Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#556 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:04 PM

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?

#557 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

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.

#558 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

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.

#559 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:11 PM

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...

#560 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:13 PM

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.

#561 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,480 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

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?

#562 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

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

#563 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

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.

#564 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,480 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:48 PM

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.

#565 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,006 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

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.

#566 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,420 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:39 PM

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?

#567 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,812 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:49 PM

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.

#568 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,420 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

I have a family member who's an alcoholic. Booze has caused her to lose her marriage, her career, and any type of normal relationship with her children.

Whenever I talk to her about her life and her problems anything and everything is the problem EXCEPT the alcohol. It can never be any part of the problem. Meanwhile things keep getting worse and worse and she can't understand why.

These threads remind me of my conversations with her.

#569 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,812 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:09 PM

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.


One more point about this paragraph. I agree that more needs to be done to understand why these things are happening.

But a big part of why these things happen is because of pop culture.

Movies, television, and video games (three things I enjoy very much BTW) have all participated in the desensitization of people to guns and killing.

But here is the complicated part of that equation. In order to properly address these issues you would have to trample on 1st amendment rights and start to take away the basic freedom of free speech.

So basically what a large part of this argument boils down to is that some people would rather the government trample on 1st amendment rights just so they can keep their 2nd amendment rights.

It isn't a matter of freedom and constitutional rights. It is about people being able to have and keep their toys. Toys that are killing people at an alarming rate.

I know you didn't say this specifically Monsta so this isn't really directed right at you. But others have made that argument.

#570 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,812 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

4 more people killed in mass shooting in Pennsylvania while simultaneously the NRA has a press conference saying that guns are not the issue.

smh


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.