Guns don't kill people ....

[DanaC]

Citizens going about their day to day lives armed and ready to defend themselves and others from violent assault, will not reduce levels of violence, it will ramp it up.

A proportion of the population armed and trained to the use of those arms is a line of defence.

[Big Sarge]

I don't think so. Do you have any data to back this? Have you ever fired a gun? Why are you so eager to give away one of my fundemental rights when you don't have it in your country?

DanaC - This isn't meant to be personal. I respect you greatly. I'm simply passionate about this and I was trying to make a point. Sorry

[Sundae]

Don't be sorry, Sarge.
Just post some photos of your wall of cards.

AND DANAC! You promised. I bought a tub of SlimFast. You need a mattress and to post some pics.

There. Ambushed both of you. Equal opportunity attack.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Adak

One thing that would help, is to work on welfare and military assignments, so fathers could be around their boys (especially), as they are growing up.

Absent fathers have a terrible impact on boys - not on every boy, but on many boys. With all of our military dads being assigned repeatedly overseas, and many welfare programs forcing welfare families to kick the dad out, so they're eligible, it's a disaster.

Go back and check out how many of these mass killers had dads around when they were growing up.

So what action do you propose?

[infinite monkey]

Oh oh oh oh oh I know I know [/horschack]

Cut off men's sperms supplies and make them take some tests and training to get spermies back.

Think of the poor baby daddies.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

I don't think so. Do you have any data to back this?

I'm sure we can find data to "support" the claim. I'm sure we can find data to "debunk" the claim.

Plus, there is always the chicken and the egg fiasco. Did more guns lead to more violence or did more violence lead to more guns?

[glatt]

We all have our opinions and are talking about them here with the dozen or so others who care one way or the other.

If you want your voice to be heard a little more widely, take this survey by Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly. They will submit the survey results to the politicians, and since they are respected by the politicians, the results will be accepted. So include your voice. It's a very short survey/petition. It will require your name, email, and zip code. So you might get some follow up emails, and put on a list somewhere. You can choose multiple options, including not enacting any new legislation at all.

http://action.americansforresponsibl...rg/page/s/poll

[BigV]

So... Adak. It's all or nothing with you? It sounds like you're arguing that way. If xyz idea won't completely solve the problem, then xyz idea should be discarded. And the way you are assessing whether or not xyz idea completely solves the problem is to look for any case, like the above example, that "proves" it won't work. Is this really your strategy?

Also, I'd like to repeat Pete's question, "What part of 'no mass shootings' do you have a problem with?" Are you in favor of mass shootings? If you are, please say so and I'll quit pestering you. If you are not in favor of more mass shootings, then please give me some examples of ideas you think will reduce them, or eliminate them completely.

Come on. What constructive contribution do *you* have to offer?

[Big Sarge]

Well mass shootings do help with population control. (Is it too soon to make a joke?)

[BigV]

Nah, laughter is the best medicine. After all, a modest proposal such as yours has a long and storied history of being both funny and true.

[Nirvana]

Those who are not licensed to carry firearms, those convicted of felonies etc., when found to have guns shall do a minimum of 3 years in prison. No if ands or buts. Not talking about minors here. If you want to put your tax dollars to a solution lets build more prisons. We may solve the drive bys and the gang violence but you will never prevent nut jobs from carrying out their violent fantasies by legislating gun control..

[henry quirk]

As I say elsewhere: in a country of 350 million individuals (and counting), where an estimated 270,000,000 guns are 'out and about', total confiscation is the only answer (a long, bloody, expensive, process with no guarantee of success).

Anything less (patchworks of laws = band aid on a wound the size of the Grand Canyon) is purely emotional salve (sooth the distress by addressing symptoms; never, ever, getting to the *root).

If 'you' won't confiscate, then stop kvetching, make do with piecemeal, and get on with living.









*by all conventional accounts, the root is 'gun'...if this is the case: eradicate 'gun', solve problem, yes?

[Nirvana]

No.. why should law abiding citizens have to give up their weapons? Your theory is illogical. If some are so intent on making a new law concerning guns then they need to enforce the ones we have and make stiffer penalties for those that illegally carry.

Mass killings can occur with the use of cow manure [/hyperbole]

[henry quirk]

Nope. Perfectly logical, and confiscation is the (absurd but logical) end if folks really want to make themselves 'safe' from 'gun'.

Any other (more moderate) course is 'feel good' and nuthin' else.









Full disclosure (again): I own one gun (12 gauge coach gun...a man-killer, which is what I mean it to be, though -- in a pinch -- it works for hunting as well). I've no interest in any other firearm, and no interest in giving up what I have.

[Nirvana]

If its absurd how is it logical? You and I are the same except I think those that illegally carry should have to face a stricter punishment. Again for full disclosure I have a Detroit Riot rifle and and an 1891 Winchester I don't hunt but I have shot skunks and coyotes,with the Winchester, not giving mine up either.