Another Shooting: San Bernardino California

[spuwho]

First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

You were kidding of course? Cherry Valley, German Flatts, Wyoming Valley (PA), in the late 1700's were all massacres far worse then the recent terror attack and they used guns, clubs, spears etc to do their killing. In the late 1830's The Mormon Wars led to dozens of family size massacres all across Illionis and Missouri. By 1857 the Mormons wiped out an entire wagon train with guns and bow and arrows. Jump to the 1880's and Tombstone AZ was locked in a bloody vendetta that left bodies in Mexico, AZ and NM. This stuff is going to happen, guns, knives, and spears don't do it, PEOPLE DO!

So then you are saying that guns aren't even necessary at all, right?  I never pegged you as a total gun confiscator, Ock.

LOL. Ock is right in that if one wants to kill they will do so by any means necessary, even with a garden hoe. Guns merely expedite the persons desire.

Someone at work came to me today and said, "we have lots of constitutional rights to kill someone on demand...the courts have been affirming it for years...."

[coredumped]

LOL. Ock is right in that if one wants to kill they will do so by any means necessary, even with a garden hoe. Guns merely expedite the persons desire.

Someone at work came to me today and said, "we have lots of constitutional rights to kill someone on demand...the courts have been affirming it for years...."

Yep, and that's what most people on this board still fail to comprehend, murder will continue with or without a gun ban. And no, it won't slow either.

Perhaps I could appeal to the anti-gun folk with this thought - do you feel that we should be out armed by the police? That is, are you in favor of the militarization of the police, or do you think it's important we have the same weapons as them, as the constitution intended?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I think the key word in NIMBY's post was "efficiency...

Well....

They fired 65 to 75 rounds, police said, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 21.

What's the saying?  5.36 shots; 1 kill.

Obviously a model of efficiency.

[coredumped]

Stephen, you totally lost me man. I was asking about the consequences of gun control (police, etc) I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[coredumped]

I'm sorry you missed my point. My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.
My honest question was about the reason behind the second ammendment and police brutality.
And still, no one has addressed that guns can be made at home with a 3D printer, what now?

[Adam White]

I think the key word in NIMBY's post was "efficiency...

Well....

They fired 65 to 75 rounds, police said, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 21.

What's the saying?  5.36 shots; 1 kill.

Obviously a model of efficiency.

efficiency of delivery. but you know that. we're not talking about aim - that's a different story.

[Adam White]

I'm sorry you missed my point. My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

I have yet to hear ANYONE make that contention.

[finehoe]

My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

So we've returned to the moronic assertion that unless you can reduce it to zero, it isn't worth doing at all.

[coredumped]

My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

So we've returned to the moronic assertion that unless you can reduce it to zero, it isn't worth doing at all.

No (but thanks for the name calling, again, stay classy). I'm saying that we shouldn't lose rights because people are insane. People drink and drive, we don't ban cars, people shoot people, and there's talk of gun bans.

At any rate, this thread has degraded to name calling, very poor comprehension of the English language, and an inability to answer simple questions. I'm all for all for a healthy debate and welcome opposing views, but this thread has deviated far from anything remotely close to that. So I won't be partaking in it anymore.

Enjoy your debating folks & see I'll you in the other, more productive threads!

[AKIRA]

i'll debate a bit with you if you'd like.  The stabbing at Basel provides good context for such.

[AKIRA]

I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

[Adam White]

I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

So was Stephen. This illustrates the value of the sarcasm font.

[Adam White]

i'll debate a bit with you if you'd like.  The stabbing at Basel provides good context for such.

We had a stabbing - being labeled a terrorist incident - at Leytonstone Underground station the other day. A guy was able to (non-fatally) stab one person. Had he been armed with a gun, he likely would've been able to kill multiple people.

[AKIRA]

I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

So was Stephen. This illustrates the value of the sarcasm font.

How fortunate to have the services of a sarcasm translator...............................................

[NIMBY]

It has to stop.  I can picture the body count increasing like the circling numbers on the old analog gas pumps.  Death, death, death...on and on. Something must be done.

I find the arguments unconvincing.

First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

Second, it is said that changing the law won't stop it anyway, so why criminalize ordinary citizens?  So we shouldn't even try?  Even if it reduced the killing by 30%, wouldn't it be worth it?  What if some restrictions saved your brother or niece?

My bad, posted in the wrong thread.  Can someone point me to the abortion thread?