Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

[Si modo]

Before firearms were developed by mankind, no one was ever murdered.



Right?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Explaining why you need the weapons does not in any way infringe on your rights,

Yes it does. The fact I have to explain my reasoning is an infringement. My rights are not based on my personal reason for needing them and you approving of that reason.

Where did I say any approval was needed? I didn't. I didn't say it because that WOULD be an infringement. But merely explaining your actions, taking personal responsibility, that doesn't infringe anything. But, it would give us a warning when a crazy person buys an assault rifle and 6,000 rounds.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Who, specifically, said do nothing? I think everyone in the theater should sue the crap out of Cinemark over their no guns policy.

If you can find any idea of what can be done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people I'd love to see it. So far not too many righties have even attempted to answer. Trust...I've asked several times.

Before the ACLU brought their lawsuit in the 80s, any person could identify someone they thought was slipping into delusional insanity and have the police remove that person into an institution where they were kept against their will. The man who owned the gun club where Holmes applied to be a member could have, with one phone call, had the police go to Holmes' home and take him into custody. That was then. This is now.

As a result of that lawsuit, the standard is extremely high, the person has to be an imminent danger to himself or others. Under that standard, the truly insane mass murderers could not be apprehended until they had actually started shooting. Up until then there was no "imminent" danger. The insane have rights. They have civil liberties. No one is qualified to judge someone else. They are being judgmental of anyone whose different. Dying one's hair orange isn't against the law.

This is aside from the equally as real fact that it is impossible to protect society from the very sudden dip into the crazy pool. Over and over again mass murders have been committed by persons without guns, William Bonin murdered more than 30 boys and never used a gun. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. The 911 hijackers didn't have any guns.
Itzcoatl Ocampo didn't use a gun. David Ben Keyes didn't use a gun.

There is no way to stop insanity and the truly committed to murder from committing those murders.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Before firearms were developed by mankind, no one was ever murdered.

Right?

Yep. Ask a dumb question get a dumb answer

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Six people dying before a reload is an acceptable number ?

 

[daveman]

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.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to pretend that. After all, you're driven solely by emotion.

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.

Are you really claiming I should support an idea you got from a sitcom?

Really?

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

I see you choose to ignore all the crimes prevented by legal gun owners. Why is that?

Let me rub it in your face:

Criminal Attacks Stopped by Guns This Year:
6225071

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995​

Why do you want to disarm innocent people?

 

[daveman]

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).

So you really just want to disarm innocent people.

All that does is create more victims. Murderers, rapists, and thieves appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

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.

You do know, don't you, that a weapon that will accept a large magazine will also accept a small one, right?

And you just said you wanted to make 7 or more round magazines illegal. Now you've got the cops seizing weapons.

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

Wrong. You just said you want the cops to seize weapons.

That is, of course, what you'd prefer.

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

You're making a decision for people when you have no right or authority to.

You really don't. You should accept that.

 

[daveman]

Explaining why you need the weapons does not in any way infringe on your rights,

Yes it does. The fact I have to explain my reasoning is an infringement. My rights are not based on my personal reason for needing them and you approving of that reason.

Where did I say any approval was needed? I didn't. I didn't say it because that WOULD be an infringement. But merely explaining your actions, taking personal responsibility, that doesn't infringe anything. But, it would give us a warning when a crazy person buys an assault rifle and 6,000 rounds.

And how many interviewers do you think would need to be hired? What would their qualifications need to be? You want to make a determination of psychological status...so the interviewers would need to be qualified to do so.

In August of last year, over 800,000 weapons were sold. How long would an interviewer need to decide if a prospective buyer is crazy? Let's say an hour.

That's 800,000 man hours per MONTH, or 9.6 million hours per YEAR. One guy working a 40-hour week, 50 weeks a year is worth 2,000 hours.

So you need 4,800 interviewers to cover the whole year. A federal psychologist is in the pay grade of GS11/13. This year, that ranges from $50K to $93K. We'll average it at $71,500.

You want to spend $343,200,000 a year on people with no authority to deny a gun purchase.

That's pretty damn stupid, isn't it?

 

[tinydancer]

I put this up in another thread. It will give you the perfect example of a liberal politician's "answer and remedy" to gun violence in a major city.

A few years back Toronto had this insane left wing wacko Mayor, David Miller who decided that the appropriate action to take against gun violence in the city was to ban legal gun clubs and shooting ranges on public property.

Brilliant don't you think? Ban legal gun owners from legal gun clubs. Meanwhile the gang bangers were still dealing drugs and shooting up neighborhoods with illegal weapons.

Liberals never cease to amaze me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Six people dying before a reload is an acceptable number ?

yes dummy

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Bull shit, I am rabidly Pro Gun and I think there are things that could be done.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Who, specifically, said do nothing? I think everyone in the theater should sue the crap out of Cinemark over their no guns policy.

If you can find any idea of what can be done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people I'd love to see it. So far not too many righties have even attempted to answer. Trust...I've asked several times.

I have yet to hear any of you OWS parasites explain your ideas of how to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. All I ever hear you parasites talk about are bitter people clinging to their religion and guns. I hear none of you pissbags speak to "dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous people" beyond that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Bull shit, I am rabidly Pro Gun and I think there are things that could be done.

I know you've laid out the argument very nicely

 

[American Horse]

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.

Its more common sense then "grit". In a darkened theater with tear gas all around..you are more likely to hit a civilian then the nut.

What was the shooter using for light? The ambient light from the movie screen right? An individual with a hand gun and shooting skills would've taken the shooter out before the shooter knew what he was about. This shooter was a coward, and a good shot wouldve neutralized him, forthwith.

 

[daveman]

I put this up in another thread. It will give you the perfect example of a liberal politician's "answer and remedy" to gun violence in a major city.

A few years back Toronto had this insane left wing wacko Mayor, David Miller who decided that the appropriate action to take against gun violence in the city was to ban legal gun clubs and shooting ranges on public property.

Brilliant don't you think? Ban legal gun owners from legal gun clubs. Meanwhile the gang bangers were still dealing drugs and shooting up neighborhoods with illegal weapons.

Liberals never cease to amaze me.

Gun control isn't about guns.

It's about control.

Mayor Miller proved it.

 

[Noomi]

Before firearms were developed by mankind, no one was ever murdered.



Right?

Not by guns.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Before firearms were developed by mankind, no one was ever murdered.



Right?

Not by guns.

Wow that is insightful, and before airplanes noone flew, wow how do you get such wisdom? And we're supposed to listen to you on political issues? No thanks!

 

[candycorn]

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

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Six people dying before a reload is an acceptable number ?

The question was to how to mitigate the catastrophe. Since 6 is less than 7; it is a mitigation; not acceptable. I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

I knew that. It is why I asked.

Your a gun banner, but talk other obfuscatory crap like Obama. But like Obama if pressed your core values show everytime.

 

[daveman]

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

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

Six people dying before a reload is an acceptable number ?

The question was to how to mitigate the catastrophe. Since 6 is less than 7; it is a mitigation; not acceptable. I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?