Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

613 posts in this topic

Oh, good, I'll be sure to tell the 26 people who died in the gun massacre that.

Oh that's right, I don't share your perspective so I must be heartless and insensitive to those who died... So that's how that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying all guns should be banned? I don't think you've directly answered that question yet, which makes it difficult for me to form any sort of rebuttal to your argument. I feel like you keep inferring without directly laying out your stance. Should all guns be banned? If yes, is this retroactive to all guns, or just new purchases? What would be the protocol to implement this plan?

Please answer so that we can be clear what we are debating.

I don't know the answer, but something needs to change. We cannot just allow things to stay the same and have more mass shootings but take no action, that seems incredibly irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that's right, I don't share your perspective so I must be heartless and insensitive to those who died... So that's how that works?

No, your argument was just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, your argument was just stupid.

I've laid out several methods to address this potentially... Your perceived solution is mass punishment of those who are not guilty of a crime, removal of rights and added restrictions...

So tell me again how I'm the stupid one...

It's a typical, knee-jerk, fear reaction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've laid out several methods to address this potentially... Your perceived solution is mass punishment of those who are not guilty of a crime, removal of rights and added restrictions...

So tell me again how I'm the stupid one...

It's a typical, knee-jerk, fear reaction...

You did not present an argument to me, all you said was millions of people did not commit a crime so there should be no resolve when 20 school children are killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer, but something needs to change. We cannot just allow things to stay the same and have more mass shootings but take no action, that seems incredibly irresponsible.

Perfect. Now I know where you stand.

I hate when people manipulate and misconstrue the things I say to fit their argument, so I will try and show you that same respect. If anything I write is not the way you intended for it to be understood, I apologize in advance and will let you clarify before proceeding any further.

So from what I am understanding, you are of the mindset that semi-automatic weapons should be banned, because a person that obtains a weapon of this type can kill someone with it if he/she chooses to do so. Would you say this is accurate before I continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not present an argument to me, all you said was millions of people did not commit a crime so there should be no resolve when 20 school children are killed.

If you had been reading this thread you would have seen several suggestions I've made as part of the discussion, and at NO POINT did I say there should be no resolve... I simply don't think blanket punitive measures are the answer...

Go read the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect. Now I know where you stand.

I hate when people manipulate and misconstrue the things I say to fit their argument, so I will try and show you that same respect. If anything I write is not the way you intended for it to be understood, I apologize in advance and will let you clarify before proceeding any further.

So from what I am understanding, you are of the mindset that semi-automatic weapons should be banned, because a person that obtains a weapon of this type can kill someone with it if he/she chooses to do so. Would you say this is accurate before I continue?

This is not accurate, I do not know the answer to the problem. It could be everyone is armed, no one is armed, or something else. Leaving things the way they are is a problem.

I am also going to state, I own a rifle, pistol, and shotgun, I also work on a job that requires me to practice using these weapons monthly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not accurate, I do not know the answer to the problem. It could be everyone is armed, no one is armed, or something else. Leaving things the way they are is a problem.

I am also going to state, I own a rifle, pistol, and shotgun, I also work on a job that requires me to practice using these weapons monthly.

Ok good, I'm glad you clarified before I went on. I understand the point you are trying to make that something needs to change. The point I am trying to make is that even if we enacted stronger gun laws, and banned AR type rifles from civilian use, Nancy Lanza would have passed any and all restricive requirements, and so she would have owned guns if she chose to do so.

So let's assume that the 1994 assault weapons ban was still in place and AR-type rifles and high-volume magazines were not available to civilians. In this hypothetical scenario, we'll say Nancy Lanza only owned one Glock-style pistol with a ten round magazine. Maybe she keeps one box of bullets in the safe where she keeps the gun, with maybe one extra clip. I don't think this makes her a "gun nut", or is excessive in any way. I think most would agree with that statement.

So say her son wanted to commit one of the worst atrocities in modern memory with this pistol, so he loads up the extra clip, brings a few spare rounds in his pocket, and has maybe 30-35 rounds to work with, 20 of them readily available in two different clips, the 3rd he would need time to load up one of the empty clips, maybe a couple minutes if he is truly inept. He steals his mothers gun and ammunition, shoots her in the face 4 times, and proceeds to reload the clip he just used to kill her as he drives toward his endgame, the elementary school.

He arrives at the school and uses a few rounds to blow out a window to get inside. He proceeds to a classroom full of 6-7 year old children with this Glock, and he opens fire with the remaining rounds. He most likely kills any of the children he hits. We'll call it 2 kids with 7 rounds. He reloads a new 10 round clip and fires again, killing 3 more. He proceeds to another room while reloading a clip with his remaining rounds, and has just enough to kill a teacher, one more student, and himself.

So here we are. His mother is dead, 6 students are dead, one teacher, and the killer. With one Glock this is not an unreasonable scenario. So what then, would the national debate be? Banning all guns? Because I don't recall that happening after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, or Aurora.

The point I keep trying to make is that is is not the weapons the killer chooses to use that we need to argue about. It is finding out the root cause of what creates these killers. It seems to me to be an argument of mental health moreso than an argument against weapons.

I can't help but feel if it was a military person that did this and he obtained a fully automatic machinegun from his base and killed children with it, the argument would not be against banning military weapons, it would be about the mental health of the military person. What caused him to snap? Were there warning signs that were ignored? Could it have been prevented with a more thorough screening of his psychiatric wellness?

I feel that we both want there to be a change. The difference IMO is that many want a knee-jerk ban to these weapons instead of facing the crux of this issue, which is simply, why are so many young Americans lashing out in these horrible ways? That is the issue that must be tackled, not the legal ownership of rifles. The problem is, that answer is very complicated and forces people to stop and look in the mirror, rather than being able to find a common, simple target (rifles), and rally against it with pitchforks and torches.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok good, I'm glad you clarified before I went on. I understand the point you are trying to make that something needs to change. The point I am trying to make is that even if we enacted stronger gun laws, and banned AR type rifles from civilian use, Nancy Lanza would have passed any and all restricive requirements, and so she would have owned guns if she chose to do so.

So let's assume that the 1994 assault weapons ban was still in place and AR-type rifles and high-volume magazines were not available to civilians. In this hypothetical scenario, we'll say Nancy Lanza only owned one Glock-style pistol with a ten round magazine. Maybe she keeps one box of bullets in the safe where she keeps the gun, with maybe one extra clip. I don't think this makes her a "gun nut", or is excessive in any way. I think most would agree with that statement.

So say her son wanted to commit one of the worst atrocities in modern memory with this pistol, so he loads up the extra clip, brings a few spare rounds in his pocket, and has maybe 30-35 rounds to work with, 20 of them readily available in two different clips, the 3rd he would need time to load up one of the empty clips, maybe a couple minutes if he is truly inept. He steals his mothers gun and ammunition, shoots her in the face 4 times, and proceeds to reload the clip he just used to kill her as he drives toward his endgame, the elementary school.

He arrives at the school and uses a few rounds to blow out a window to get inside. He proceeds to a classroom full of 6-7 year old children with this Glock, and he opens fire with the remaining rounds. He most likely kills any of the children he hits. We'll call it 2 kids with 7 rounds. He reloads a new 10 round clip and fires again, killing 3 more. He proceeds to another room while reloading a clip with his remaining rounds, and has just enough to kill a teacher, one more student, and himself.

So here we are. His mother is dead, 6 students are dead, one teacher, and the killer. With one Glock this is not an unreasonable scenario. So what then, would the national debate be? Banning all guns? Because I don't recall that happening after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, or Aurora.

The point I keep trying to make is that is is not the weapons the killer chooses to use that we need to argue about. It is finding out the root cause of what creates these killers. It seems to me to be an argument of mental health moreso than an argument against weapons.

I can't help but feel if it was a military person that did this and he obtained a fully automatic machinegun from his base and killed children with it, the argument would not be against banning military weapons, it would be about the mental health of the military person. What caused him to snap? Were there warning signs that were ignored? Could it have been prevented with a more thorough screening of his psychiatric wellness?

I feel that we both want there to be a change. The difference IMO is that many want a knee-jerk ban to these weapons instead of facing the crux of this issue, which is simply, why are so many young Americans lashing out in these horrible ways? That is the issue that must be tackled, not the legal ownership of rifles. The problem is, that answer is very complicated and forces people to stop and look in the mirror, rather than being able to find a common, simple target (rifles), and rally against it with pitchforks and torches.

Probably the best post I have EVER read on the Huddle. Spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok good, I'm glad you clarified before I went on. I understand the point you are trying to make that something needs to change. The point I am trying to make is that even if we enacted stronger gun laws, and banned AR type rifles from civilian use, Nancy Lanza would have passed any and all restricive requirements, and so she would have owned guns if she chose to do so.

So let's assume that the 1994 assault weapons ban was still in place and AR-type rifles and high-volume magazines were not available to civilians. In this hypothetical scenario, we'll say Nancy Lanza only owned one Glock-style pistol with a ten round magazine. Maybe she keeps one box of bullets in the safe where she keeps the gun, with maybe one extra clip. I don't think this makes her a "gun nut", or is excessive in any way. I think most would agree with that statement.

So say her son wanted to commit one of the worst atrocities in modern memory with this pistol, so he loads up the extra clip, brings a few spare rounds in his pocket, and has maybe 30-35 rounds to work with, 20 of them readily available in two different clips, the 3rd he would need time to load up one of the empty clips, maybe a couple minutes if he is truly inept. He steals his mothers gun and ammunition, shoots her in the face 4 times, and proceeds to reload the clip he just used to kill her as he drives toward his endgame, the elementary school.

He arrives at the school and uses a few rounds to blow out a window to get inside. He proceeds to a classroom full of 6-7 year old children with this Glock, and he opens fire with the remaining rounds. He most likely kills any of the children he hits. We'll call it 2 kids with 7 rounds. He reloads a new 10 round clip and fires again, killing 3 more. He proceeds to another room while reloading a clip with his remaining rounds, and has just enough to kill a teacher, one more student, and himself.

So here we are. His mother is dead, 6 students are dead, one teacher, and the killer. With one Glock this is not an unreasonable scenario. So what then, would the national debate be? Banning all guns? Because I don't recall that happening after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, or Aurora.

The point I keep trying to make is that is is not the weapons the killer chooses to use that we need to argue about. It is finding out the root cause of what creates these killers. It seems to me to be an argument of mental health moreso than an argument against weapons.

I can't help but feel if it was a military person that did this and he obtained a fully automatic machinegun from his base and killed children with it, the argument would not be against banning military weapons, it would be about the mental health of the military person. What caused him to snap? Were there warning signs that were ignored? Could it have been prevented with a more thorough screening of his psychiatric wellness?

I feel that we both want there to be a change. The difference IMO is that many want a knee-jerk ban to these weapons instead of facing the crux of this issue, which is simply, why are so many young Americans lashing out in these horrible ways? That is the issue that must be tackled, not the legal ownership of rifles. The problem is, that answer is very complicated and forces people to stop and look in the mirror, rather than being able to find a common, simple target (rifles), and rally against it with pitchforks and torches.

So why does this happen so much more often in America than, say, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Japan, England, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Australia, or any other wealthy nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok good, I'm glad you clarified before I went on. I understand the point you are trying to make that something needs to change. The point I am trying to make is that even if we enacted stronger gun laws, and banned AR type rifles from civilian use, Nancy Lanza would have passed any and all restricive requirements, and so she would have owned guns if she chose to do so.

So let's assume that the 1994 assault weapons ban was still in place and AR-type rifles and high-volume magazines were not available to civilians. In this hypothetical scenario, we'll say Nancy Lanza only owned one Glock-style pistol with a ten round magazine. Maybe she keeps one box of bullets in the safe where she keeps the gun, with maybe one extra clip. I don't think this makes her a "gun nut", or is excessive in any way. I think most would agree with that statement.

So say her son wanted to commit one of the worst atrocities in modern memory with this pistol, so he loads up the extra clip, brings a few spare rounds in his pocket, and has maybe 30-35 rounds to work with, 20 of them readily available in two different clips, the 3rd he would need time to load up one of the empty clips, maybe a couple minutes if he is truly inept. He steals his mothers gun and ammunition, shoots her in the face 4 times, and proceeds to reload the clip he just used to kill her as he drives toward his endgame, the elementary school.

He arrives at the school and uses a few rounds to blow out a window to get inside. He proceeds to a classroom full of 6-7 year old children with this Glock, and he opens fire with the remaining rounds. He most likely kills any of the children he hits. We'll call it 2 kids with 7 rounds. He reloads a new 10 round clip and fires again, killing 3 more. He proceeds to another room while reloading a clip with his remaining rounds, and has just enough to kill a teacher, one more student, and himself.

So here we are. His mother is dead, 6 students are dead, one teacher, and the killer. With one Glock this is not an unreasonable scenario. So what then, would the national debate be? Banning all guns? Because I don't recall that happening after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, or Aurora.

The point I keep trying to make is that is is not the weapons the killer chooses to use that we need to argue about. It is finding out the root cause of what creates these killers. It seems to me to be an argument of mental health moreso than an argument against weapons.

I can't help but feel if it was a military person that did this and he obtained a fully automatic machinegun from his base and killed children with it, the argument would not be against banning military weapons, it would be about the mental health of the military person. What caused him to snap? Were there warning signs that were ignored? Could it have been prevented with a more thorough screening of his psychiatric wellness?

I feel that we both want there to be a change. The difference IMO is that many want a knee-jerk ban to these weapons instead of facing the crux of this issue, which is simply, why are so many young Americans lashing out in these horrible ways? That is the issue that must be tackled, not the legal ownership of rifles. The problem is, that answer is very complicated and forces people to stop and look in the mirror, rather than being able to find a common, simple target (rifles), and rally against it with pitchforks and torches.

Understanding mental health better and limiting the weapons that are accessible to those people are not two things that are mutually exclusive.

They both need to be a part of the equation. You cannot blame one and absolve the other though. The mentally ill and guns go hand and hand.

A mentally ill person did not kill 26 people in hand to hand combat. There are two pieces to this puzzle at it isn't that hard to figure out.

Too many people die every single day. Many people who are mentally ill, either don't know it, or don't believe they are mentally ill.

It is hard to diagnose someone with a mental illness if they are never evaluated and it is hard to treat a mentally ill person who refuses to believe they are mentally ill. What can be done is making sure their is much stricter access to all guns, and no access to assault weapons and large magazine clips, as well as armor piercing bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites