They wouldn't have been there without the fire, so let's take away everyone's ability to make fire, same logic as taking away guns and just as possible
I wish people would stop making dumbass comments like this. A couple of people got killed.....
They wouldn't have been there without the fire, so let's take away everyone's ability to make fire, same logic as taking away guns and just as possible
Of course, you expect AT gun nuts to have feelings?
Have you noticed that immediately after Sandy Hook, the AT Gun Club has been making threads about their right to have guns non-stop? There are atleast 3 active Gun threads in OT, and they keep popping up here too.
Bottom-line, fuck you and people dumb enough to get shot. They aren't giving up their guns.
They wouldn't have been there without the fire, so let's take away everyone's ability to make fire, same logic as taking away guns and just as possible
who is arguing to take away guns?
Right now, a good many people are. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place, but are letting emotion get in the way of rationality.
Right now, a good many people are. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place, but are letting emotion get in the way of rationality.
No one is arguing to take away guns. Simply taking away ones that serve no practical purpose. If you need a pistol or shotgun to defend yourself, then go ahead
That's right. Clearly murderers use only impractical guns. I'm sure that the guy in the op's story used one such weapon, and would not have been able to kill anyone with a practical weapon like a pistol or shotgun.
Of course, you expect AT gun nuts to have feelings?
Have you noticed that immediately after Sandy Hook, the AT Gun Club has been making threads about their right to have guns non-stop? There are atleast 3 active Gun threads in OT, and they keep popping up here too.
Bottom-line, fuck you and people dumb enough to get shot. They aren't giving up their guns.
In all of these events there are other factors. Yet certain people always try to use them to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.
Why is it that they do not pursue stricter application of capital punishment for murderers and reform of mental health care for the disturbed with the same zeal they apply towards trying to take our rights?
It won't stop. When will the media's agenda-driven push to cover such incidents more relentlessly than ever stop?
Their agenda is to make money, and as long as people provide money to read/listen to/watch it, the reporting won't stop. Maybe the sensationalism and some of it should, but they have a "right", as much as your right to arms, to do what they are doing. You are for keeping rights so you should have no issue with this.
Firstly let me say the first amendment is far more dear to me than the second. I've never exercised my second amendment rights despite having no obstacles to doing so. If I had to give one up? It's obvious.
I made no comment to the contrary. I understand their first motive is profit but given the percentage of anti-gun minded people in the media you should acknowledge that other motives are at play too. Piers Morgan just makes it more obvious than most.
There should be heavy psychological tests to determine whether someone can get a license to carry firearms. Of course that would mean that pretty much all the current gunowners would lose the right to carry a gun.
Based on what he spent 17-18 years in prison for I question whether he should ever have been allowed out of prison. Hammering somebody to death should probably make you a permanent ward of the state until you die. He wasn't, got out, obviously was still a mental nutcase, and did this.
Yep. I've argued before in favor of abolishing the DEA, giving states the freedom to choose their own drug policies independent of the federal gov't, and basically calling it quits on the the incredibly wasteful drug war.
Would I rather use the same finite local gov't resources to warehouse 30,000 nonviolent drug offenders and 10,000 violent offenders for the approximate same average sentence? Or on the flip side lock up 25,000 of the worst violent offenders for FAR greater amounts of time while offering greater access to mental/substance counseling to the drug offenders?
I can tell you which I think would do more for the country, in budgeting, in allocation of law enforcement (more on violent criminals, less on nonviolent), and in protecting society from lifelong predators. Anyone who commits an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kills someone while DUI, etc, they really need spectacularly longer sentences than are feasible under the current setup. A massive number of firearms murders are committed by people with past felony convictions, and most of these people already have a violent record.
Expressions of sympathy are cheap and effortless. Anyone can blast out a post about how horrible noble public servants being gunned down for no reason is. Or kindergartners even more obviously so.