Mass Shootings and Gun Control

[GlobeSpotter]

guns, backpacks, duffle bags, usps packages, or threaded pipe bombs,.....never will mass murder be preventable.

Want this instead?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10...ey-bomb-blast/



.

[Wakeup]

Yes. I would love for Americans to have no other option to kill someone except for a sucicide bomb...

[GlobeSpotter]

Few shooters plan to survive.

Your point is pointless.

[Wakeup]

I don't care if they survive...and you missed the point entirely...

The technical skills to build the bomb, the time needed to build it, the restrictions on acquiring the materials, building it in secret, and the nervousness about it detonating while building it, all help to dissuade Americans from using them.

Too much time, effort, skill and secrecy are needed to do it compared to grabbing mom's semi auto, buying some ammo at Wal Mart, and blasting away.

That's the point...

[GlobeSpotter]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

I don't care if they survive....

I didn't ask if you cared. My point was the killer cares....that he or she prefer to end up dead.

Originally Posted by Wakeup

.....and you missed the point entirely....

Your points are easy to miss.

One of my points,....is the killing of people can't be stopped.

About two months ago, I returned to my house just after midnight. Right in the street in front of my house, I witness the end of a physical dispute between two locals

I literally witnessed a cold blooded murder.

They were domestic animals and, apparently, they had been in a dispute. They fought to the weaker one's death. One brutally murdered the other.

They were wrapped up when I arrived so I stopped with the headlights on them.

The winner got a little nervous about me and let off his grip and then sat and watched over the other. About two minutes later, the near dead one had one last surge of life and stretched all four legs out. And then it was over.....dead. Murdered by bare paws.

So no laws; no confiscation of weapons; no political message; no religious commandments will stop people from killing each other. It's a natural process that can't be stopped.

So maybe the smart and daring ones build backpack bombs. Others will use their vehicle. Others kitchen knives. Others a jerry can of gasoline and a Bic lighter.

Can't be stopped.

Okay.....your turn to move the point around to keep arguing.

.

[dearhunter]

If retards don't want to become victims, I suggest they arm themselves.

[Wakeup]

So, by your logic, other countries that don't allow access to firearms should have much higher incidents of vehicular manslaughter, stabbing homocides, and homemade bomb casualties than we do her in the States...

Heh, since I already knew the answer to those questions before I started down this path, let me know what you find...

The simple fact is if you make it harder for people to kill each other, they actually don't kill each other in groups as much...we dumbass Americans fail to realize that, and instead believe that if we make it easier for everyone to kill each other, then we won't kill each other in groups out of deterrence...

We see how well that has worked...

P.S.-Trying to convince people that I'm advocating for there to never be a homocides of any type anywhere is going to be a bit hard...especially since the topic here is mass shootings...try to stay on it...

[Oralist]

The main point of the bill is to help get the severely mentally disturbed off the streets and not give them any access to firearms. Murphy doesn't say it will solve all of the mass shooting, issues, but it gives administrators and physicians the power to report people they view as severely disturbed. It is also to help with the suicide rate. Many of the mass shooters are actually committing suicide. The bill is not a cure all, but a sensible step in the right direction.

"Murphy’s sprawling bill would amend the existing federal privacy laws, so that in cases of serious mental illness (and only in those cases), a consulting doctor would have the ability to call the patient’s parent or caregiver and share information about medications and follow-up treatment. Not incidentally, that’s when a doctor might also learn something about guns in the home.
That same loosening of the privacy laws would apply to universities and other institutions, so that administrators could let parents know if a student had been treated for an acute bout of mental illness.
Under 2646, Medicaid would no longer deny reimbursement for hospitals with more than 16 psychiatric beds — a decades-old rule meant to shut down hospitals of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest variety. Nor would the program prohibit urgent-care doctors from immediately handing off a patient to a psychiatrist without having to wait a day, as it does now.
If you try to buy a gun tomorrow, the federal database for background checks will flag you as a threat only if you’ve been given involuntary treatment for mental illness — that is, if you’ve been forcibly brought to a hospital or committed against your will. Murphy wants to increase the number of therapists and available beds in rural communities, to make involuntary commitment a more practical option for judges."

[dearhunter]

I am thincking that more than one of those christians lined up on that wall were wishing they had a gun on their person

[Asianhobbyist]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

So, by your logic, other countries that don't allow access to firearms should have much higher incidents of vehicular manslaughter, stabbing homocides, and homemade bomb casualties than we do her in the States...

Heh, since I already knew the answer to those questions before I started down this path, let me know what you find...

The simple fact is if you make it harder for people to kill each other, they actually don't kill each other in groups as much...we dumbass Americans fail to realize that, and instead believe that if we make it easier for everyone to kill each other, then we won't kill each other in groups out of deterrence...

We see how well that has worked...

P.S.-Trying to convince people that I'm advocating for there to never be a homocides of any type anywhere is going to be a bit hard...especially since the topic here is mass shootings...try to stay on it...

Your reason is sound , but remember the cat is already out of the bag with over 300 million firearms in the country already and you are dealing with a heavy gun-toting crowd in TX.

The gun lovers love the 2nd amendment, but I wonder how many are actually in a well-regulated militia? Besides, who cares about what a few old dicks wrote almost 250 years ago?, times have changed, people have changed, and technologies have as well. Blindly holding onto a short sentence is just foolish.

[Wakeup]

Heh. I've seen what civilians do in a panic scenario...if any of them had guns, they'd have most likely either shot themselves or someone other then the perpetrator...

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Asianhobbyist

Your reason is sound , but remember the cat is already out of the bag with over 300 million firearms in the country already and you are dealing with a heavy gun-toting crowd in TX.

That point is irrelevant. I'm not talking about solving the problem tomorrow, that's impossible. I'm talking about solving the problem in 50-75 years by making it damn near impossible to get and keep a gun tomorrow...

[Asianhobbyist]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

That point is irrelevant. I'm not talking about solving the problem tomorrow, that's impossible. I'm talking about solving the problem in 50-75 years by making it damn near impossible to get and keep a gun tomorrow...

It's just not possible. Even if no more guns get bought there is still so much in circulation it will last for all purposes for a ver, very long time. Even if the government launches a lucrative buyback program (and it won't happen due to funds, out roar from the gun lovers' etc.) it still won't reduce the stock enough to make it 'safe.'

The gun lovers would love to say that everyone should just arm themselves to prevent danger. But if someone wanted to shoot you unawares or in the back like that cop at chevron several months ago there isn't shit you can do about it.

You are absolutely right in that making it harder to kill people we can reduce the mass shootings (duh, right?). But Americans often can't see the obvious and would prefer to argue through endless debates on a short sentence written by some old fuck a long time ago rather than use their real, big head for logic.

Such is the country we live in.

[GlobeSpotter]

Originally Posted by dearhunter

I am thincking that more than one of those christians lined up on that wall were wishing they had a gun on their person

Me thincks so, too.

Me also thincks it wouldn't have helped these people:



.






That were minding their own business in this building:

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Asianhobbyist

It's just not possible. Even if no more guns get bought there is still so much in circulation it will last for all purposes for a ver, very long time. Even if the government launches a lucrative buyback program (and it won't happen due to funds, out roar from the gun lovers' etc.) it still won't reduce the stock enough to make it 'safe.'

You're still thinking about living in today's world, with today's laws...I'm not...