Gun control summed up in cartoon

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

Unless you want to argue that having a mental illness is a crime, the VA Tech shooter was a law abiding citizen. Until he flipped out and broke the law by shooting all those people.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

And then there is that law about pointing a gun at someone...
And shooting at people...
And hitting the people you shoot at...

Those laws certainly protected the stu... oh wait.

Laws don't stop crimes people. They only define what a crime is and they don't come into play until after the deed is done.

Let me tell you where you are wrong.

Bare with me, as this is an extreme example, but maybe you can follow the logic. If we give every U.S citizen that legally has a firearm a nuclear weapon with a big red button on it, would you be willing to bet me that 0% of the people would trigger their weapon?

The point I am trying to make here is a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone than lets say a knife. (now lets not get into silly debates here). That is why most people chose to buy a gun for protection vs a really sharp knife. An intruder comes in, you shoot him vs going to all the trouble of trying to stab at him.

Now, as a society we cannot assume that everyone will be responsible with their given rights so there has to be a mechanism to minimize the level of irresponsibility. I for one believe that if you are a mental wacko, like the VA dude you should be stripped of rights for which you cannot be responsible for.

I don't even understand why gun advocates see this is a limitation to the 2nd amendment. I think what Gun Control advocates are trying to do is make sure that the 2nd amendment is available for all RESPONSIBLE mentally healthy people. Trust me if they incorporate a better check on guns its not going to hurt gun sales.

The nuke thing is silly.

I agree with your thought that mentally incapacitated people should not be allowed to own guns. Add convicted felons to that list as well. Oh wait... There are already laws about that.

My point is... laws don't stop crimes. And this rush to pass more gun laws after things like VT happen are silly. 20,000 laws aren't enough? Did any of those laws stop the crime? Will passing more laws stop future incidents like this? What else could we possibly pass? After 20,000 laws what have we left out?

In this case the killer bought his guns legally. And really, there was nothing on his public record that would have raised a flag during the purchase. If his medical history was a part of his brady check then maybe he would have had to look elsewhere to buy his guns. So this begs the question... How much information should the government keep on people in regards to gun purchases? (Wow.. that's an whole other thread there)

But, even if he had he been denied a purchase due the Brady check the gun dealer ran on him do you think he would have stopped there? Of course not. You don't have to be a gang banger or a drug dealer to buy a gun from some place other than a gun store. This was a guy who planned his actions out well in advance. There is literally nothing you can do to stop someone like that.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

Absolutely false.
Cho could have bought a gun in ANY state. The NICs check are the same regardless of the state that submits for it.

But I wont let facts rain on your parade. Carry on.

Allow me to correct you. The federally mandated background check for firearms purchases excludes the right for those deemed mentally defective. Virginia's definition of mental defective is different from those of other states. Virginia requires that the person be committed to a mental health facility to have the mental defective tag applied. Therefore, while the NIC check is the same, the criteria provided by the state of Virginia allowed this mental defective to purchase firearms.

This, along with the gun show loophole are things that need to be corrected.

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.

If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.

bingo. sacrifice and compromise.

that cartoon makes no sense, btw.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.

If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.

bingo. sacrifice and compromise.

that cartoon makes no sense, btw.

I have already addressed those points, they are unfounded fears.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: DonVito
All that cartoon has taught me (or, more precisely, reminded me) is that most political cartoons are about as funny as a bad car accident.

:thumbsup:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. But the laws by themselves don't stop people from doing bad things.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Yeah, just like the law against murder stopped Cho from shooting anyone.

DUHHHHHHH!!

Don't you know that's illegal!!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Yeah, just like the law against murder stopped Cho from shooting anyone.

DUHHHHHHH!!

Don't you know that's illegal!!

Haha, I love the peace symbol on the guys belt.

 

[Number1]

Gun control worked in Australia

 

[The Yeti]

That?s interesting. Could you please explain the dramatic rise in firearm homicides between the years of 1999 ? 2001? I believe that was three years after a total firearms ban had been implemented onto the subjects of Australia.

 

[Rainsford]

While I think there are a fair number of decent arguments against gun control, I'm not sure this is one of them. Yeah, criminals break the law, so why even bother having laws in the first place? I'm not just talking about gun control, I'm talking about EVERYTHING. If breaking the gun laws isn't going to bother a sociopath, why would laws against murder? If we assume that all bad people are willing to break any law, why have laws in the first place? Good people aren't going to do bad things anyways, and bad people won't be stopped by laws...that's the message, right?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
While I think there are a fair number of decent arguments against gun control, I'm not sure this is one of them. Yeah, criminals break the law, so why even bother having laws in the first place? I'm not just talking about gun control, I'm talking about EVERYTHING. If breaking the gun laws isn't going to bother a sociopath, why would laws against murder? If we assume that all bad people are willing to break any law, why have laws in the first place? Good people aren't going to do bad things anyways, and bad people won't be stopped by laws...that's the message, right?

A law against murder does not stop a law abiding citizen from protecting themself, a law against carrying a firearm does. Thats the difference.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford
While I think there are a fair number of decent arguments against gun control, I'm not sure this is one of them. Yeah, criminals break the law, so why even bother having laws in the first place? I'm not just talking about gun control, I'm talking about EVERYTHING. If breaking the gun laws isn't going to bother a sociopath, why would laws against murder? If we assume that all bad people are willing to break any law, why have laws in the first place? Good people aren't going to do bad things anyways, and bad people won't be stopped by laws...that's the message, right?

A law against murder does not stop a law abiding citizen from protecting themself, a law against carrying a firearm does. Thats the difference.

Well that's really a whole different argument, isn't it? You can certainly argue gun ownership from a personal protection standpoint (although I think guns are WAY overrated in terms of how useful they actually are in that regard), but that has nothing to do with whether or not the bad guys will follow the law or not.

As an aside, because I don't think this is an argument for gun control, I think gun folks dramatically overestimate how useful guns are when it comes to protecting yourself. The stereotype is the man of the house blazing away with his AR-15 as a bunch of robbers/murderers/rapists try to break down the door, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. For one thing, if gun owners are any way to judge, owning a gun seems to make people extremely overestimate their own self-defense prowess. The suburban commando stereotype isn't true for everyone, but enough that I wonder about the effects guns have on this sort of thing. And someone who doesn't really understand self-defense or personal safety, but who has a gun, seems way more likely to get himself into a situation even his gun won't protect him against. By FAR the safest thing to do if someone is trying to break into your house is to go out the backdoor, Rambo bullshit is way more likely to get you killed than anything else. Protecting yourself is about having some common sense more than anything else, and I don't see how gun ownership helps bring any more of that to the table...quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Oh good grief... I don't see why you don't get the concept. A law by itself will not stop someone from doing harm to another. Laws are only preventative in nature if we choose to obey them. Otherwise they are a reactive measure used to compare an act against.

That law about "Murder" didn't save those 32 people at VT. It was in place. And all the other students agreed to abide by it. But it didn't stop the little creep from doing it anyway.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, we don't need a law against murder, it's not going to stop anyone from killing people...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Oh good grief... I don't see why you don't get the concept. A law by itself will not stop someone from doing harm to another. Laws are only preventative in nature if we choose to obey them. Otherwise they are a reactive measure used to compare an act against.

That law about "Murder" didn't save those 32 people at VT. It was in place. And all the other students agreed to abide by it. But it didn't stop the little creep from doing it anyway.

And nobody is arguing that laws by themselves are going to do anything...so get a better argument.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Oh good grief... I don't see why you don't get the concept. A law by itself will not stop someone from doing harm to another. Laws are only preventative in nature if we choose to obey them. Otherwise they are a reactive measure used to compare an act against.

That law about "Murder" didn't save those 32 people at VT. It was in place. And all the other students agreed to abide by it. But it didn't stop the little creep from doing it anyway.

And nobody is arguing that laws by themselves are going to do anything...so get a better argument.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. I'm just bored. 😀

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Now, Whoozyerdaddy, are you just trying to be obtuse and difficult for the sake of twisted participation? "Laws don't stop crimes" Without law, there is no crime. Laws define crime. They provide society with an artificial set of morals. Without laws, you have anarchy and I don't care what your "cool" friends say, anarchy is no way to have a society.

If you read anything I've posted in this thread you'd see that you have almost quoted me verbatim. I said specifically that laws define what a crime is. We all agree to live by these laws. therefore the laws by themselves stop people from doing bad things.

fixed your mutually exclusive comment

Oh good grief... I don't see why you don't get the concept. A law by itself will not stop someone from doing harm to another. Laws are only preventative in nature if we choose to obey them. Otherwise they are a reactive measure used to compare an act against.

That law about "Murder" didn't save those 32 people at VT. It was in place. And all the other students agreed to abide by it. But it didn't stop the little creep from doing it anyway.

And nobody is arguing that laws by themselves are going to do anything...so get a better argument.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. I'm just bored. 😀

Heh, fair enough...I suppose that's what happens when the debate starts with a cartoon 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, we don't need a law against murder, it's not going to stop anyone from killing people...

b
Oviously just the ones who are law abiding..... if you get my drift.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, we don't need a law against murder, it's not going to stop anyone from killing people...

I don't see murder listed as a right in the Bill of Rights...

 

[slash196]

I say we outlaw all guns except muzzle-loading black powder muskets, the way the Framers intended it to be.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: slash196
I say we outlaw all guns except muzzle-loading black powder muskets, the way the Framers intended it to be.

That could certainly save us a bunch of money on defense.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
So funny, so sad, so true.

Too bad the gun grabbers are just too dense to realize you cant pass LAWS to protect people from LAW BREAKERS.

Click

I see things drawn in crayon are right down your alley. :roll: