• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Laketravis

Premium Member
“This guy is clearly a criminal…he had apparently a long record. Has been involved in criminal justice before and he was able to get these weapons,” the mayor said, calling the situation “Disgusting.”
Hmmmmm......and clearly NOT some "boneheaded white boy" who's efforts would have been thwarted had "automatic" weapons not been readily available.

Go figure.

Should be interesting to find out how he obtained said weapons, given a record like that.
Exactly. Aren't there already laws prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms?
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
How about more liability. How about having all guns registered, your gun gets stolen and you never report it and then a crime is committed with it, some liability. If your kid takes your guns and starts murdering people...some liability. National measures to cut down straw man purchases...
And the discussions are happening, but like anything else, there is a process.
The faulty argument of “blood on your hands” (not you I believe) is a non starter and not indicative of actually wanting to further the discussion.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I’m sorry I don’t understand the idea that if something is not 100% effective it deserves 0% consideration.
I don't think anyone is suggesting 0% consideration.

I do believe what is being pointed out is that despite already existing law many individuals find a way to circumvent them and will most likely do the same with new ones. Some are disputing that with claims that making it harder or impossible to obtain "automatic" weapons is the killer (no pun intended) solution.

The problem is that laws, regulations, and prohibitions will not eradicate insanity.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Shooter is killing random people at a festival. Shooter is killing a clerk in a store. Shooter is killing kids in a cross fire over drugs. Shooter is killing his wife. Shooter is killing themself. Shooter is white. Shooter is hispanic. Shooter is black. Shooter is Muslim. Shooter is Christian. Shooter is a man. Shooter is a woman.

Let me be clear, and I think most of those speaking about the need for gun control would agree we want less of all of the above. We want more accountability. We want to try SOMETHING.
Something like enforcing laws laws already on the books????
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
And the discussions are happening, but like anything else, there is a process.
The faulty argument of “blood on your hands” (not you I believe) is a non starter and not indicative of actually wanting to further the discussion.
I agree, but understand people make blood on their hands comments because our legislators are sitting on their hands. Discussion is great but what year was Sandy Hook?
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I agree, but understand people make blood on their hands comments because our legislators are sitting on their hands. Discussion is great but what year was Sandy Hook?
Are you implying that there have been no new laws or protections or legislation at any level in almost seven years?
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Hmmmmm......and clearly NOT some "boneheaded white boy" who's efforts would have been thwarted had "automatic" weapons not been readily available.

Go figure.



Exactly. Aren't there already laws prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms?
It's like putting a pedestrian crosswalk in the middle of a freeway and saying, well the laws should have protected that pedestrian, those cars should have stopped.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
The next time there is a mass shooting, blood is all over the hands of anyone advocating for the “do nothing” approach. As a matter of fact, blood is all over their hands already, since they advocated “do nothing” after Parkland, after Vegas, after Pulse, and on and on.

I think I will blame the shooter. Florida did take action but maybe it wasn't covered in your news sources.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is suggesting 0% consideration.

I do believe what is being pointed out is that despite already existing law many individuals find a way to circumvent them and will most likely do the same with new ones. Some are disputing that with claims that making it harder or impossible to obtain "automatic" weapons is the killer (no pun intended) solution.

The problem is that laws, regulations, and prohibitions will not eradicate insanity.
I'm not even sure if someone actually produced a 100% workable fix you guys would agree to it.

I'd like to reverse your thinking and put the high standard on ownership.
A guarantee of life-long sanity.
A guarantee the gun will never be in the hands of another.
A guarantee the gun will never be used on a human unless as a provable last resort measure.
A guarantee the gun owner is a capable shot and will not put others at risk in a tense situation.
ETC.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
No you haven't. You've simply claimed that disturbed individuals would be more likely to obey a law if it's a federal law rather than a state law, or that a federal law will someone accomplish what a state law can not.

It's a violation of both state and federal law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Didn't help much in Philadelphia last night.
I have posted this several times in the forum in one form or another...but here.
 
Top Bottom