Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mredskins

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

Actually its pretty stupid because its his mother.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Actually its pretty stupid because its his mother.

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mredskins

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS!

I don't think people buy guns ever thinking they need to protect themself from their own child. So it is stupid. I don't think when you here your son coming up the steps you grab a gun just in case he has decided to kill you. Lets say I buy into that and she did not own and asult rifle. I guess he would have just went on his way and not used another type of gun.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mredskins

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS!

A crime was committed initially when he took her gun without her permission. She should have secured the weapon correctly, he shouldn't have taken it.

Who's to say he wouldn't have used another method to dispatch his mother if she had secured the weapons?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

A crime was committed initially when he took her gun without her permission. She should have secured the weapon correctly, he shouldn't have taken it.

Who's to say he wouldn't have used another method to dispatch his mother if she had secured the weapons?

He didn't steal the guns. He killed her and inherited them.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by mredskins

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS!

She was asleep when he shot her. Please tell me about what heroic feats you perform while asleep.

That is the most idiotic thing I have read on the internet this year.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mredskins

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS!

Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. Zero percent chance. If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. Zero percent chance. If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.

And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.

I don't think this is the place to try to mix two decisive political battles. Let's focus this on the gun issue. We can discuss this in another thread, if you so desire.

The supreme court has yet to definitively rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I read it as the point to guns is to maintain a militia (army) and others think that means more of an ad-hoc fashion militia where if shit goes wrong you band together.

It was wrong of my to push my interpretation of the 2nd ammendment on others since it has not been sufficiently defined.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself. If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.

And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.

As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself.

I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Lotus

If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.

No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

[quote=Lotus;978294]And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?

Originally Posted by Lotus

As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.

Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

[Lotus]

[quote=RedskinRat;978331]I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.



No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

[quote=Lotus;978294]And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.

Originally Posted by Lotus

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?



Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. Zero percent chance. If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

I can.