CLOSED

15455575960164

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    According to the BBC ,the shooter had 3 guns and had just had a row with his mother-in-law.
  • Apparently the media only cares if it’s a white man shooting people up. No need to worry about the 600+ deaths in Chicago currently.

    Funny how you had no issue with the media response to it earlier?

    "I've heard it was an illegal Mexican muslim it's all the brown peoples fault"

    Actually it was a white American-

    "THE MEDIA ONLY CARE BECAUSE HE'S WHITE"

    So I'm assuming you're a racist as well as an idiot. Lovely.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,722
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

    I did read what you said, so you are confirming the shooter can not be blamed for anything, and were he still alive, he would not have been prosecuted or served a day in prison for any death he caused.

    Your article said he bought a gun, there is nothing illegal in what he did, even he was banned from buying one and/or deemed illegal for him to carry a weapon. I'm not even advocating for gun control in this argument (because you'll only go on a long rant if I do), but the point is the shooter did not break a single law when he bought his gun.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

    I did read what you said, so you are confirming the shooter can not be blamed for anything, and were he still alive, he would not have been prosecuted or served a day in prison for any death he caused.

    Your article said he bought a gun, there is nothing illegal in what he did, even he was banned from buying one and/or deemed illegal for him to carry a weapon. I'm not even advocating for gun control in this argument (because you'll only go on a long rant if I do), but the point is the shooter did not break a single law when he bought his gun.

    You’re not making any sense man?

    If it’s illegal for him to own a gun then he cannot legally purchase a gun?

    So if he lived he would be arrested for mass murder and they’d also slap an illegal possession of a firearm on him. Where did I ever say he wouldn’t be arrested and he didn’t do anything wrong? You’re probably not from America so you do not understand how the process of buying a gun even works. They have to background check you and ID you.

    If they did that then they would’ve seen he was discharged from the military and he had a felony arrest which would not allow him to make that purchase. Whoever sold him the gun will hopefully be arrested and be in prison for a very long time. No I don’t believe anyone should own an assault rifle but he should’ve never been allowed to own a gun because of his felony arrest. Pretty simple..
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,722
    You’re not making any sense man?

    If it’s illegal for him to own a gun then he cannot legally purchase a gun?

    I am making perfect sense, but you are not putting 2 and 2 together. Re-read the article you posted and what I wrote in my previous message. The shooter did not break any laws when buying the gun. You don't want gun control or anything like that? Fine. But he legally bought that gun.

    It's illegal for a 10 years old to buy alcohol. But he/she cannot get into trouble if the store willingly sold him/her the booze despite being fully aware he/she was underaged.

    If that gun-shop owner where the shooter bought the gun either didn't check his background, or knew full-well about the shooter being banned from carrying a gun, the only one at fault is whoever made the sale happen. The shooter, with some super good lawyer and enough money, could easily walk away as a free man from any trials if he were still alive.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    I'm assuming the White House finds it "too soon" to discuss any sort of change regarding gun control, just like I'm guessing it's still "too soon" to discuss those bump stocks and the Las Vegas shooting, even though it happened over a month ago.

    Wasn't too soon to call out the non-white guy responsible for that New York shooting, though! I'm also assuming we'll just pay our condolences to the families affected for the next few days, and go radio silent on it all until the next shooting occurs as usual?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm assuming the White House finds it "too soon" to discuss any sort of change regarding gun control, just like I'm guessing it's still "too soon" to discuss those bump stocks and the Las Vegas shooting, even though it happened over a month ago.

    Wasn't too soon to call out the non-white guy responsible for that New York shooting, though! I'm also assuming we'll just pay our condolences to the families affected for the next few days, and go radio silent on it all until the next shooting occurs as usual?
    @Creasy47, didn't the 'non-white' guy in NYC use a truck to kill people? I'm pretty sure it wasn't a gun, but I confess that I haven't been following the story.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

    I did read what you said, so you are confirming the shooter can not be blamed for anything, and were he still alive, he would not have been prosecuted or served a day in prison for any death he caused.

    Your article said he bought a gun, there is nothing illegal in what he did, even he was banned from buying one and/or deemed illegal for him to carry a weapon. I'm not even advocating for gun control in this argument (because you'll only go on a long rant if I do), but the point is the shooter did not break a single law when he bought his gun.

    You’re not making any sense man?

    If it’s illegal for him to own a gun then he cannot legally purchase a gun?

    So if he lived he would be arrested for mass murder and they’d also slap an illegal possession of a firearm on him. Where did I ever say he wouldn’t be arrested and he didn’t do anything wrong? You’re probably not from America so you do not understand how the process of buying a gun even works. They have to background check you and ID you.

    If they did that then they would’ve seen he was discharged from the military and he had a felony arrest which would not allow him to make that purchase. Whoever sold him the gun will hopefully be arrested and be in prison for a very long time. No I don’t believe anyone should own an assault rifle but he should’ve never been allowed to own a gun because of his felony arrest. Pretty simple..

    I think we're the only guys on this board who aren't anti gun.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,722
    It's not about being anti-gun, by your own current laws the only one who did anything illegal when the shooter bought the gun (despite being illegal for him to carry) is the gun-shop guy (or whoever) that provided the gun to him. That shooter, were he still alive, would have laughed in the face of any prosecutor, judges, the family of the victims and the police when he'd walk away free as a bird.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Remington wrote: »
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

    I did read what you said, so you are confirming the shooter can not be blamed for anything, and were he still alive, he would not have been prosecuted or served a day in prison for any death he caused.

    Your article said he bought a gun, there is nothing illegal in what he did, even he was banned from buying one and/or deemed illegal for him to carry a weapon. I'm not even advocating for gun control in this argument (because you'll only go on a long rant if I do), but the point is the shooter did not break a single law when he bought his gun.

    You’re not making any sense man?

    If it’s illegal for him to own a gun then he cannot legally purchase a gun?

    So if he lived he would be arrested for mass murder and they’d also slap an illegal possession of a firearm on him. Where did I ever say he wouldn’t be arrested and he didn’t do anything wrong? You’re probably not from America so you do not understand how the process of buying a gun even works. They have to background check you and ID you.

    If they did that then they would’ve seen he was discharged from the military and he had a felony arrest which would not allow him to make that purchase. Whoever sold him the gun will hopefully be arrested and be in prison for a very long time. No I don’t believe anyone should own an assault rifle but he should’ve never been allowed to own a gun because of his felony arrest. Pretty simple..

    I think we're the only guys on this board who aren't anti gun.

    Hey I have guns for protection. I’d rather have something versus being completely defenseless. The man who shot and killed the shooter also had an AR-15. The shooter could’ve easily killed 50 people but only killed 26. He saved lives. It’s an extremely small town. I doubt anyone on this forum has been to this town before. I have. I know people who live there. They do not even have their own police department or any type of law enforcement. In Texas there are a lot of small towns who have no firemen or police.

    To the people saying I am a racist that is so laughable.. CNN brought experts in who want gun control last year during a mass College attack. They stopped reporting when it was learned that the attacker was a Somalian refugee who hit people with his car and stabbed people. He was killed by a civilian with a handgun! They act like Chicago isn’t newsworthy. I’m not some crazy gun toting American. No one should own anything more than a handgun or hunting rifle. Yes I hunt and my family owns land. If you want a gun there should be a lot of heavy restrictions. I don’t agree with all these crazy liberal trump haters who think we should just ban all guns completely.

    My point is, criminals and murderers will always find a way to get a gun or to do something illegal. No law can stop a criminal from committing a crime or murder. I do not think people realize how lucky we are that an innocent bystander owned a gun and took out that evil b@stard. He’s a hero.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    It's not about being anti-gun, by your own current laws the only one who did anything illegal when the shooter bought the gun (despite being illegal for him to carry) is the gun-shop guy (or whoever) that provided the gun to him. That shooter, were he still alive, would have laughed in the face of any prosecutor, judges, the family of the victims and the police when he'd walk away free as a bird.

    Maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that after killing 26 civilians, he would have been allowed to walk? I know our justice system isn't the greatest but come on. If that's what you're implying. I promised myself to stay off these topics.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,534
    Remington wrote: »
    It was illegal for the shooter to even own a gun.. Read this article. So he actually wasn’t even legally allowed to own a gun.

    So this shooter did nothing wrong, and assuming he hadn't killed himself/gotten shot by armed police, should just walk away free without any trial or jail time?

    Did you even read what I said? He illegally obtained a gun..? An armed citizen killed him. He was dying from his injuries. Called his dad said he wouldn’t make it before dying.

    I did read what you said, so you are confirming the shooter can not be blamed for anything, and were he still alive, he would not have been prosecuted or served a day in prison for any death he caused.

    Your article said he bought a gun, there is nothing illegal in what he did, even he was banned from buying one and/or deemed illegal for him to carry a weapon. I'm not even advocating for gun control in this argument (because you'll only go on a long rant if I do), but the point is the shooter did not break a single law when he bought his gun.

    You’re not making any sense man?

    If it’s illegal for him to own a gun then he cannot legally purchase a gun?

    So if he lived he would be arrested for mass murder and they’d also slap an illegal possession of a firearm on him. Where did I ever say he wouldn’t be arrested and he didn’t do anything wrong? You’re probably not from America so you do not understand how the process of buying a gun even works. They have to background check you and ID you.

    If they did that then they would’ve seen he was discharged from the military and he had a felony arrest which would not allow him to make that purchase. Whoever sold him the gun will hopefully be arrested and be in prison for a very long time. No I don’t believe anyone should own an assault rifle but he should’ve never been allowed to own a gun because of his felony arrest. Pretty simple..

    I think we're the only guys on this board who aren't anti gun.

    Hey I have guns for protection. I’d rather have something versus being completely defenseless. The man who shot and killed the shooter also had an AR-15. The shooter could’ve easily killed 50 people but only killed 26. He saved lives. It’s an extremely small town. I doubt anyone on this forum has been to this town before. I have. I know people who live there. They do not even have their own police department or any type of law enforcement. In Texas there are a lot of small towns who have no firemen or police.

    To the people saying I am a racist that is so laughable.. CNN brought experts in who want gun control last year during a mass College attack. They stopped reporting when it was learned that the attacker was a Somalian refugee who hit people with his car and stabbed people. He was killed by a civilian with a handgun! They act like Chicago isn’t newsworthy. I’m not some crazy gun toting American. No one should own anything more than a handgun or hunting rifle. Yes I hunt and my family owns land. If you want a gun there should be a lot of heavy restrictions. I don’t agree with all these crazy liberal trump haters who think we should just ban all guns completely.

    My point is, criminals and murderers will always find a way to get a gun or to do something illegal. No law can stop a criminal from committing a crime or murder. I do not think people realize how lucky we are that an innocent bystander owned a gun and took out that evil b@stard. He’s a hero.

    My thoughts as well, my friend. I come from a family of gun owners and live in the country so I know what you mean.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Remington wrote: »
    It's not about being anti-gun, by your own current laws the only one who did anything illegal when the shooter bought the gun (despite being illegal for him to carry) is the gun-shop guy (or whoever) that provided the gun to him. That shooter, were he still alive, would have laughed in the face of any prosecutor, judges, the family of the victims and the police when he'd walk away free as a bird.

    Maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that after killing 26 civilians, he would have been allowed to walk? I know our justice system isn't the greatest but come on. If that's what you're implying. I promised myself to stay off these topics.


    Exactly. He would most likely get the death penalty in Texas. He still killed 26 people. Including a pregnant woman. You are also not allowed to have a firearm in church. He still broke many laws. Murder being the big one...
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,722
    Remington wrote: »
    [Maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that after killing 26 civilians, he would have been allowed to walk? I know our justice system isn't the greatest but come on. If that's what you're implying. I promised myself to stay off these topics.

    Yes, under your laws he should. He bought that gun legally, thus he was ID checked/the works during the sale. The shooter should be allowed to walk away freely without spending a day in jail, and he probably would with the help of a top lawyer.
    Exactly. He would most likely get the death penalty in Texas. He still killed 26 people. Including a pregnant woman. You are also not allowed to have a firearm in church. He still broke many laws. Murder being the big one...

    If by 'he' you mean whoever sold him the gun, then sure, give that person the death penalty (as you put it). But not the shooter.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I'm curious as to which news source stated the killer was an illegal Mexican immigrant who had recently converted to Islam? That is so specific and yet so far away from the actual truth and was 'reported' so quickly after the event - I'd like to investigate that news source.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's actually more likely he would have received the death penalty. My understanding is Texas still has capital punishment and what he did would have probably qualified (killing minors).
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    I'm curious as to which news source stated the killer was an illegal Mexican immigrant who had recently converted to Islam? That is so specific and yet so far away from the actual truth and was 'reported' so quickly after the event - I'd like to investigate that news source.


    I have friends who live in the area.
    It kinda blew up. Facebook and Twitter. Even cnn and nbc gave out false information about the shooter. It was everywhere. Not sure where they got that from.

    Also the guns were bought in Colorado and Texas.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    No I don’t believe anyone should own an assault rifle
    No one should own anything more than a handgun or hunting rifle.
    The man who shot and killed the shooter also had an AR-15. The shooter could’ve easily killed 50 people but only killed 26. He saved lives.
    I do not think people realize how lucky we are that an innocent bystander owned a gun and took out that evil b@stard. He’s a hero.

    Not being an American I wasn't taught about guns at school so I may be wrong but isn't an AR-15 an assault rifle?

    It certainly doesn't look like the sort thing you'd use to shoot deer here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

    So you thank god that guy was there to save the day but if you had your way he wouldn't be allowed to own his assault rifle so the day would not have been saved? Surely then it would be better if everyone were forced to carry an assault rifle at all times?


    In the interests of balance though I have to say @DaltonCraig007 has totally lost the plot here thinking that the guy would walk free because the shop owner should have prevented him from buying it in the first place.

    So if I'm underage and I buy a bottle whisky then smash the end off and start stabbing someone in the neck like Joe Pesci till their carotid artery spurts a fountain of blood 15 feet in the air a good lawyer will get me off because the guy at the shop didn't scrutinise my ID closely enough? That's not how the law works. Otherwise anyone who committed any crime could just blame their parents for having them in the first place and get off.

    People are responsible for their own actions. So this guy, no matter if was given the gun free by Presidential decree, would go to prison. Similarly at some point American society might need to wake up to the fact that by letting every man and his dog be allowed to tool themselves up like Arnie in Commando they are responsible for a lot of dead bodies.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 7,507
    We are not talking about the penalty for the killings. @DaltonCraig007 is challenging the statement that he broke the law in buying the gun.

    Actually the question of wether the killer was legally qualified to posess a gun is irrelevant. In most of the mass shootings the killer has no criminal record anyway, and in this specific instance, the fact of the matter us that although the killer was not legally qualified to obtain a gun, was still easily able to get hold of one. The point is that you have created an environment where guns are a common posession, a natural entity. That makes them easy to get hold of, either you are qualified or not. You always claim that anyone intent on comitting or kill would be able to easily obtain a gun anyway. That is the point. In America this is the case, not in countries with strict gun laws where guns are a rare obscurity. If I wanted to get hold of a gun to comit a massacre that would not be an easy operation at all. Even trying to do so would require me to seriously contemplate if this, for whatever reason, would be worth the struggle. The fact that emotionally or mentally unstable people can easily get hold of a gun and act more or less on impulse, is the problem.

    The fact that guns are a common entity also make them less dramatic. The very thought of using them is more natural than for someone who have barely seen a gun and don't consider them a natural posession to have.

    And, to ask the same unanswered rhetorical question again: If gun laws don't explain the extreme and unparalelled rate of gun related homocides and mass killings in the United States, what is your alternative explanation?
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    So question for non USA people. Are you suggesting no one should be legally allowed to own a gun at all? What are the gun laws in your area? I heard there’s some places overseas that won’t even allow you to own an airsoft gun? The problem in Texas is that when the nearest police station is 15-20 minutes away sometimes hours what are people supposed to do?

    Mass shootings typically last under 15 minutes. They happen extremely fast. 9/10 times the shooter will commit suicide. You look at school shootings and what happens? Columbine the cops just stood outside for a few hours while kids were being murdered. Most people I know who own guns are well trained. Normally pretty active at gun ranges or hunt frequently. Pretty common in the country you first start shooting at around 12-13.

    I live near Austin in a city area and people casually walk around with pistols on a regular basis. People do not carry assault rifles in public or shotguns. It’s not un-common to see people with hand guns just casually strolling around. Maybe it’s just the culture. I am sure there are things I might find unusual or weird overseas in certain towns.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Guns kill people, the average Joe/Jane should not be allowed to have a gun. The huge amounts of shootings in your country is the best argument against anybody owning a gun.

    That said I am afraid it is too late for the US, you've got so many guns floating around and nuts having shedloads of them that the rest of the world will accept the regular shootings. Only CNN and their ilk all want the world to know how bad it is. It isn't as long as the US society allows freedom of weaponry. You kill more of your own than any terrorist can ever make up. I'd be more afraid of Americans than any Islam extremist.

    And from your attitude about the law being too far away I feel it is a bit like the old west. The rest of the civilization has grown and moved on, the only folks who have not sound like your neck of the woods.

    Am I hearing any dueling banjos? ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,722
    Since any form of gun control will most likely never be implemented in the USA, then I suggest that any professional firearm store employees who sell guns to individuals who weren't allowed to own and/or carry a gun (either because they didn't do the ID check, or they did and willfully sold the gun despite being fully aware the customer wasn't allowed to carry) should get the death penalty alongside the shooter (if he doesn't die in the shooting). No matter what state the gun store employee is from, even if from a state where there is no death penalty, he should be held in equal responsibility in a similar case to yesterday's shooting. Maybe that way this could stop some of shootings where the perpetrator wasn't allowed to carry a weapon in the first place.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Guns kill people, the average Joe/Jane should not be allowed to have a gun. The huge amounts of shootings in your country is the best argument against anybody owning a gun.

    That said I am afraid it is too late for the US, you've got so many guns floating around and nuts having shedloads of them that the rest of the world will accept the regular shootings. Only CNN and their ilk all want the world to know how bad it is. It isn't as long as the US society allows freedom of weaponry. You kill more of your own than any terrorist can ever make up. I'd be more afraid of Americans than any Islam extremist.

    And from your attitude about the law being too far away I feel it is a bit like the old west. The rest of the civilization has grown and moved on, the only folks who have not sound like your neck of the woods.

    Am I hearing any dueling banjos? ;)

    I disagree.. I don’t live in the country but I have been out there. Someone’s shooting up a school or public place. Nearest police station is 2 hours away. You just suggest locals just sit there and die? CNN is a major cancer to the world. It’s turned into a biased talk show featuring a bunch of gay liberals who would rather force agendas into their viewers. Unfortunately every news station now is either full liberal or full republican. Cannot stand it. What happened to just accurately saying hey this is what’s going on and here are the facts goodbye. I remember seeing on Twitter that the Manchester bombing happened after I got home from work.

    Turned on the tv and the news didn’t report anything until the next day. No breaking news nothing. I had family over there at the concert. Was worried sick about them. CNN will never show news that oh might suggest a Muslim terrorist attack. They recently tried to say the Russians used Pokémon go to hack the election. Pokémon... That’s for a different discussion and topic however...

    No you cannot goto Walmart and throw $20 at a cash register and they give you a gun. It’s not that simple. Most mass shootings the guns fall into the hands of the wrong people. Columbine the shooters had a friend with a clean record buy the guns then paid that friend. Sandy hook shooter took the guns from his family safe.

    It’s been reported that a majority of the mass shootings that have happened recently could’ve been prevented and the attackers/suspects were known to the police or FBI. I was a consultant to the FBI when a shooting at a mall occurred in Washington. Shooter vanished. I helped the FBI track the shooter and he was found within 10 minutes.. I am just a civilian on a laptop. It’s scary to think the FBI couldn’t find a mass shooter but I could just using some social media skills in a different state.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Still you talk about the distance of the police like you live in a lawless country, which with the amount of guns around is perhaps true. This is the chicken or egg argument, which created the problem the abundance of guns or the lack of guns?

    Still the argument remains guns kill. What is wrong with a strong enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of folks you don't want them to have?- What is wrong telling people that is no longer permitted to have an arsenal of guns but one is permitted. perhaps it is the American way TOO MUCH is GOOD.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Still you talk about the distance of the police like you live in a lawless country, which with the amount of guns around is perhaps true. This is the chicken or egg argument, which created the problem the abundance of guns or the lack of guns?

    Still the argument remains guns kill. What is wrong with a strong enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of folks you don't want them to have?- What is wrong telling people that is no longer permitted to have an arsenal of guns but one is permitted. perhaps it is the American way TOO MUCH is GOOD.

    I don’t think you understand..
    If you live out in the country you need a gun. If you have livestock and make a living off of that you have to worry about your animals being killed by snakes, coyotes and other wild animals. Farmers and ranchers need them. Maybe you haven’t experienced what it’s like to be out in the middle of no where but it’s pretty much a necessity. I can’t imagine any farmers/ranchers overseas not having a rifle or pistol. Not like you can just call the police and say oh no a snake is eating my chickens come out and take care of it.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    I just think we should regulate guns the way we do cars. And are people allowed to drive tanks around? No? So no assault weapons allowed.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,003
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I just think we should regulate guns the way we do cars. And are people allowed to drive tanks around? No? So no assault weapons allowed.

    Yeah like I said. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle or semi automatic rifle. Bigger question is why is someone with a felony who was discharged from the military allowed to even buy/own a gun.

    Why not just ban anyone with a criminal record or mental illness record from owning a firearm. I am all for more restrictions.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Why not just ban anyone with an arrest record or mental illness record from owning a firearm. I am all for more restrictions.
    Don't you mean "conviction record"? Lots of people get arrested then are found not guilty. Just sayin'.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Why not just ban anyone with an arrest record or mental illness record from owning a firearm. I am all for more restrictions.
    Don't you mean "conviction record"? Lots of people get arrested then are found not guilty. Just sayin'.

    Oops! I meant a criminal record. Meaning they were arrested and convicted of a crime. Felons are already banned from owning guns in Texas, but typically after five years they can have one in their home. I think felons should NEVER be allowed to own a gun ever.
This discussion has been closed.