PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,806
- Reaction score
- 22,774
How many would satisfy you? How many would be worth it?
ban the fucking guns
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
How many would satisfy you? How many would be worth it?
DeaconSig
Well-known member
He's just asking a question.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
Probably zero. It's depressing that the best our leaders can do is for one party to muster up drama over a gun law that at best tinkers at a tiny edge of the gun problem, and the other party refused to countenance even that tinkering. They're all fiddling while Rome burns.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Imagine how bad it would have been without the sit in.
You're so right. After decades of the GOP being owned by the NRA, everything would obviously change in 24 hours. Why not?
BTW, I noticed you didn't respond to being shown multiple sources showing Trump being paid $1,500,000/speech. My bad, facts don't matter to you.
BTW, I noticed you didn't respond to being shown multiple sources showing Trump being paid $1,500,000/speech. My bad, facts don't matter to you.
Yes, it's depressingly stupid. The best we can do is have a useless sit in to just try and have a public debate and vote on a little law that won't do much, if anything, to curtail the gun death epidemic. Pathetic. I tried to pos rep this but apparently I have to spread some reputation around before repping another one of your posts.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
...by people who have all had background checks and intensive training.
Thanks for your oh so helpful response, Ph. I just get so tired of people pointing to all the tragic shootings as evidence that we need gun law reform and then proposing gun law reforms that wouldn't have stopped any of the tragic shootings they are pointing to as evidence. I'm just all like "what"
The mass shootings get the press and are horribly tragic, but reforms that address the shootings that happen every day would be much more impactful.
The universal background check and waiting until the check have been completed without a time limit WOULD have stopped the Mother Emanuel Massacre. Due to a stupid law in SC, the shooter got a gun he wasn't legally entitled to buy. Thus you premise that none of the changes would stop a tragic massacre is flat out false.
Banning 15+ magazines would have grossly lessened the impact in Aurora, Gabby Giffords and others. In these cases and others, the shooters couldn't have gotten the expanded capacities and wreaked as much havoc. Thus, you are wrong again that sensible gun laws wouldn't have stopped or lessened the damage done.
In AZ, the Giffords massacre was stopped, not by the guy who was strapped, but when the shooter stopped to replace his large clip/magazine. This is not in dispute.
The Columbine shooters bought some of their guns at a gun show from an unlicensed seller. AGAIN, your premise that these sensible laws wouldn't have stopped any of these events.
EVERY DAY there are murders committed by guns bought at gun shows. If you don't think terrorists know about being able to buy guns at gun shows with no back ground check or paperwork, then you are being willfully naive.
You premise has been proven TOTALLY FALSE and a LIE created by the NRA and gun apologists. Having sensible gun law WOULD HAVE FLAT OUT stopped Mother Emmanuel and would have lessened many other awful events. These are simple, historic FACTS.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,806
- Reaction score
- 22,774
No shit. People who support gun control are trying to do whatever little they can that would get past the paranoid gun nuts. Mass shootings get far more news coverage than everyday gun violence so that's why gun control advocates try to get momentum for sensible measures when they happen.
Last edited:
Strickland33
Well-known member
They're also throwing their weight behind a really troubling proposal, though.
The "gun control people" have two proposals. The first is universal background checks. The other is "no fly-no buy".
What is "troubling" about either?
Strickland33
Well-known member
That doesn't change the fact that it's a really troubling proposal.
Strickland33
Well-known member
No fly, no buy encourages racial profiling and discourages due process. Do not want.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
This.
RChildress107
Well-known member
I don't really get this line of thinking. The no-fly list (at least as currently maintained) is troubling. There is nothing troubling to me about tacking no-buy on there as well.
Restricting access to guns for people on the no-fly list doesn't make it any more urgent to fix the no-fly list.
The proposal is a win-win for democrats. If it passes then Republicans will get on board to fix the no-fly list and if it doesn't (as was the case) Republicans get shit for being unwilling to do anything on gun control.