bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerth6932 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/80#post_3483847
The most "mass" killings the US soil has seen (other then the civial war or navtive wars) has not come at the hands of a "gun". no it came from 9/11 attack where rougly 2800 people lost their lives to somthing that was BANNED from them to use, an airplane. They got their hands on airplanes! How many minutes did that take?
The next I would like to point out is the Oklahoma Bombing: 168 killed and he used a bomb.... Yep that is banned too. How many minutes did this one take?
So I retract to my original position: banning a gun, would only take it out of responsible owners hands, not criminals. Bombs are banned, but a criminal used it. Airplanes are banned to general population to fly, but criminals used 4 of them. Take away guns, the criminals will still have them! You will punish no one but law abiding citizens.
One minute "responsible", the next minute opening up in a crowd of innocent people. This kid proves that even a normal individual who never posed any problems or had a history of violence is capable of doing so. Tell me why a reponsible gun owner needs a military-style weapon. "Just because" isn't the right answer. Using the rhetoric "First it's the military-style weapons, then it's all the weapons." doesn't wash. That's speculation and supposition that NO politician would ever attempt. The Brady Act was put in place, and everyone still have all the access the wanted to any non-assault weapon. Would banning these weapons deter or eliminate these types of tragedies? Hard to say. If someone wants mass destruction, history has shown that they can do it. But even if ONE life could be saved by keeping these types of weapons out of deranged hands, that's an inconvenience I'm willing to accept.
Originally Posted by Jerth6932 http:///t/392376/movie-theater-shooting/80#post_3483847
The most "mass" killings the US soil has seen (other then the civial war or navtive wars) has not come at the hands of a "gun". no it came from 9/11 attack where rougly 2800 people lost their lives to somthing that was BANNED from them to use, an airplane. They got their hands on airplanes! How many minutes did that take?
The next I would like to point out is the Oklahoma Bombing: 168 killed and he used a bomb.... Yep that is banned too. How many minutes did this one take?
So I retract to my original position: banning a gun, would only take it out of responsible owners hands, not criminals. Bombs are banned, but a criminal used it. Airplanes are banned to general population to fly, but criminals used 4 of them. Take away guns, the criminals will still have them! You will punish no one but law abiding citizens.
One minute "responsible", the next minute opening up in a crowd of innocent people. This kid proves that even a normal individual who never posed any problems or had a history of violence is capable of doing so. Tell me why a reponsible gun owner needs a military-style weapon. "Just because" isn't the right answer. Using the rhetoric "First it's the military-style weapons, then it's all the weapons." doesn't wash. That's speculation and supposition that NO politician would ever attempt. The Brady Act was put in place, and everyone still have all the access the wanted to any non-assault weapon. Would banning these weapons deter or eliminate these types of tragedies? Hard to say. If someone wants mass destruction, history has shown that they can do it. But even if ONE life could be saved by keeping these types of weapons out of deranged hands, that's an inconvenience I'm willing to accept.
