Gun control and mass shooting events

[Pooky 3,781]

That's neither the subject of this discussion nor is it in any way related or even remotely relevant.

But it is relevant. You just refuse to see it.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It does not. Tightening the rules around the acquisition or distribution of firearms has absolutely NOTHING to do with confiscation. Equating the former with the latter is a red herring and nothing else. Even improving the accountability for gun owners and holding them liable for damages caused by their firearms has NOTHING to do with confiscation, One has to subscribe to the paranoid slippery slope argument to arrive at the conclusion that one equals - or even leads to - the other. I'm not subscribing to that argument because it's not a valid argument. It's pure paranoia planted and fanned by the profit interests against sanity and life.

That's neither the subject of this discussion nor is it in any way related or even remotely relevant.

I know this, and many others as well. The problem is, the folks that believe this have the loudest voices when it comes to these discussions.

I remember when the father of a child was murdered at Sandy Hook asked why does anyone feel the need to have some sort of assault weapon, someone screamed about the 2nd amendment. This man lost his child and asked a valid question, but the 2nd amendment can't be questioned or challenged.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But it is relevant. You just refuse to see it.

It's no more relevant than it is that most of those insiting that their constitutional rights in regards to gun ownership be respected have no problem trampling on the contitutional rights of women to their privacy or on the rights of homsexuals to the institution of marriage. These issues would be as relevant to this discussion as the unrelated issue you want to throw in here - not relevant at all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know this, and many others as well. The problem is, the folks that believe this have the loudest voices when it comes to these discussions.

I remember when the father of a child was murdered at Sandy Hook asked why does anyone feel the need to have some sort of assault weapon, someone screamed about the 2nd amendment. This man lost his child and asked a valid question, but the 2nd amendment can't be questioned or challenged.

That's right, that is the problem. And that is the sole reason that a reasonable debate cannot be had. It's not as you said earlier that neither side wants to consider sensible solutions. It's one side that doesn't. That's all I'm saying. The responsibility for the continued carnage lies with the defenders of the insane satus quo.

[Sousuke 1,214]

As far as I am aware it still requires 4 deaths- hence only 3. I note most from 2013 are either family related or drug deal related.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As far as I am aware it still requires 4 deaths- hence only 3. I note most from 2013 are either family related or drug deal related.

A mass murder does require a minimum of 4 murders in one incident. By that logic, a mass shooting requires a minimum of 4 people being shot in one incident.

[Pooky 3,781]

It's no more relevant than it is that most of those insiting that their constitutional rights in regards to gun ownership be respected have no problem trampling on the contitutional rights of women to their privacy or on the rights of homsexuals to the institution of marriage. These issues would be as relevant to this discussion as the unrelated issue you want to throw in here - not relevant at all.

Way to completely miss the point.

The issues involved are irrelevant to the discussion. The lack of trust in politicians was what I was trying to get across. Their lack of consistency, dependent on the subject, and the unreliability of their intentions is very relevant to the way people regards them and trust their intentions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Way to completely miss the point.

The issues involved are irrelevant to the discussion. The lack of trust in politicians was what I was trying to get across. Their lack of consistency, dependent on the subject, and the unreliability of their intentions is very relevant to the way people regards them and trust their intentions.

I don't think that's the case. We'll just have to disagree on that. There is no slippery slope from sensible gun control measures to confisation. That slippery slope is pure paranoid hogwash. Hogwash that's been carefully crafted and spread throughout the country by those that cash in on death and destruction. I only wish that fewer people would fall for this nonsense.

[Pooky 3,781]

I don't think that's the case. We'll just have to disagree on that. There is no slippery slope from sensible gun control measures to confisation. That slippery slope is pure paranoid hogwash. Hogwash that's been carefully crafted and spread throughout the country by those that cash in on death and destruction. I only wish that fewer people would fall for this nonsense.

That politicians' questionable intentions plays into that narrative doesn't help the situation.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

At the least we could go back the laws he already had in place (like assault weapons ban). We already had those laws.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At the least we could go back the laws he already had in place (like assault weapons ban). We already had those laws.

And no large scale gun confiscation followed. The paranoia was beautifully exposed for what it is. And yet, it survived. Amazing. And only in America.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sousuke 1,214]

At the least we could go back the laws he already had in place (like assault weapons ban). We already had those laws.

The assault weapons ban didn't acually do much of anything. Columbine occured during the ban.

California has an assault weapon ban. I still can own one of these though:

[Peikko 1,575]

The assault weapons ban didn't acually do much of anything. Columbine occured during the ban.

California has an assault weapon ban. I still can own one of these though:

Why would you want to? Outside of competitive shooting, I can't see much reason to own a gun at all bu then I am just a weak and ignorant woman.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Why would you want to? Outside of competitive shooting, I can't see much reason to own a gun at all bu then I am just a weak and ignorant woman.

Why should I need a reason to seek permission from you to own anything.that is protected in the 2nd.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Why would you want to? Outside of competitive shooting, I can't see much reason to own a gun at all bu then I am just a weak and ignorant woman.

I would mirror what lostinblue said, but I'll tell you. I like to shoot as a hobby and become a better marksman. I try to go to the local range every other weekend with the goal of improving.

Now why would I choose an AR15 as a part of this hobby? Its the easiest firearm to customize and get to fit just right. I think its fun to hand select every part, you can't do that as easily with other models. Its a great choice to work up via a budget. Right now I can choose some parts that are more mid range and then replace as I want.