed by knives,if a murderer or assassin wants to kill can use numerous other ways,guns are noisy and attract attention for the most part,gun control in this case would be eliminating part 8,in rage killing mostly first thing they can grab

a reply to: superman2012

19 is not a child, not according to the law.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

To defend against govt tyranny. That's why there is a clause saying shall not be infringed. Govt should have nothing that civilians cannot have

Jaden

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Tbh with you guys, I once believed that some form of gun control will work until very recently.

Guns are very useful for population control.

Just think, 17 people were removed from the social security system, leaving 17 spots for undocumented aliens to fill.

At the rate of these school shootings, Trump wouldn't have to deport any dreamers.

They can just fill the vacant spots created by all the available guns.

No need to do anything at all. Just wait.

Oh, and support your local NRA.

They're doing a wonderful job, keeping the population within limits.

Always a propaganda tool are you not? At least that's what most of us see in your post. If you can't be part of the solution be part of the problem, eh?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Bhadhidar

To defend against govt tyranny. That's why there is a clause saying shall not be infringed. Govt should have nothing that civilians cannot have

Jaden

Ridiculous.


The US government has nuclear weapons. By your “Govt should have nothing that civilians cannot have” reasoning you are potentially defending Cruz’s right to have possessed a nuclear weapon.

Consider the outcome if he had used such a thing to attack that school.

Or maybe you propose that the US government get rid of its nuclear weapons? That would certainly be a boon to its geopolitical opponents, wouldn’t it!

Make America Weaker Again! Put that on a hat and wear it.

But that still leaves all the chemical and biological weapons up for grabs, doesn’t it? Maybe the next lunatic will just pump some VX nerve gas through the HVAC system of an elementary school, or spread Ebola at the mall or airport, because civilians should have access to every weapon their government has, to fight tyranny, right?

And about that “tyranny” you’re so frightened of; like meat in the old saying (one man’s meat is another man’s poison), one man’s “tyranny” might well be another man’s “responsibile Government”.

Who gets to decide which is which? You? Me?

Do you really want to trust ME to properly and responsibily handle a backpack nuke anywhere near you and/or your family?

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Tbh with you guys, I once believed that some form of gun control will work until very recently.

Gun control would have never stopped a person's intent to kill.

While reading a book about Timothy McVeigh, I came across this passage:

If he'd read Ross's book earlier, McVeigh says, he would have given serious consideration to a "war of attrition" against the government, mounting a sniper campaign picking off individual agents and elected officials, rather than blowing up an office building and taking the lives of innocent people, like children in the day care center.

-American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma Bombing pg. 304

McVeigh was deeply scarred by his experiences in his time in the Army and being alienated by the very country he served and at some point would have lashed out. Even if somehow he doesn't create his bomb or didn't have access to firearms, McVeigh would have gone on a killing spree with some sort of weapon because he still has that murderous mindset.

McVeigh can also easily get a gun illegally since guns are easier to get due t illegal guns being smuggled from Mexico.

My point is when a person has homicidal tendencies, he or she will use whatever weapon he or she can find and use it. No gun control would have stopped him or her. The fact that McVeigh stated he would changed his methods shows he is open to whatever weapon that is available to him.

I think if McVeigh got professional help and wasn't alienated by society, the Oklahoma Bombing would have never happened.

Control the knives, trucks, hatchets, baseball bats, bows n arrows.. and frying pans.

Control violence not means..

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
.....

Gun control would have never stopped a person's intent to kill.

....

If the gun control people got there way and the next crazy person with an intent to kill decapitates 5 or 6 children at a school with a machete instead of killing 15 or 16 with a gun, would that make them happy?

It's sad that we're spending this much precious time, effort and difficult deliberation on a possible band aid, because no one is willing to face the real problem... Until we figure out why when I was a kid there were plenty of guns, and this never happened, what changed? Clue... we didn't have Psychotropic drugs.

(Psychotropic drug: Any drug capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior.)

a reply to: superman2012

Really and do you go and take the sticks from all the kids in the neighborhood who are using them to build a fort?

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: superman2012

Really and do you go and take the sticks from all the kids in the neighborhood who are using them to build a fort?

Jaden

Obviously the meaning and intent of my post positively flew way over your head.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: starwarsisreal
I understand that if a person is looking to kill, they will find a way.
That being said, when my child hits someone with a stick, I don't blame the stick, but I still take the stick away.

There has to be some sort of change. How are children getting a hold of guns??

Using your analogy....

Do you take all the kids sticks away, even if they are not your kids and in their own yard behaving and following the "stick rules"?

It's a valid question and a suitable extension of your own analogy.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: starwarsisreal
I understand that if a person is looking to kill, they will find a way.
That being said, when my child hits someone with a stick, I don't blame the stick, but I still take the stick away.

There has to be some sort of change. How are children getting a hold of guns??

Using your analogy....

Do you take all the kids sticks away, even if they are not your kids and in their own yard behaving and following the "stick rules"?

It's a valid question and a suitable extension of your own analogy.

That's a flaw in my analogy that I knew someone would try to exploit. Are you suggesting that children should legally have guns? High school kids need semi autos?

I'm comparing kids hitting other kids with sticks, to kids shooting other kids. What do they need a stick for? Explain how the two are comparable the way you are trying to use it.