Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
isoterica, they will never understand how or why objects are not to blame for the CT tragedy. :bang:

Objects will have the capability to kill will selectively be chosen and twisted around for their viewpoint. They use cars so the people tend to look the other way.
 
Less than 20 years ago, my high school had a rifle and pistol team with members aged 14-17 and has had one for nearly 60 years which is as long as the school has been around.

Guess how many deaths were caused by the firearms for those two clubs?


ZERO.


And this was in San Francisco of all places.
 
I will ban guns for all except for my private bodyguards.

I will ban guns for all except for my private bodyguards.

My trigger is also on the finger.

timthumb.php
 
Instead of being reactive to all of these shootings, why can't you be proactive. Do something to prevent further tragedy from happening.

Banning guns is reactive and not the answer.

Again, base it off of facts, not your feelings.
 
Facts have been raised plenty of times, you're responding for your feelings towards your guns.

Again I will post this link.

"Australia, a country with a love of ‘freedom’ and guns that bears some resemblance to the US, may provide lessons on how this could be done.

In 1996, 35 people were killed in the worst gun massacre in Australian history. But the next decade saw the firearm homicide rate fall by 59 per cent, and the firearm suicide rate fall by 65 per cent, without a corresponding rise in non-firearm deaths.

Australia’s response to the 1996 massacre was comprehensive. Admittedly, policies such as its government gun "buyback" policy could not conceivably be passed in the US. But other Australian policies, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase, and a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons could be imitated. The extent of America’s gun problems are so huge that even comparatively small improvements in their gun laws are worthwhile: a 1 per cent drop in gun fatalities would equate to a fall in deaths of 300.

Whatever happens, gun deaths in the US will remain far too high: it would take a ban on guns, utterly unthinkable, to end that fact. But the profound emotional impact of the massacre in Newtown does present an opportunity to improve America’s gun laws, however unsatisfactorily."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/12/what-us-can-learn-australia-about-gun-control
 
Jubb Jubb said:
Facts have been raised plenty of times, you're responding for your feelings towards your guns.

Again I will post this link.

"Australia, a country with a love of ‘freedom’ and guns that bears some resemblance to the US, may provide lessons on how this could be done.

In 1996, 35 people were killed in the worst gun massacre in Australian history. But the next decade saw the firearm homicide rate fall by 59 per cent, and the firearm suicide rate fall by 65 per cent, without a corresponding rise in non-firearm deaths.

Australia’s response to the 1996 massacre was comprehensive. Admittedly, policies such as its government gun "buyback" policy could not conceivably be passed in the US. But other Australian policies, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase, and a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons could be imitated. The extent of America’s gun problems are so huge that even comparatively small improvements in their gun laws are worthwhile: a 1 per cent drop in gun fatalities would equate to a fall in deaths of 300.

Whatever happens, gun deaths in the US will remain far too high: it would take a ban on guns, utterly unthinkable, to end that fact. But the profound emotional impact of the massacre in Newtown does present an opportunity to improve America’s gun laws, however unsatisfactorily."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/12/what-us-can-learn-australia-about-gun-control
Click to expand...

bah humbug.

I provided facts and stories but they were ignored or was told it doesn't count.

I am talking about murders from firearms. Why do you keep on bringing in suicide by firearm?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
 
Jubb Jubb said:
And it looks like Obama is finally backing a bill to ban assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.

http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-backs-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons/story-fndir2ev-1226540102770
Click to expand...

How do we know such a ban would not have stopped the shooter? Because it didn't.

The rifle used was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004.

Rifles (of any type) only account for 3% of homicides last year, according to the NYT, FWIW.

They will have a difficult time banning semi-automatics. That would be like banning cars that use gasoline.
 
What do we know?

Laws don't stop law breakers.

Guns already exist by the millions, and are easy to acquire.

Show me a law that would have absolutely prevented Sandy Hook.

Anyone got one?
 
Seriously, a .223?

They are called 'varmint rifles' and it's small caliber.

Again, what law would make ANY weapon inaccessible?
 
Jubb Jubb said:
And it looks like Obama is finally backing a bill to ban assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.

http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-backs-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons/story-fndir2ev-1226540102770
Click to expand...

I'm interested to see where this goes. "Finally backing" is a good way to describe it — he promised that while campaigning for his first term in 2008. He never got around to it, though, even when a Senator and several other people, including a young girl who was born on Sept 11, 2001, were shot by yet-another person with severe mental issues. In other news, mental health care funding has been significantly cut at every level.
 
digitalintrigue said:
What do we know?

Laws don't stop law breakers.

Guns already exist by the millions, and are easy to acquire.

Show me a law that would have absolutely prevented Sandy Hook.

Anyone got one?
Click to expand...

Connecticut is one of only six states that that does not have an assisted (involuntary) outpatient treatment law that allow for preventative (can forcibly require) treatment. An attempt to pass an AOT law in Connecticut was made earlier in the year but it was stopped. That might have made a difference, especially considering a lot of people were concerned about his mental health issues for most of his life.
 
As I mentioned earlier I have been robbed twice. The first time I had a model 629 Smith and Wesson stolen. The gun has never been recovered and its been 24 years. I religiously took it with me everywhere I went but the one day forgot and left it at home.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
No law would have stopped that, but making it inaccessible to weapons of that calibre would have made a massive difference.
Click to expand...

Inaccessible to what extreme? Locked case. How many locks? With an armed guard and streaming video to the internet? Three people each having a specific portion of the numerical combination?
 
Jubb Jubb said:
I don't know how many times I have to say this.

You cannot compare a gun to a car. A gun's sole purpose is to kill. A cars is for transportation.
Click to expand...

Neither the car or gun kill, just the human operating it. If you cannot grasp that, you will never understand the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom