Terror on the Strip! Sniper guns down concert goers ...

[Reynolds]

Of course all the gun control Communists are now all over TV spewing their trash.

 

[TCassidy]

if making something illegal doesn't stop it happening then there is no point in criminalising it.

Once again you seem to have missed the point. Criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are criminals. Duh!

 

[Reynolds]

Well, folks, the first pictures of the firearms used have been released.

As you can see, it is an AR-15 style clone with a bump stock.

View attachment 1777

That is a weird magazine. Look how wide it is.

 

[Reynolds]

For the record, when liberals stop murdering Innocent babies, I might talk to them about guns.

 

[TCassidy]

That is a weird magazine. Look how wide it is.

It is an extra-high capacity mag from Slide Fire. It is a full double stack rather than being just an off-set stack. Probably holds 60 rounds.

 

[Don]

I didn't say you said it should be illegal. I said you appear to be saying it should be legal - that is indeed the thrust of your last post: if making something illegal doesn't stop it happening then there is no point in criminalising it.

His point was NOT that making it illegal isn't worthwhile; the point is that if making such things illegal hasn't stopped them, then they weren't the cause in the first place.

Why haven't we banned cars? They've been used several times in the last couple of years to plow into crowds of people.

How about fertilizer? As someone else pointed out, it was used to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Shall we pull up other examples of things that there are millions being used, but only a few were used in a horrific way?

Enforcing existing gun laws, adding more -- doesn't address the real problems. We shouldn't be asking "when are we going to ban guns"; we should be asking, "why would anyone commit such an atrocity?" If we can address the answers to that question--and note I said "answers," not "answer"--then we will see things change.

 

[Matt Black]

Once again you seem to have missed the point. Criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are criminals. Duh!

Yes but that's not a reason to not criminalise behaviour is it? I haven't missed the point because ...er...you didn't have one

 

[Matt Black]

His point was NOT that making it illegal isn't worthwhile; the point is that if making such things illegal hasn't stopped them, then they weren't the cause in the first place.

Why haven't we banned cars? They've been used several times in the last couple of years to plow into crowds of people.

How about fertilizer? As someone else pointed out, it was used to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Shall we pull up other examples of things that there are millions being used, but only a few were used in a horrific way?

Enforcing existing gun laws, adding more -- doesn't address the real problems. We shouldn't be asking "when are we going to ban guns"; we should be asking, "why would anyone commit such an atrocity?" If we can address the answers to that question--and note I said "answers," not "answer"--then we will see things change.

Well, with a few exceptions, we've made them illegal here and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of mass shootings in my lifetime. I've lost count when it comes to the US...

Same with Australia: they banned nearly all guns after the Port Arthur Massacre 20 years ago and their gun related homicide rate dropped dramatically.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes but that's not a reason to not criminalise behaviour is it? I haven't missed the point because ...er...you didn't have one

I am sorry you seem to lack the capacity to understand the rather simple point I was making. Read the post by Don just before yours to help you understand.

 

[Matt Black]

I am sorry you resort to ad hominems.

I answered Don's point above.

 

[TCassidy]

I answered Don's point above.

Actually, you didn't. Criminalizing legal conduct without reason is just stupid.

Murder is a criminal act because it takes something unjustly from another person.

The owning of a firearm does not deprive anyone of anything. So to criminalize it would, itself, be unjust.

That is why Don mentioned banning fertilizer or cars. To ban either, when the ownership of either does not deprive another person of life, liberty, or property would be unjust.

Understand now?

 

[Matt Black]

Nope. Public safety trumps private desire on this one.

 

[TCassidy]

Nope. Public safety trumps private desire on this one.

Once again you fail to understand. First of all there is no danger to the public from law abiding firearms owners.

And second, in this country, it is not about desire. It is about an enumerated Constitutional Right.

Which brings us to a little history. In the 1750s and 60s King George III tried to tax the American colonies without allowing them representation in Parliament, which was a violation of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Fearing that the colonies would use their firearms to defend their rights under the English Bill of Rights he ordered the confiscation of the colonial's firearms.

The colonials said "no." And the rest is history.

We wrote into our Constitution the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect us from any future potential tyrants such as George III. And if anyone tries to take away that right we will see the second American revolution. We take our freedom seriously in this country.

 

[Don]

Well, with a few exceptions, we've made them illegal here and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of mass shootings in my lifetime. I've lost count when it comes to the US...

Same with Australia: they banned nearly all guns after the Port Arthur Massacre 20 years ago and their gun related homicide rate dropped dramatically.

Of course the number of mass shootings went down; but how many mass killings have there been by other means?

I lived in England for three years; there was a report *every day* of crimes being committed with illegal guns (because, other than over/under shotguns, they're all pretty much illegal), or with knives or other weapons. As I mentioned in my previous post, vehicles are a weapon of choice these days; should we start doing background checks for driver's license?

The point you're missing is, *address the cause* and you won't need to address the tools.

 

[Matt Black]

Once again you fail to understand. First of all there is no danger to the public from law abiding firearms owners.

And second, in this country, it is not about desire. It is about an enumerated Constitutional Right.

Which brings us to a little history. In the 1750s and 60s King George III tried to tax the American colonies without allowing them representation in Parliament, which was a violation of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Fearing that the colonies would use their firearms to defend their rights under the English Bill of Rights he ordered the confiscation of the colonial's firearms.

The colonials said "no." And the rest is history.

We wrote into our Constitution the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect us from any future potential tyrants such as George III. And if anyone tries to take away that right we will see the second American revolution. We take our freedom seriously in this country.

As do we here. Tell me how many tyrannical governments in Washington the exercise of the Second Amendment has overthrown? And how many mass killings have resulted from it in recent history? Go compare...

 

[Matt Black]

Of course the number of mass shootings went down; but how many mass killings have there been by other means?

I lived in England for three years; there was a report *every day* of crimes being committed with illegal guns (because, other than over/under shotguns, they're all pretty much illegal), or with knives or other weapons. As I mentioned in my previous post, vehicles are a weapon of choice these days; should we start doing background checks for driver's license?

The point you're missing is, *address the cause* and you won't need to address the tools.

Not an either-or. Addressing the cause is medium to long term. Banning guns is also the short term solution. You have 58 more reasons to do this now. How many more reasons do you need? How many more innocents have to die? The rest of the civilised world looks at American obsession with guns and shakes its head...

 

[Matt Black]

And second, in this country, it is not about desire. It is about an enumerated Constitutional Right.
.

And what about the rights of of the 58 dead? Don't they have the right to life? And doesn't that right trump other rights? Conservative Christians go on about the right to life - and rightly so. But until that right is extended to all - not just those in the womb - you're not really pro-life at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[LowOiL]

Wait! What? You're saying that murder should be legal?!

Do you actually stop and read some of the junk you sling around Matt? Honestly, why waste forum resources with such drivel.

 

[Matt Black]

Junk, eh? Better than being pro-death...

His post implied that because banning something - murder - wouldn't eradicate it, it shouldn't be banned. He has since attempted to weasel his way out of that position but his attitude and that of others here towards the murderous use of firearms seems oddly ...well...liberal: "let's address the root causes of gun violence/ murder/ rape rather than criminalise it"

 

[TCassidy]

And what about the rights of of the 58 dead? Don't they have the right to life?

Of course they do. I am surprised you even ask such a question.

And doesn't that right trump other rights?

How does another person's right trump my rights?

Conservative Christians go on about the right to life - and rightly so. But until that right is extended to all - not just those in the womb - you're not really pro-life at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

And who has said otherwise?