Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Congrats, gun lovers, you've done it again Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:05:00 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
CleverFox wrote:


Really? So you think that 2 year old girl being shot by her 5 year old brother was Darwin in action? I never really agreed with you on this issue, Mrnudiepants, but I had no idea what a selfish, soulless and unfeeling being you are until you posted that comment.

Personally, I think the fact that you being you is your own personal purgatory.


Not that he can't speak for himself- and I really don't agree with him anyway- but it's just a different philosphy, I think. One that says, "don't impose overarching limitations on my actions, and in return, I'll take full responsibility for all of them." The other extreme- the nanny-state, where you're told what you can and cannot do, and the government is there to take responsibility so that you don't have to- is an equally flawed paradigm in my eyes.

Personally, unless one is just engaging in oppositional devil's advocacy, I can't relate to a defense of marketing firearms to children. To me, there's nothing cherishable about that particular freedom. And yes...I know...."once you allow picking and choosing of freedoms instead of freedom across the board, the next thing is....", but any society involves trade-offs.
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:13:56 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:



In your own words. No responsible gun owner would EVER advocate that.


There is no 100% reliable way to keep children away from guns in the home. There is no way to insure that your child is safe from some other parent's guns, or some child who has been given a gun by his parents. No person who buys a gun for a child is a responsible gun owner.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents with children remove all guns from their home. According to David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, American children are eleven times more likely to die of gunshots than in any other industrial country.

There is not one single credible study that shows a person is less likely to be killed if he owns a gun. A gun owner is more likely to die from the gun in his own home than from being killed by a stranger. Keeping a gun in a house with a child is irresponsible. People who do so are not responsible gun owners.

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:16:21 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


Not that he can't speak for himself-


He actually can't.. I mean he is given the opportunity to speak and he said that someone being shot is survival of the fittest. He has also said that guns are equalizers for the weak. LOL



elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:29:50 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,633
Location: Burrowed, Norway
stickmancqb wrote:
I will not give up my right to own firearms because .02% of Americans are harmed or killed by a firearm. First you want semi auto death machines and now you want a child's 22lr bolt action. There is no pleasing yall is there?

It is not up to you or the government to decide on how and with what tools I choose to defend myself, my family, and my friends. If you do feel that it is your right to tell me how, then I say you are infringing upon my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each are equal crimes according to the laws of the land.

And for the people who are not in America and telling us how we need to change, go fix your own fucked up country and stay out of mine. I don't dictate how you live yours, so stay the hell out of mine.


I really hope this is a joke, but if it's not then I'm simply apalled by your unwillingness to take constructive criticism and maybe have others tell you "this might not be the best way" shows a narrow minded way of thinking that shows why the US that used to be the pinnacle of justice, the country that the rest of the world looked to for advice and how to do things, has now become the country that everyone does the complete opposite of, because the American way is proving to be more and more wrong, due to it's inhabitants being completely ignorant twats who are too blinded by their patriotism to see their own faults. Yes, that is how the world now sees you(although we know that not everyone are retards, but that's the general stereotype).

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LOVES4PLAY
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 6:08:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/14/2010
Posts: 944
Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States
'" I mean if the terrorists that bombed the Boston marathon had AR-15s instead of bombs they might have killed more people than with a bomb... Why is it that bombs are illegal then? If it's not the weapon we need to focus on but the people like you say why are other weapons that kill a lot of people banned?."'

had they used rifles , every time they pulled the trigger someone may have looked in there direction, they may have taken more lives , but they probably would have been captured sooner.if one thinks about this the bomb s failure was probably do to where they placed it..or the construction of it.

YES A 5YO IS WAY TO YOUNG TO HAVE HIS OWN FIREARM.&B WHY DIDN'T AN ADULT CHECK THE CHAMBER BEFORE ALLOWING THE .22 INTO THE HOUSE?
No matter what we say or how condescending we as a whole punish the parents of that child. it will never be as harsh or painful as to what they themselves are now going through..
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:14:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:


Really? So you think that 2 year old girl being shot by her 5 year old brother was Darwin in action? I never really agreed with you on this issue, Mrnudiepants, but I had no idea what a selfish, soulless and unfeeling being you are until you posted that comment.

Personally, I think the fact that you being you is your own personal purgatory.


Meh. Condescend all you want. Try and turn this discussion into a name-calling, mud-slinging hate fest. It just goes to show the caliber of your argument. (Pun intended.)

Do I feel sorry for the loss of this two-year-old child? Of course... I'm not a monster. Do I plan on sweeping my own child up into my arms and hugging the everloving shit out of her as soon as I get back home tomorrow? Absolutely.

Do you understand that children die all over the world, all the time? Some die from accidents, some from negligent behavior (as in this case). Some die because a grown-up came into their home, tore them away from their family, and stuck a grenade launcher in their hands, sent them off to fight in a war that will never end. What do you do to stop the deaths? Do you think you even can? Anybody that thinks placing an outright ban on the purchase of a firearm will stop negligent deaths from occurring is either naive or ignorant. Anybody that thinks placing more legal hurdles in front of future firearms purchasers will stop negligent deaths from occurring is also either naive or ignorant.

I repeat: What are you doing to fight the battle against negligent deaths?

Every time I lecture a new firearms owner about proper storage, every time I teach a class on firearm safety, every time I make someone think about the possible consequences of leaving loaded firearms unsecured, I do more to fight this cause than all your bullshit posturing ever will. I've done more to keep children safe in one hour than all of our Congressmen have done this whole session past.

You need to grow up some, before you decide you're qualified to make judgement calls on the character of someone you don't know and never will.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:23:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


There is no 100% reliable way to keep children away from guns in the home. There is no way to insure that your child is safe from some other parent's guns, or some child who has been given a gun by his parents. No person who buys a gun for a child is a responsible gun owner.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents with children remove all guns from their home. According to David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, American children are eleven times more likely to die of gunshots than in any other industrial country.

There is not one single credible study that shows a person is less likely to be killed if he owns a gun. A gun owner is more likely to die from the gun in his own home than from being killed by a stranger. Keeping a gun in a house with a child is irresponsible. People who do so are not responsible gun owners.



Keeping an UNSECURED gun in a house with a child is irresponsible. Even if your gun is secured, you've just admitted that you can never know a hundred percent that your child will never have access to a firearm. You can never child-proof the world against all the dangers your child will face. It's mandatory that a responsible parent child-proof the child, so when he does come into contact with a dangerous item like a gun, he 'll know what to do and, more importantly, what not to do.


From Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership:

Quote:
Myth 2: The proliferation of gun ownership in this country is responsible for an alarming increase in fatal gun accidents involving children.

In 1995 Mr. Robert Walker, a lobbyist for Handgun Control Inc., claimed that 1400 children are killed as a result of fatal gun accidents each year. But that shocking claim is contradicted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the National Safety Council (NSC). According to these agencies, 181 children 0-14 years of age were victims of fatal gun accidents in 1995. Since 1970, the first year data is available from the NSC and the NCHS, fatal gun accidents involving children under fifteen have not even approximated one half the number Mr. Walker claimed.

Statistics quoted as representative of gun accidents involving preadolescents (children under fourteen) are often inflated by including adolescent and young adult incidents as well. This is a serious error since adolescents and young adults are the highest risk categories for firearm accidents. Lumping together children and adults seriously distorts the incidents attributed to preadolescent children and infants. After properly separating children from adults, one finds that while the number of guns increased 75% between 1974 and 1994, the number of fatal gun accidents involving children ages 0-14 years decreased 65% over the same period.

Understandably, fatal gun accidents involving children tend to generate heavy publicity. This disproportionate press coverage often implies that the majority of accidental deaths of children is caused by firearms. In reality however, between 1993-1996, fatal gun accidents accounted for less than 4% of all the accidental deaths involving children under fifteen. Furthermore, firearm accidents involving children under age 10 constituted just over 1% of accidental children deaths in this age group from 1993-1995.



More at this link. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should (at least) learn some facts and then establish what your opinion is.
TheCrimsonKing
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:55:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/1/2012
Posts: 66
Location: Kentucky, United States
Magical_felix wrote:


If guns don't kill people and it's people that kill people like you blow hard all the time... Then Why are bombs illegal? Why does the US and the world not allow certain countries to have atomic weapons? It's not like the bombs get up and walk all on their own and then blow themselves up... A person has to do it. Why is there a double standard nudie? I mean if the terrorists that bombed the Boston marathon had AR-15s instead of bombs they might have killed more people than with a bomb... Why is it that bombs are illegal then? If it's not the weapon we need to focus on but the people like you say why are other weapons that kill a lot of people banned?

I don't expect you to be able to muster up the brain power to answer by the way.


lol, your kidding right? Last time I checked, people don't set landmines in their front yard for protection or go hunting with frag grenades. they do, however, use guns for both.
Dani
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 7:05:52 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,624
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
TheCrimsonKing wrote:


lol, your kidding right? Last time I checked, people don't set landmines in their front yard for protection or go hunting with frag grenades. they do, however, use guns for both.


This can't be a serious argument...it just can't be.


elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 7:07:55 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,633
Location: Burrowed, Norway
TheCrimsonKing wrote:


lol, your kidding right? Last time I checked, people don't set landmines in their front yard for protection or go hunting with frag grenades. they do, however, use guns for both.


Pretty much the reason people don't use landmines for protection because it's illegal and there's no way you can get a hold of them(unless you have connections with dodgy arms dealers). I bet that if you put a sign in your frontyard that said "ACTHUNG! MINEN!" then you'd have bomb squad on your door rather quickly.

So are you ok with making small scale home made bombs as long as it's for my own protection? Is there really a difference between bombs and guns?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Liz
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 7:28:28 AM

Rank: Scarlet Seductress
Moderator

Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 5,500
Location: In the sweet shop, United Kingdom
If you want to give a child a gun, try one of these.
They're great fun! icon_biggrin




stickmancqb
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:52:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/6/2012
Posts: 91
Location: Texas, United States
LadyX wrote:


Lfunny

But no, I get what you're saying. It's just beyond the pale to criticize the parents of a four or five year old boy having not only access but ownership to a deadly weapon. I couldn't agree with you more. You gotta watch these libs, Tailgunner Joe.

Your humor is very dry, but hilarious- I almost thought you were serious! confused5

First they came for my assault-style death machines, and I didn't say anything, for I didn't own any death machines of my own. Then they came for my toddler's loaded shotgun....

I'm shuddering at this crazy control grab! Oh where have our liberties gone? LOL


I am not exactly sure if your serious or not but I will paraphrase Diane Fienstien "Mr and Mrs America, if it we're up to me, I would come for all your guns." That includes handguns, shotguns, rifles of all shapes and calibers.
CleverFox
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:05:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 483
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


Meh. Condescend all you want. Try and turn this discussion into a name-calling, mud-slinging hate fest. It just goes to show the caliber of your argument. (Pun intended.)

Do I feel sorry for the loss of this two-year-old child? Of course... I'm not a monster. Do I plan on sweeping my own child up into my arms and hugging the everloving shit out of her as soon as I get back home tomorrow? Absolutely.

Do you understand that children die all over the world, all the time? Some die from accidents, some from negligent behavior (as in this case). Some die because a grown-up came into their home, tore them away from their family, and stuck a grenade launcher in their hands, sent them off to fight in a war that will never end. What do you do to stop the deaths? Do you think you even can? Anybody that thinks placing an outright ban on the purchase of a firearm will stop negligent deaths from occurring is either naive or ignorant. Anybody that thinks placing more legal hurdles in front of future firearms purchasers will stop negligent deaths from occurring is also either naive or ignorant.

I repeat: What are you doing to fight the battle against negligent deaths?

Every time I lecture a new firearms owner about proper storage, every time I teach a class on firearm safety, every time I make someone think about the possible consequences of leaving loaded firearms unsecured, I do more to fight this cause than all your bullshit posturing ever will. I've done more to keep children safe in one hour than all of our Congressmen have done this whole session past.

You need to grow up some, before you decide you're qualified to make judgement calls on the character of someone you don't know and never will.


So how many home intruders have you actually had? How many times has somebody tried to illegally gain entry into your house and you successfully defended your home with the firearms you keep there?

As far as defending yourself from a tyranny, if it gets to the point where guns are needed then it is already too late. I assure you, whatever firearms you have that the military has many more and many more effective weapons. The most you will be capable of doing is a token guerrilla resistance.

Now you made a stupid joke about this 2 year old girl's death being one for the Darwin Awards. The Darwin Awards are for people that do stupid things that take themselves out of the gene pool. This little girl did nothing stupid. Her parents did.

As far as trying to stop the child soldiers in other countries I do something I doubt you have ever thought of doing. I try to regulate the weapon manufactures here in the good old USA that export weapons to the war torn areas. Did it ever occur to you that the gun manufacturers make a nice tidy profit by keeping those conflicts alive?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:14:03 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
stickmancqb wrote:


I am not exactly sure if your serious or not but I will paraphrase Diane Fienstien "Mr and Mrs America, if it we're up to me, I would come for all your guns." That includes handguns, shotguns, rifles of all shapes and calibers.


No, I wasn't serious; not even a little bit.

I'll leave you and yours to your deranged paranoia, clutching your guns in fear, when nobody's actually coming after them. Yes, you can find the occasional politician that expresses a desire to see all guns outlawed, but outside of your conspiracy-prone fear-logic, the idea of gun seizure and eradication is a straw-man argument at best. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's actually going to happen, but it works out for the gun industry to keep that fear alive among their minions and devotees. More guns get sold that way, so it makes perfect marketing sense.

There's no room for negotiation, let alone compromise anymore, apparently. That's how we get these creepy line-in-the-sand talking points in response to the mere suggestion of expanded background checks, or regulation to eliminate gun marketing to children.

It makes me somewhat embarrassed to have once owned and carried a gun, honestly. At the very least, I know I wasn't this big of a creep about my rights to do so.
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:18:52 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


This can't be a serious argument...it just can't be.


The scary part is, that it is serious. confused1

elitfromnorth wrote:
Pretty much the reason people don't use landmines for protection because it's illegal and there's no way you can get a hold of them(unless you have connections with dodgy arms dealers). I bet that if you put a sign in your frontyard that said "ACTHUNG! MINEN!" then you'd have bomb squad on your door rather quickly.

So are you ok with making small scale home made bombs as long as it's for my own protection? Is there really a difference between bombs and guns?


Funny how they don't answer the question right?

theCrimsonKing wrote:
lol, your kidding right? Last time I checked, people don't set landmines in their front yard for protection or go hunting with frag grenades. they do, however, use guns for both.


I am not kidding.

If guns don't kill people and people kill people... Bombs (or any other banned weapon) do not kill people either, people kill people. This is the most common defense of guns. So why are bombs illegal and not something like an assault rifle? Neither of which kill people unless a person uses them. Why must my rights be stomped on!




LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:25:23 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Sarin gas doesn't kill people, people with sarin gas kill people.
Mari84
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:34:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 2/27/2010
Posts: 81
Location: The Bronx
Another reason to be thankful don't live in Kentucky.
vjlegbabe
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:54:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/17/2012
Posts: 856
Location: Gahana, United States
Seems everyone is against guns,til you need one and wish you had it,but by then it's usually too late..
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:56:38 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
Anyone else notice the correlation between gun lovers and an inability to use grammar and spelling correctly? Just wondering.



Guest
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:00:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,864
To me, it's about control when it comes to comparing guns and bombs. You can control (to a certain extent) who is harmed by a gun, but with a bomb, there's more room for error, and they're a bit more destructive. Also, you can use a gun to defend yourself, a bomb. .. not so much.

For example, if someone's about to attack you, you can shoot them in the leg, if you use a bomb, you're likely to blow up both them and yourself, not to mention anyone who's standing too close, granted that you just happen to have a bomb handy.
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:04:22 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
one_winged_angel wrote:
To me, it's about control when it comes to comparing guns and bombs. You can control (to a certain extent) who is harmed by a gun, but with a bomb, there's more room for error, and they're a bit more destructive.

For example, if someone's about to attack you, you can shoot them in the leg, if you use a bomb, you're likely to blow up both them and yourself, not to mention anyone who's standing too close


But what if I want to use it for fishing? Just like a high powered rifle isn't the best for home defense, bombs wouldn't be for self defense. Or what if I just have a bomb hobby like target shooters do so and I just want to blow shit up in a safe controlled environment? What if the US turns tyrannical? I'd rather have bombs.



Guest
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:06:59 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,864
Magical_felix wrote:


But what if I want to use it for fishing? Just like a high powered rifle isn't the best for home defense, bombs wouldn't be for self defense. Or what if I just have a bomb hobby like target shooters do so and I just want to blow shit up in a safe controlled environment? What if the US turns tyrannical? I'd rather have bombs.


I'm not talking about high powered rifles, I meant handguns used for personal defense, or shotguns. But whatever floats your boat. .. or sinks it.
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:09:04 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
one_winged_angel wrote:


I'm not talking about high powered rifles, I meant handguns used for personal defense, or shotguns. But whatever floats your boat. .. or sinks it.


But no one in the power to do so has talked about banning those.



Guest
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:12:25 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,864
Magical_felix wrote:
Anyone else notice the correlation between gun lovers and an inability to use grammar and spelling correctly? Just wondering.


I really resent that! I don't own a gun and I don't have kids of my own. If a child is too young then you make dammed sure that is out of their reach and unloaded. From the day that they can understand you make dammed sure that they understand it isn't a toy just like a car you don't play with it you don't touch it you don't get near it. I live in lousiana and in many areas kids hunt right after they walk. Tha t has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with responsibility, which for some reason we have thrown out the window along with expectations. BTW I taught school until a few weeks ago I walked because we don't teach responsibility any more no respect and NO EXPECTATIONS! There are also no consequences for STUPID BEHAVIOR! When consequences are given behavior changes its behavior modification.
Guns are machines they cant think. People can think they just use no common sense hmmm come to think of it maybe guns think more than People!
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:13:26 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,864
Magical_felix wrote:


But no one in the power to do so has talked about banning those.


I never said anyone wanted to ban them, people were comparing guns (of unspecified type) to bombs so I was pointing out what I see the difference as.
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:15:20 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
one_winged_angel wrote:


I never said anyone wanted to ban them, people were comparing guns (of unspecified type) to bombs so I was pointing out what I see the difference as.


Fair enough.



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:29:31 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
Angie57 wrote:


I really resent that! I don't own a gun and I don't have kids of my own. If a child is too young, then you make damned sure that it's out of their reach and unloaded. From the day that they can understand, you make damned sure that they understand it isn't a toy. Just like a car, you don't play with it, you don't touch it, you don't get near it. I live in Lousiana and in many areas, kids hunt right after they walk. That has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with responsibility, which for some reason we have thrown out the window along with expectations. BTW I taught school until a few weeks ago. I walked because we don't teach responsibility any more; no respect and NO EXPECTATIONS! There are also no consequences for STUPID BEHAVIOR! When <-consequences <-are given, behavior changes, it's behavior modification.

(Hit the return key here)
Guns are machines they can't think. People can think, they just use no common sense. Hmmm come to think of it, maybe guns think more than people!


You were a teacher? Was it P.E.? Wait, that's a coach... Was it crafts?



keoloke
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:34:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 599
Location: United States
Yet another discussion that reinforce the already cemented the idea that there is NOT a gun problem in the USA..
.
............just a happy trigger problem. oops sorry that would be related to the gun.
.
........... A finger problem.. not trigger problem
I caught it on time



Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:46:47 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,005
Location: My Tower, United States
vjlegbabe wrote:
Seems everyone is against guns,til you need one and wish you had it,but by then it's usually too late..


i am against guns. i have been up close and personal for a non-lethal shooting. i didn't wish that i had a gun. i have had bullets, three, fired thru the wall of my apt bedroom. if i'd had a proper bed frame instead of just a box springs and mattress on the floor, i'd have been hit. i didn't wish i had a gun. i have been raped at knife point. cut once, stabbed once. i did not wish i had a gun (if i had, i'd probably be dead).

there fore, i am going to lump your argument for the validity of carrying a gun in with the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' nonsense category. :)

Live, love, laugh.
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:56:19 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 768
Location: Massachusetts, United States
LOVES4PLAY wrote:
'" I mean if the terrorists that bombed the Boston marathon had AR-15s instead of bombs they might have killed more people than with a bomb... Why is it that bombs are illegal then? If it's not the weapon we need to focus on but the people like you say why are other weapons that kill a lot of people banned?."'

had they used rifles , every time they pulled the trigger someone may have looked in there direction, they may have taken more lives , but they probably would have been captured sooner.if one thinks about this the bomb s failure was probably do to where they placed it..or the construction of it.

YES A 5YO IS WAY TO YOUNG TO HAVE HIS OWN FIREARM.&B WHY DIDN'T AN ADULT CHECK THE CHAMBER BEFORE ALLOWING THE .22 INTO THE HOUSE?
No matter what we say or how condescending we as a whole punish the parents of that child. it will never be as harsh or painful as to what they themselves are now going through..


The Boston Bombers would have almost certainly have killed a lot more people if they had used automatic weapons. Four people were killed, Harris and Klebold murdered 13 in the Columbine massacre. And that was before the body armor tactic.

There are two possible reasons that they did not try that tactic. One is that spree shooters almost invariably end up dead or captured. They don't seem to have planned for a suicide mission. The second is that assault weapons are banned under state law and the pair would have to have travelled out of state to get them. That is trickier than it might seem as a firearms dealer in NH who accepts a MA license to sell a gun is knowingly abetting a crime in MA, a fact that will quickly be discovered when the background check is run.

There are no reporting requirements for fireworks, even though those are also illegal in MA.

Gun control reduced the deaths to a third of what they might have been if automatic weapons were used.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.