Dem. lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must exploit shooting

Crazy thought (I mean crazy) if people are looking for a scapegoat, why not blame the public school system? I mean think about it. Let's put our smallest, weakest, least educated, least mature life stage, aka children, in several thousand compounds across the country for several hours a day, completely unsupervised by their parents. Places are f*cking magnets for the criminally insane. We're talking sadists, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, mass murderers. I like to think if these kids were at home, or at least better guarded (frickin schools can't even protect some kids in broad daylight), they might still be alive.

crazy rant against public schools/

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

No one steals a dog to the express purpose of having it bite another person, people steal guns all the time for the purpose of being used in criminal activity. They have to be fined or something because losing something of that nature has to be punished, otherwise people will continue to be careless with items that end people's lives.

Yusuke420

Thank god this isn't how the law works.

No one wants their gun to be stolen from them to be used in a crime. That's why most people lock them up. You can't be held responsible for something that has been stolen from you, not if you weren't negligent about it.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More gun control would not have prevented what happened.....such hyperbole.Wasdie

lol yes your right, if the people killing people with guns had no guns the problems would not happen:roll:

Because it's totally feasible to eliminate the majority of guns from the US through enforcing stricter gun control laws.

Stricter gun control would only affect new gun owners buying from licensed dealers, would not stop the 300+ million other firearms in the nation from being traded second hand. There is no way to effectively curb second hand sales.

Also, sweeping law enforcement and spending trillions to rid our country of drugs has worked really well. Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's just been a massive money sink that has accomplished nothing but overloading our jails.

How about using that money to increase our education budget, identify people with mental illness sooner, and treat them young.

Logic in this thread. From Wasdie nonetheless

I am pleased.

Most people are negligent though, there was a story just last week about a man who had four high powered rifles stolen from him home. When the reported asked him where he kept them, he said in a unlocked shed in his backyard. C'mon now certainly you don't believe this man should be off the hook completely, do you?

Yusuke420

You need proof to back that statement up.

Crazy thought (I mean crazy) if people are looking for a scapegoat, why not blame the public school system? I mean think about it. Let's put our smallest, weakest, least educated, least mature life stage, aka children, in several thousand compounds across the country for several hours a day, completely unsupervised by their parents. Places are f*cking magnets for the criminally insane. We're talking sadists, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, mass murderers. I like to think if these kids were at home, or at least better guarded (frickin schools can't even protect some kids in broad daylight), they might still be alive.

crazy rant against public schools/

BATTOSAI76

[QUOTE="BATTOSAI76"]

Crazy thought (I mean crazy) if people are looking for a scapegoat, why not blame the public school system? I mean think about it. Let's put our smallest, weakest, least educated, least mature life stage, aka children, in several thousand compounds across the country for several hours a day, completely unsupervised by their parents. Places are f*cking magnets for the criminally insane. We're talking sadists, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, mass murderers. I like to think if these kids were at home, or at least better guarded (frickin schools can't even protect some kids in broad daylight), they might still be alive.

crazy rant against public schools/

Yusuke420

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="BATTOSAI76"]

Crazy thought (I mean crazy) if people are looking for a scapegoat, why not blame the public school system? I mean think about it. Let's put our smallest, weakest, least educated, least mature life stage, aka children, in several thousand compounds across the country for several hours a day, completely unsupervised by their parents. Places are f*cking magnets for the criminally insane. We're talking sadists, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, mass murderers. I like to think if these kids were at home, or at least better guarded (frickin schools can't even protect some kids in broad daylight), they might still be alive.

crazy rant against public schools/

LJS9502_basic

They would be on campus for a variety of reasons, but it would also be effective at trying to prevent things like this from happening. To say this should recieve no response to attention because it's so rare is absolutely irresponsible. If we can prevent this type of thing, we should do everything in our power to stop them. We put up with the TSA at our airsports, but having police on every campus is too much to ask?

They would be on campus for a variety of reasons, but it would also be effective at trying to prevent things like this from happening. To say this should recieve no response to attention because it's so rare is absolutely irresponsible. If we can prevent this type of thing, we should do everything in our power to stop them. We put up with the TSA at our airsports, but having police on every campus is too much to ask?

Yusuke420

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Most people are negligent though, there was a story just last week about a man who had four high powered rifles stolen from him home. When the reported asked him where he kept them, he said in a unlocked shed in his backyard. C'mon now certainly you don't believe this man should be off the hook completely, do you?

airshocker

You need proof to back that statement up.

No one steals a dog to the express purpose of having it bite another person, people steal guns all the time for the purpose of being used in criminal activity. They have to be fined or something because losing something of that nature has to be punished, otherwise people will continue to be careless with items that end people's lives.

Yusuke420

What??? People who are the victim of a crime should be punished?

Man, you always learn something new reading this forum. I never see sh!t like this on Facebook, I think because people don't want their real names associated with ideas this stupid.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

No one steals a dog to the express purpose of having it bite another person, people steal guns all the time for the purpose of being used in criminal activity. They have to be fined or something because losing something of that nature has to be punished, otherwise people will continue to be careless with items that end people's lives.

Palantas

What??? People who are the victim of a crime should be punished?

Man, you always learn something new reading this forum. I never see sh!t like this on Facebook, I think because people don't want their real names associated with ideas this stupid.

You should have to pay a fine if someone picks your pocket on the subway.fernandmondego_

I guess. If they go spend that money on booze and then cause a wreck you should probably be liable for that.

At least I am putting ideas forward, you folks seem to find the status quo totally acceptable. I'll never find the fact that 5 and 6 year olds got blown away before their lives even began to unfold. We have to at the very least have a sharing of ideas in order to move toward this never happening again.

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]You should have to pay a fine if someone picks your pocket on the subway.Palantas

I guess. If they go spend that money on booze and then cause a wreck you should probably be liable for that.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More gun control would not have prevented what happened.....such hyperbole.Wasdie

lol yes your right, if the people killing people with guns had no guns the problems would not happen:roll:

Because it's totally feasible to eliminate the majority of guns from the US through enforcing stricter gun control laws.

Stricter gun control would only affect new gun owners buying from licensed dealers, would not stop the 300+ million other firearms in the nation from being traded second hand. There is no way to effectively curb second hand sales.

Also, sweeping law enforcement and spending trillions to rid our country of drugs has worked really well. Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's just been a massive money sink that has accomplished nothing but overloading our jails.

How about using that money to increase our education budget, identify people with mental illness sooner, and treat them young.

It's beyond me that America have yet to learn this. Of course, stricter gun control must be implemented to lower the frequency of gun rampage.

The US should look at other countries and take note. We can't let this keep happening.

GamerwillzPS

Here

Yusuke420

Where? I'm not reading that entire thing. Quote me the passage where it says most gun owners are negligent.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More gun control would not have prevented what happened.....such hyperbole.Wasdie

lol yes your right, if the people killing people with guns had no guns the problems would not happen:roll:

Because it's totally feasible to eliminate the majority of guns from the US through enforcing stricter gun control laws.

Stricter gun control would only affect new gun owners buying from licensed dealers, would not stop the 300+ million other firearms in the nation from being traded second hand. There is no way to effectively curb second hand sales.

Also, sweeping law enforcement and spending trillions to rid our country of drugs has worked really well. Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's just been a massive money sink that has accomplished nothing but overloading our jails.

How about using that money to increase our education budget, identify people with mental illness sooner, and treat them young.

obama's drone strikes probably got them by now

They would be on campus for a variety of reasons, but it would also be effective at trying to prevent things like this from happening. To say this should recieve no response to attention because it's so rare is absolutely irresponsible. If we can prevent this type of thing, we should do everything in our power to stop them. We put up with the TSA at our airsports, but having police on every campus is too much to ask?

Yusuke420

So then they'll go to another place where there's a large concentration of children...

This is all too predictable. Obama's crocodile tears at the post-shooting press conference were sickening. His comment about needing to take some sort of action was all I needed to know that dems would head in this direction. They may have orchestrated this one, just like the Aurora and Sikh Temple shootings.

hartsickdiscipl

Words escape me on how to best articulate how fvcking stupid and crazy you are.

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah, look at NYC and Chicago. It has worked really well for them:roll:

BluRayHiDef

We don't have mass murder here (yet?) in NYC, but that doesn't mean that the strict gun laws have worked. I heard six gun shots last night; I'm residing in Brownsville Brooklyn.

We don't have mass murder here (yet?) in NYC, but that doesn't mean that the strict gun laws have worked. I heard six gun shots last night; I'm residing in Brownsville Brooklyn.

MgamerBD

That is impossible. New York has very strict gun laws, therefore that cannot happen.

The people here arguing that we need stricter gun control are missing the point. This kid would have gotten his hands on a gun. His mother had a number of guns in their home that were legally owned. What are you going to do.. ban guns from homes with kids who are autistic? Please..

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is all too predictable. Obama's crocodile tears at the post-shooting press conference were sickening. His comment about needing to take some sort of action was all I needed to know that dems would head in this direction. They may have orchestrated this one, just like the Aurora and Sikh Temple shootings.

sSubZerOo

Words escape me on how to best articulate how fvcking stupid and crazy you are.

You don't articulate very well in general, so this is not surprising.

Yea, because we shouldn't allow the murder of a classroom of 6-year-olds to deter future mass-murderers from easy access to semi-automatic weapons...Netherscourge

Because we should absolutely punish those who had nothing to do with this horrific crime.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Yea, because we shouldn't allow the murder of a classroom of 6-year-olds to deter future mass-murderers from easy access to semi-automatic weapons...airshocker

Because we should absolutely punish those who had nothing to do with this horrific crime.

Taking away people's ability to kill other people is not punishment. It's progress. Is time to get out of the 17th century and move forward with the rest of the civilized world.Netherscourge

Taking away the liberties of those who don't use their firearms for such a purpose isn't progress. It's tyranny.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Taking away people's ability to kill other people is not punishment. It's progress. Is time to get out of the 17th century and move forward with the rest of the civilized world.airshocker

Taking away the liberties of those who don't use their firearms for such a purpose isn't progress. It's tyranny.

i agree to this

If anything comes out of this, it wouldn't be removal of firearms. If anything, I'd expect something similar to the old expired assault weapons ban which limited things like clip capacity and grip types, if I recall correctly.

But I really don't see even that happening in this climate. Nor do I think it would be a good policy to pursue (looking at the issue realistically, I just don't see how new regulations will make a significant impact on these types of crimes).mattbbpl

I don't see how worrying about whether I have a pistol grip or a collapsable buttstock will make any significant difference to the reduction of these types of crimes. What it will accomplish is forcing me to sell my already customized AR-15 that I've put quite a bit of money into.

And you've already banned 30 round magazines in most places in the North East. The only things allowed are magazines that are pre-ban.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Yea, because we shouldn't allow the murder of a classroom of 6-year-olds to deter future mass-murderers from easy access to semi-automatic weapons...Netherscourge

Because we should absolutely punish those who had nothing to do with this horrific crime.

Yeah because after GB banned handguns, killings made by knives and baseball bats didn't increase whatsoever.

Weak gun laws enabled the mentally ill to commit mass murder. I'd say preventing his access to any type of gun in the first place would have prevented this. Idiots claim that decent, law abiding citizens shouldn't lose their "right" to own guns,yet this guy got his guns off his decent, law-abiding mother who was a GM owner and collector. Thus, exposing the complete idiocy of the gun system and the obsolete 2nd amendment which should be stricken from the constitution.Netherscourge

In what world does it make sense that you would punish responsible gun owners because a person stole weapons from their mother? Please explain this to me.

It would be like somebody stealing a kitchen knife from you, using it to kill multiple people, and then the liability resting with you. Topped off with a crusade against owners of kitchen knives. It makes no fvcking sense.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Because we should absolutely punish those who had nothing to do with this horrific crime.

WhiteKnight77

Yeah because after GB banned handguns, killings made by knives and baseball bats didn't increase whatsoever.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Taking away people's ability to kill other people is not punishment. It's progress. Is time to get out of the 17th century and move forward with the rest of the civilized world.Netherscourge

Yeah because after GB banned handguns, killings made by knives and baseball bats didn't increase whatsoever.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Weak gun laws enabled the mentally ill to commit mass murder. I'd say preventing his access to any type of gun in the first place would have prevented this. Idiots claim that decent, law abiding citizens shouldn't lose their "right" to own guns,yet this guy got his guns off his decent, law-abiding mother who was a GM owner and collector. Thus, exposing the complete idiocy of the gun system and the obsolete 2nd amendment which should be stricken from the constitution.airshocker

In what world does it make sense that you would punish responsible gun owners because a person stole weapons from their mother? Please explain this to me.

It would be like somebody stealing a kitchen knife from you, using it to kill multiple people, and then the liability resting with you. Topped off with a crusade against owners of kitchen knives. It makes no fvcking sense.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Yeah because after GB banned handguns, killings made by knives and baseball bats didn't increase whatsoever.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Weak gun laws enabled the mentally ill to commit mass murder. I'd say preventing his access to any type of gun in the first place would have prevented this. Idiots claim that decent, law abiding citizens shouldn't lose their "right" to own guns,yet this guy got his guns off his decent, law-abiding mother who was a GM owner and collector. Thus, exposing the complete idiocy of the gun system and the obsolete 2nd amendment which should be stricken from the constitution.Netherscourge

In what world does it make sense that you would punish responsible gun owners because a person stole weapons from their mother? Please explain this to me.

It would be like somebody stealing a kitchen knife from you, using it to kill multiple people, and then the liability resting with you. Topped off with a crusade against owners of kitchen knives. It makes no fvcking sense.

Perhaps his makes sense? If his mother didn't have guns, he wouldn't have guns. I'd say its a good bet that he's not going to have the courage, skill or strength to kill 26 people in less than an hour with a knife or baseball bat. What's sad is that I'm trying to explain this to you people in the first place.Netherscourge

And if a drunk driver didn't get behind the wheel of a car, his victim would still be alive. I don't see you trying to ban cars everytime someone dies because of one.

You can't stop all crime. The world doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"] Killings overall decreased though. And to compare the leathailty of guns to baseball bats and knives is pretty dumb.Netherscourge

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]If anything comes out of this, it wouldn't be removal of firearms. If anything, I'd expect something similar to the old expired assault weapons ban which limited things like clip capacity and grip types, if I recall correctly.

But I really don't see even that happening in this climate. Nor do I think it would be a good policy to pursue (looking at the issue realistically, I just don't see how new regulations will make a significant impact on these types of crimes).airshocker

I don't see how worrying about whether I have a pistol grip or a collapsable buttstock will make any significant difference to the reduction of these types of crimes. What it will accomplish is forcing me to sell my already customized AR-15 that I've put quite a bit of money into.

And you've already banned 30 round magazines in most places in the North East. The only things allowed are magazines that are pre-ban.

Oh, I agree. I'm not an advocate for most of the weapons regulations that have been proposed in recent years. I'm mostly just saying that I don't think you have to worry about someone taking away your firearms - it's very unlikely to occur.mattbbpl

Unfortunately it's an opinion that has to be fought against.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Perhaps his makes sense? If his mother didn't have guns, he wouldn't have guns. I'd say its a good bet that he's not going to have the courage, skill or strength to kill 26 people in less than an hour with a knife or baseball bat. What's sad is that I'm trying to explain this to you people in the first place.airshocker

And if a drunk driver didn't get behind the wheel of a car, his victim would still be alive. I don't see you trying to ban cars everytime someone dies because of one.

You can't stop all crime. The world doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Perhaps his makes sense? If his mother didn't have guns, he wouldn't have guns. I'd say its a good bet that he's not going to have the courage, skill or strength to kill 26 people in less than an hour with a knife or baseball bat. What's sad is that I'm trying to explain this to you people in the first place.Yusuke420

And if a drunk driver didn't get behind the wheel of a car, his victim would still be alive. I don't see you trying to ban cars everytime someone dies because of one.

You can't stop all crime. The world doesn't work that way.

We aren't going to give up, but going after gun rights isn't going to reverse the gun culture and all of the firearms currently in circulation. Prevention of further mass murders has to be more with the treating of mental illness.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Weak gun laws enabled the mentally ill to commit mass murder. I'd say preventing his access to any type of gun in the first place would have prevented this. Idiots claim that decent, law abiding citizens shouldn't lose their "right" to own guns,yet this guy got his guns off his decent, law-abiding mother who was a GM owner and collector. Thus, exposing the complete idiocy of the gun system and the obsolete 2nd amendment which should be stricken from the constitution.Netherscourge

In what world does it make sense that you would punish responsible gun owners because a person stole weapons from their mother? Please explain this to me.

It would be like somebody stealing a kitchen knife from you, using it to kill multiple people, and then the liability resting with you. Topped off with a crusade against owners of kitchen knives. It makes no fvcking sense.