Jump to content




Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
615 replies to this topic

#37 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 896
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

O a a has killed more children in Pakistan via drone strikes than the ct shooter did. Where's the outrage? Where are the threads to ban drones?

Are dark skinned children less valued in your eyes?

#38 FireMarshallBill

FireMarshallBill

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 19-September 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 529
  • Reputation: 66
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

WMDs!!

http://forums.dprevi.../thread/3241081

#39 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,195
  • Reputation: 1,567
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:44 PM

Lame argument. I doubt all those kids and teachers would be dead if these weapons had not been legally purchased.

If outlawing these weapons could save even only 1 life...and that was a child you loved....would that not be worth it?

I do not understand defending these weapons. Have you read the data from Canada and England?

Its not a lame argument. Its an argument based on real historical evidence that banning something that people want almost always ends up backfiring. Many of the arguments you are making are similar to the arguments used by those who supported prohibition. And there is a good chance that gun bans would fail just as prohibition did. The only way a gun ban actually works is if we can convince every country (or at least most of them) in the world to stop manufacturing guns. And since that is highly unlikely, it is likely that we will just make gun smugglers rich.

Regarding England, they live on an Island. Its a little bit easier for them to stop the illegal importation of guns. And fwiw, they also have lower incidences of drug abuse than the US does. It could be that the differences are in large part due to their culture. That being said, they have had several mass killings from Jack the Ripper to Michael Robert Ryan.

#40 ladypanther

ladypanther

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 5,344
  • Reputation: 1,628
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

We don't live in England or Canada. We live where our right to bear firearms is constitutionally protected.

Once again, blame the object, not the person.



So you love this right more than the people that have recently died because of it? How would you explain that to the grieving parents in Conn?

That constitution was written in much different times. Like other things that have changed (slavery is one) the 2nd amendment needs to change.

#41 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 896
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

WMDs!!

http://forums.dprevi.../thread/3241081


Where's the outrage?

#42 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,195
  • Reputation: 1,567
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:48 PM

Worst school massacre in US history didn't even use a gun.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber himself; at least 58 people were injured. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in U.S. history.
The bomber was school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, 55, who was enraged about a property tax levied to fund the construction of the school building.



#43 FireMarshallBill

FireMarshallBill

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 19-September 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 529
  • Reputation: 66
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:50 PM

Where's the outrage?


They should totally ban blowing people up.

#44 ladypanther

ladypanther

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 5,344
  • Reputation: 1,628
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

No one has made an argument that banning weapons of mass destruction would harm anyone.

So, if you were the parent of one of those 1st graders that might have been able to survive if the shooter did not have access to a legally purchased semiautomatic rifle , how would you convince them that gun control is a bad idea?

#45 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

In a later post I said ban. I want them banned and there should be very severe penalties for selling them on the black market (30 years). And severe penalties for buying/possessing them. (30 years)


People get 10 years for murder. You want 30 for owning a gun?

#46 FireMarshallBill

FireMarshallBill

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 19-September 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 529
  • Reputation: 66
HUDDLER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

O a a has killed more children in Pakistan via drone strikes than the ct shooter did. Where's the outrage? Where are the threads to ban drones?

Are dark skinned children less valued in your eyes?


I wonder how she would explain that to the grieving parents.

#47 ladypanther

ladypanther

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 5,344
  • Reputation: 1,628
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:53 PM

People get 10 years for murder. You want 30 for owning a gun?


Yes. They should get life for murder.

#48 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

After Columbine people wanted to ban trenchcoats in schools. And did.