Bad tw, bad bad, tw. Caught using propaganda technique again I see. Trying to make people prove a need before they can have rights. How un-American.

But then there are mitigating circumstances. Tw grew up in an adverse environment with a father who was a propagandist for big tobacco. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I don't think we'll put him on the government watch list though. Armchair pomposities are generally benign and good for a few laughs as they undermine their own credibility with their rabid overzealousness.

Extremists will say anything to avoid a damning question. Beest asked a damning question. Because he fears to answer, then an extremist will do what Donald Trump also does - attack a person rather than address the issue.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill people in mass numbers? And can be obtained within hours. Why should anyone too dangerous to board a plane also have the right to buy assault weapons and ammunition in hours? Sexbon's answer remains that is good - until he want to reply in a logical and adult manner with reasons that say why.

Many who love guns for emotional reasons routinely avoid Beest's damning question. It only asks about want verse need. Nothing more. But even that simple question is a threat.

If everyone determines their own needs, then xoxoxoBruce listed them. Needs are not listed why? A classic Trump style cop out. Because needs do not exist? We still do not know what those needs are because xoxoxoBruce fears to answer a simple question.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill people in mass numbers? What is the need if not for mass murder? Why does one who is too dangerous to board a plane *need* an assault weapon? Simple logical answer lists those 'needs'.

Since so many need that weapon for different reasons, then xoxoxoBruce's list of *needs* should be quite long. We await a logical and unemotional answer.


xoxoxoBruce - do you think you can stop the cheapshots and only answer in an adult manner? That means listing each 'need'.

So, Pam, Bruce, xoB, how do you stop mass shootings? Now.

just stickin' my head in the door
 

What every person needs...

-food

-water

-protection (from the elements, from predators)

-a sense of self-efficacy and -direction

...how each satisfies those needs is largely a matter of individual preference.

In this thread's context: some folks, in part, satisfy the need to self-protect and -direct (and eat) by having a big honkin' GUN. Me, I find my coach gun fits the bill. The fella down the street might assess a bazooka is more to his liking.

So, no, folks don't determine their own needs...they do, however, determine how best to meet those needs, and -- sometimes -- the way one goes about it, the tools he or she chooses, seem excessive to another. This is normal, natural, and ain't gonna change any time soon.

So we futz around with one another trying to restrain and (re)direct and restrict by way of the big stick (law). Sometimes that works, often it doesn't.

Gonna be interesting to see how things play out with this latest bout of 'you shouldn't have that!' and 'that's a bad, BAD, tool!'.

nuff said.

To be fair, include in your question "and not have them turn into something else," i.e., mass exploding, mass poisoning, mass drowning, derailment, large scale panic, etc. Assume that the potential shooter, when denied the opportunity to shoot, does not lose the will or insanity required to set off a murderous event that kills many.

We shall recall that enormous damage that can be done with a boxcutter, if one is motivated and clever. Or fertilizer and fuel oil. Actually, thinking that a rifle is the simplest way to effectively pull off such an event may be a lucky cultural meme on our part. In other parts of the world, they explode people. We should be so lucky that it doesn't catch on.

(Two posts and he merely sidesteps the Allentown mistake without acknowledging it. That's how adults do it.)

And for those answering, you might also consider that according to Wikipedia, gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/europe...mass-shooting/

:(

(...although in Germany, we wait to see exactly what happened - fog of tear gas right now, it may be proof that gun controls work!)

Remove every gun on earth along with the knowledge and ability to make them. Then suffer the consequences UT pointed out.

That's because it wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate lie. That's what tw does.

This question is for TW:

What is a hunting rifle?

Semi-autos used to be out of bounds for hunting in PA. I believe they changed that last year under NRA pressure. IMHO they are completely inappropriate if safe hunting is your goal. The ethic I was raised with was make one good shot. Don't needlessly injure the animal and be aware of where your round lands if you fail.

I've been on the other side of this but licensing and or a weapon schedule for depth of background check seems utterly sensible.

In just your first two sentences in reply to my post there you go lying again tw. Beest didn't ask any questions. He made statements, gave opinions (he's certainly entitled to them); but, he didn't ask any questions. That's just your pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from yourself after having got caught lying, again.

It's apparent that you're taking advantage of Beest because he's a naturalized citizen possibly without the in-depth knowledge that some others here possess. They know that among the reasons for the second amendment having been included in the Constitution is maintaining a pool of civilians already trained in firearms use who can be called up, trained in group tactics, and deployed as a well regulated militia (as opposed to vigilantes). That is very much with us yet as evidenced by the fact that we still have a selective service registration requirement despite our current volunteer military. Beest's sons may have to register for it.

There have always been those who wanted to own the military issue rifle of their time in case they were called to serve and there have always been those wanted to own it after their service with it. The fully automatic fire M16 rifle and its variants have been with us for nearly a half century and millions of people have been trained with it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people want what they're familiar with because it makes for better usage.

The AR15 is the semiautomatic fire civilian version of the military firearm. It doesn't have fully automatic fire capability (spray and pray); or, even selective 3 round burst capability. It does still have the basic configuration for use and maintenance as the military version that so many are familiar with and it can still be used for purposes that it's not the optimum firearm for. All military personnel are not each issued a dozen different small arms intended for specialized applications. They use what they have in hand, their rifle.

No one has to prove they need a right to bear arms; or, any particular arms for that matter. You have to prove that they don't. Prove it to the majority of the US Supreme Court; or, prove it to enough representatives to get the Constitution changed. If you can't do that; then, you've failed to establish that your needs for people not to have them outweigh even the wants of the people who have them and you deserve what you get: having a pathological liar like tw speak for you. :lol:

You are being lied to. The tool is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if its Kool-Aid laced with poison, a crock pot turned into a bomb, a knife, fertilizer or a gun. Stop blaming the inanimate object(s) and start dealing with evil people. Bicycles killed almost twice as many people as rifles. Heck, more people died from falls than both. Just fucking stop. Removing or restricting the rights of millions because of the actions of several is ridiculous. Besides all that, the correlation you think exists, doesn't.