Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

[daveman]

Simple. He could have been required to talk to a trained professional about the guns he was purchasing. He could have explained why he needed an assault rifle with 6,000 rounds.

Explaining why you need the weapons does not in any way infringe on your rights, and would have saved lives.

Are you living in some world where you think people always answer truthfully to questions? Because unless you are, there is a very easy way to get around your new "obstacle".

You lie.

Let's says someone who wants to commit mass murder of innocent people is asked what he needs an assault rifle with 6000 rounds. If he is thinking this out, what exactly do you think he is going to answer:

1) I am planning to kill alot of innocent people in a movie theatre/schoo/[insert place] massacre.
2) Self - defense
3) I'm a collector
4) Hunting

For some reason, I don't think he is going to answer number 1, do you?

How about instead of trying to force weapons out of the hands of people, you convince them through persuasion not to be violent? Or how about you arm yourself and take responsibility for your own defense rather than putting that responsibility on someone else?

So the solution you propose is, in part, arm yourself to deter a shooting?

Archie Bunker on Gun Control - YouTube

Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime | RedState

The Real Story on Gun Use

Lott found almost 90% of the time, people stopped criminals simply by exhibiting a gun. But the media mentioned in <1% of their stories that attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop them. Three academic surveys (Journal of Criminal Justice) found about two million “defensive gun uses” occur each year. Guns are used defensively 4x more frequently than for committing crimes.​

 

[daveman]

So the solution you propose is, in part, arm yourself to deter a shooting?

Archie Bunker on Gun Control - YouTube

The solution I propose is taking responsibility for oneself.

Yes, you said, "arm yourself and take responsibility for your own defense rather than putting that responsibility on someone else."

So is it enough to simply have your husband carry an Uzi or should the misses have to carry one too? What about the kids...should they be "responsible" too and carry weapons?

Or you could use logic and stop with the hyperemotionalism.

 

[candycorn]

So is it safe to assume that you think nothing can be done (I agree) and no measures should be taken to mitigate it (I disagree)?

People who want to commit crimes WILL commit crimes.

No criminal was ever deterred by a gun-free zone sign.

Now what steps do you think should be taken to mitigate it? Bear in mind disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

I think the move to limit magazine and clip size has promise--limit it to six rounds.

You get to keep your weapons as outlined by the Constitution which is silent about the size of the clip...no constitutional infringement there.

Let me guess, this is a bad idea too, right?

 

[daveman]

So the solution you propose is, in part, arm yourself to deter a shooting?

You betcha.

So how has that worked out for you in the past week?

You're being fed a carefully-crafted vision of gun ownership by the media. And it's not accurate.

From the link I just posted:

Just in 2001, ABC, CBS, and NBC had 190,000 words in gun-crime stories on their national news broadcasts. But there was no story about the private citizen using a gun to crime-stop. Almost as bad, the New York Times had 50,745 words on gun crimes, but only 163 words on a robbery stopped by a police officer who used his gun. The USA Today had 5,660 words on gun crimes, but nothing on defensive uses.​

 

[OODA_Loop]

If every adult in that theatre was armed, more people would have died because a bunch of hero wannabes would have been firing off shot after shot and people would have been caught in the crossfire.

If everybody or a chance someone was armed in that theater he wouldnt have chosen it.

 

[candycorn]

Are you living in some world where you think people always answer truthfully to questions? Because unless you are, there is a very easy way to get around your new "obstacle".

You lie.

Let's says someone who wants to commit mass murder of innocent people is asked what he needs an assault rifle with 6000 rounds. If he is thinking this out, what exactly do you think he is going to answer:

1) I am planning to kill alot of innocent people in a movie theatre/schoo/[insert place] massacre.
2) Self - defense
3) I'm a collector
4) Hunting

For some reason, I don't think he is going to answer number 1, do you?

How about instead of trying to force weapons out of the hands of people, you convince them through persuasion not to be violent? Or how about you arm yourself and take responsibility for your own defense rather than putting that responsibility on someone else?

So the solution you propose is, in part, arm yourself to deter a shooting?

Archie Bunker on Gun Control - YouTube

Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime | RedState

The Real Story on Gun Use

Lott found almost 90% of the time, people stopped criminals simply by exhibiting a gun. But the media mentioned in <1% of their stories that attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop them. Three academic surveys (Journal of Criminal Justice) found about two million “defensive gun uses” occur each year. Guns are used defensively 4x more frequently than for committing crimes.​

Curious...do you find a flaw in Bunker's idea to pass out pistols to all who board airplanes as a way of preventing skyjacking? If so, why: In light of what you just posted.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now you see why America leads the world in gun deaths each year among developed nations. More guns is not the answer to gun violence...that is proven by the statistics.

So just let criminals have guns is the answer. Got it.

 

[candycorn]

If every adult in that theatre was armed, more people would have died because a bunch of hero wannabes would have been firing off shot after shot and people would have been caught in the crossfire.

If everybody or a chance someone was armed in that theater he wouldnt have chosen it.

Really? I though he was a psycho. So now he's a psycho who weighs risk and reward?

 

[candycorn]

And now you see why America leads the world in gun deaths each year among developed nations. More guns is not the answer to gun violence...that is proven by the statistics.

So just let criminals have guns is the answer. Got it.

Sorry, the statistics prove over and over that more guns is not the answer to gun violence. Your sniping isn't going to change them. Grow a pair.

 

[daveman]

So is it safe to assume that you think nothing can be done (I agree) and no measures should be taken to mitigate it (I disagree)?

People who want to commit crimes WILL commit crimes.

No criminal was ever deterred by a gun-free zone sign.

Now what steps do you think should be taken to mitigate it? Bear in mind disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

I think the move to limit magazine and clip size has promise--limit it to six rounds.

You get to keep your weapons as outlined by the Constitution which is silent about the size of the clip...no constitutional infringement there.

Let me guess, this is a bad idea too, right?

It's not a good one.

Let's see where criminals get their weapons, shall we?

Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime | RedState

Source of firearms possessed by Federal inmates; 1997 Data source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

Now, how many of those weapons transfers would be stopped by more stringent laws? How many are illegal already?

And I ask again, how are you going to convince criminals to start obeying the law?

 

[daveman]

So the solution you propose is, in part, arm yourself to deter a shooting?

Archie Bunker on Gun Control - YouTube

Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime | RedState

The Real Story on Gun Use

Lott found almost 90% of the time, people stopped criminals simply by exhibiting a gun. But the media mentioned in <1% of their stories that attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop them. Three academic surveys (Journal of Criminal Justice) found about two million “defensive gun uses” occur each year. Guns are used defensively 4x more frequently than for committing crimes.​

Curious...do you find a flaw in Bunker's idea to pass out pistols to all who board airplanes as a way of preventing skyjacking? If so, why: In light of what you just posted.

Your average airline passenger has no idea what can't be shot in an airliner. Shootouts you see on planes in the movies are bullshit.

Why are you so dead-set on disarming innocent people?

 

[candycorn]

People who want to commit crimes WILL commit crimes.

No criminal was ever deterred by a gun-free zone sign.

Now what steps do you think should be taken to mitigate it? Bear in mind disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

I think the move to limit magazine and clip size has promise--limit it to six rounds.

You get to keep your weapons as outlined by the Constitution which is silent about the size of the clip...no constitutional infringement there.

Let me guess, this is a bad idea too, right?

It's not a good one.

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

 

[candycorn]

Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime | RedState

The Real Story on Gun Use

Lott found almost 90% of the time, people stopped criminals simply by exhibiting a gun. But the media mentioned in <1% of their stories that attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop them. Three academic surveys (Journal of Criminal Justice) found about two million “defensive gun uses” occur each year. Guns are used defensively 4x more frequently than for committing crimes.​

Curious...do you find a flaw in Bunker's idea to pass out pistols to all who board airplanes as a way of preventing skyjacking? If so, why: In light of what you just posted.

Your average airline passenger has no idea what can't be shot in an airliner. Shootouts you see on planes in the movies are bullshit.

Why are you so dead-set on disarming innocent people?

Well, I was asking the question based on the insane assumption that brandishing a weapon is a deterrent to ciminials--ala "If that happened in Texas he'd be gunned down..." statement.

If they passed out pistols to every man, woman, child, steward, pilot, etc... it would stop the skyjackings, would it not? A lot of planes would be brought down by unplanned discharges and people with itchy trigger fingers I guess but, hey, we need to let innocent people have weapons, right?

 

[daveman]

And now you see why America leads the world in gun deaths each year among developed nations. More guns is not the answer to gun violence...that is proven by the statistics.

So just let criminals have guns is the answer. Got it.

Sorry, the statistics prove over and over that more guns is not the answer to gun violence. Your sniping isn't going to change them. Grow a pair.

Actually, you're wrong.

John Lott's Website: So what happened to Chicago's Murder and Violent Crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago's gun laws?

Data sources in the link.

It's crystal clear: Legal gun ownership reduces crime.

 

[daveman]

I think the move to limit magazine and clip size has promise--limit it to six rounds.

You get to keep your weapons as outlined by the Constitution which is silent about the size of the clip...no constitutional infringement there.

Let me guess, this is a bad idea too, right?

It's not a good one.

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Because you'd only be impacting people who obey the law.

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?

 

[daveman]

Curious...do you find a flaw in Bunker's idea to pass out pistols to all who board airplanes as a way of preventing skyjacking? If so, why: In light of what you just posted.

Your average airline passenger has no idea what can't be shot in an airliner. Shootouts you see on planes in the movies are bullshit.

Why are you so dead-set on disarming innocent people?

Well, I was asking the question based on the insane assumption that brandishing a weapon is a deterrent to ciminials--ala "If that happened in Texas he'd be gunned down..." statement.

If they passed out pistols to every man, woman, child, steward, pilot, etc... it would stop the skyjackings, would it not? A lot of planes would be brought down by unplanned discharges and people with itchy trigger fingers I guess but, hey, we need to let innocent people have weapons, right?

Okay, if you just want to be an emotional hand-wringer, you can continue without me.

I've shown that legal gun ownership reduces crime. The facts are indisputable. And you have countered the facts with not facts, but emotionalism.

 

[candycorn]

Your average airline passenger has no idea what can't be shot in an airliner. Shootouts you see on planes in the movies are bullshit.

Why are you so dead-set on disarming innocent people?

Well, I was asking the question based on the insane assumption that brandishing a weapon is a deterrent to ciminials--ala "If that happened in Texas he'd be gunned down..." statement.

If they passed out pistols to every man, woman, child, steward, pilot, etc... it would stop the skyjackings, would it not? A lot of planes would be brought down by unplanned discharges and people with itchy trigger fingers I guess but, hey, we need to let innocent people have weapons, right?

Okay, if you just want to be an emotional hand-wringer, you can continue without me.

I've shown that legal gun ownership reduces crime. The facts are indisputable. And you have countered the facts with not facts, but emotionalism.

And the IQ of the debate rises with your exit. Being armed to the teeth is apparently a wise foreign policy....just curious why you think it is a good idea sometimes but not a good idea other times.

Accidental shootings are a cost of doing business in Conserve-istan.

 

[Si modo]

All republican opinions involve after-the-fact punitive measures rather than any kind of prevention other than hypothetical heroes with more guns, honestly, I feel most people lack the grit to shoot it out with an armored psychopath outside of fantasy scenarios discussed over brews at the gun club.

To the bolded: How ironic, since the lefties are the ones reacting with demands for new laws which will punish more law abiding citizens than anyone else.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

Actually the best idea is to follow the Second amendment and do away with all the gun laws that have reduced the right to bear arms to the privileged to own certain hand guns, certain types of ammo and can only carry them in certain ways.

of course the dim answer; BAN ALL GUNS, THEN WE WILL MAGICALLY BE SAFE.

A completely failed idea, but try to convince them of the truth and you get called nut-job for standing up for their rights.

 

[candycorn]

It's not a good one.

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Because you'd only be impacting people who obey the law.

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?

Well, the impact would be non-existent. What impact are you talking about? The ability to only mow down 6 people without reloading instead of 7? Certainly there is no 2nd amendment infringement. No infringement on hunters, collectors, etc...

As for ciminials, they will be able to get whatever they want as long as there are people willing to sell it to them (there's your answer by the way). What it does is give law enforcement more tools to use to sieze weapons with larger clips/magazines. What it stops is someone like this gentleman in CO that was able to shoot, apparently, large numbers of rounds without re-loading.

It's a common sense approach while preserving the 2nd amendment rights to gun ownership.

Please tell us the horrible impact such a rule would have?