Wondering how the left media will cover the Texas church shooting.
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
And there wouldn't be any stabbings if they banned knives.
Love the logic...if we banned guns the bad guys wouldn't be able to get them. Maybe if we banned drugs people wouldn't be able to get them. Maybe if we banned liquor people wouldn't be able to get it. I'm not a gun guy. I see no reason why anyone needs an assault style weapon. I see no reason why we don't have better background checks. However, I also realize that even with a complete gun ban (we will never ban hunting weapons btw) the bad guy will still be able to get them and organized crime as well as gangs will profit by a new income stream. I don't know the answer. I do know that a highly trained church member prevented massive loss of life through his actions and skill. Bravo to that guy.
No one is arguing that gun violence would never happen again, but it would almost assuredly drop in frequency.
Trying to stop gun violence by adding in more guns is just poor NRA logic.
This is why episodes of violent crimes with weapons across Europe get so much attention... because they happen so infrequently. In the states, we've stopped even reporting nationally on all of these gun episodes because no one is surprised anymore.
I disagree with both sides on this topic. The NRA is dead set against almost all restrictions. As I said above, I see no reason why we need assault style weapons nor do I see why we can't have comprehensive background checks. The anti-gun side believe we can outlaw guns and solve most of our gun related problems. This logic flies in the face of history in this country and opens up an underground economy which would fund gangs and organized crime.
Statistically, places like: Iraq, Turkey, Venezuela, Vietnam, India, Iran, Afghanistan etc... have fewer intentional homicides per capita than our country. It's literally safer to live in some war zones than it is to live in certain parts of the US.
Yup....I assume they don't have the issues we have with drugs and gangs within their inner cities like the US. Almost all of those homicides by unregistered or illegally owned guns. As I said above, I don't have the answers. Outlawing guns will have little effect on these murders btw.
I'm not really in favor of trying to ban all weapons. It's too monumental a task. What I do support is getting rid of as many unnessessary weapons as we can with the laws we are able to pass while still maintaining civil liberties protected in the constitution. What I'd really like to see is the death of the gun culture in the US.
The guns that these people are using may be illegally owned; however they still had to be manufactured and acquired by these individuals. Yes a black market could still exist after some sort of reduction effort, but that black market would shrink as criminals are caught with their guns.
The number would indeed shrink which would raise their price on the black market As the price rises the crime organizations would begin to import guns into the US to sell much like we see with drugs. There are now 400 million guns in the U.S. It's going to take a long time to even make a dent in that market to the point where gun smuggling would be necessary. People are fooling themselves if they believe the gangs and other bad guys aren't going to have guns in which to conduct their business.
There is no reality to the thoughts of democrats on this issue. It's simply guns are bad let's get rid of a lot of them. Problem solved. Anytime vices are involved and we try to outlaw it, it never disappears. Didn't happen with boos, hookers, drugs. So why would guns be any different. In fact with boos it created business such as Walgreens which expanded from 20 stores to 525 stores in the 1920's, from illegal boos sales. It expanded gangs and mafia in the 20's to points of ridiculousness.
Now, list every major disruption that's happened in America since then... just make sure not to go over the character limit.
Guns are not a 'vice'. You can't be addicted to guns. There is no "Gun owners anonymous". You can't go to a local motel to shoot your gun. It's going to be pretty hard for people to create speak easys for firearms since they're so loud. I would argue that by banning prostitution we actually more or less succeeded in limiting it. It was much more rampant in past generations.
Maybe you don't ban the guns... you just make the ammunition ludicrously and prohibitively expensive. Tax it to kingdom come and ban the sale / use of reloading equipment.
(To be honest, I'm not too worried about the folks that are re-loaders using their devices.... I just wouldn't want criminals to steal them)
You have zero grasp on how some people feel about their guns. There's a much stronger desire to have them in many people than to have a drink or gamble or whatever. For criminals they're vital to their business. Far more vital than alcohol, etc.... If we thought prohibition made organize crime rich just wait and see the income flow should we ban guns. Anyone believe a gun ban is going to affect the gang violence on the south side of Chicago other than generate revenue for the bangers?
By your logic, we should have never passed the National Firearms act of 1934 (after the end of prohibition)... Since these criminals were going to get their hands on the guns anyway.... why even bother trying to ban them? Oh yeah... I forgot. That ban worked swimmingly and you rarely see criminals using automatic firearms anymore unless they've been modified in some way.
BTW pistols were also going to be included in that act back in 34' at one time but were eventually excluded. I wonder how different crime would be today if they had been included? Maybe we see less gang violence due to the inability of concealment.
Last edited:
Automatic firearms was a nationally popular limitation. Even the NRA(begrudgingly?) agrees upon that issue. Other limitations are not agreed upon as practical or optimal for stopping gun violence. Increased background checks I believe is more agreed upon, but the NRA is causing problems as a lobbyist.
Getting rid of 'assault' weapons is only attacking the appearance issue, not the reality. Getting rid of weapons that have the appearance of an 'assault' weapon is attacking a marketing ploy, and not really dealing with the utility of the weapon. Normal weapons can easily be modified(legally and illegally) to have similar utility of an 'assault' weapon, by the maker, or the user. Some are already modified by the maker. The 'look' of an assault weapon is the only real or significant difference.
Getting rid of 'assault' weapons is only attacking the appearance issue, not the reality. Getting rid of weapons that have the appearance of an 'assault' weapon is attacking a marketing ploy, and not really dealing with the utility of the weapon. Normal weapons can easily be modified(legally and illegally) to have similar utility of an 'assault' weapon, by the maker, or the user. Some are already modified by the maker. The 'look' of an assault weapon is the only real or significant difference.
Might have worked back in '34 before there were 400 million guns on the streets. Handguns are responsible for a vast majority of the murders in the US and most of those aren't licensed to the shooter. If we're going to draft gun laws then let's draft them to address the heart of the problem (people committing the murders) instead of the exceptions. As I stated above, I've yet to see anything proposed which I believe would substantially decrease the gun violence where it's most prevalent. In fact, an argument could be made that be giving these gangs and organized crime a large new revenue stream we would see violence increase as they sought to protect their markets.
I don't agree with this.... if the "increased revenue stream for gangs" argument was valid, you would have seen it when we banned automatics. But we didn't.
After all, back then... these gangs, criminal syndicates still had major drug wars to fight at that time, but the ban on automatics didn't lead to a substatial benefit to them. They just transitioned to handguns or semi auto's. I'm guessing if you banned handguns and certain semi autos they'd probably resort to knives. At least it's harder to stab a ton of people with a knife. People can run away from a guy with a knife. It's harder to run from a guy with a gun.
I think there are only two primary semi-legitimate arguments for maintaining a broad right for gun ownership.
A) Personal Safety - People want to protect themselves, their family, and their property. I understand this idea; however, it's odd to me that the rest of the world seems defend themselves adequately without needing a gun in their home to feel safe at night.
B) Power to overthrow a tyranical / corrupt government - This is also semi-legitimate, but the fact of the matter in this day and age is that people are willing to allow our government to get away with pretty much anything. The founders had a revolution for issues much smaller than those we're witnessing. I have serious doubts that any attempted revolution is going to be started by people taking up arms against the government in our society.
A) Personal Safety - People want to protect themselves, their family, and their property. I understand this idea; however, it's odd to me that the rest of the world seems defend themselves adequately without needing a gun in their home to feel safe at night.
B) Power to overthrow a tyranical / corrupt government - This is also semi-legitimate, but the fact of the matter in this day and age is that people are willing to allow our government to get away with pretty much anything. The founders had a revolution for issues much smaller than those we're witnessing. I have serious doubts that any attempted revolution is going to be started by people taking up arms against the government in our society.
Gangs don't need automatics or really use them to any great extent. Most of their killings are done with handguns. Can't walk around the streets with an automatic. Add to the fact that they can simply modify existing guns to auto status and there's really not a need for them to sell them on a large scale. Banning guns in general would be a totally different story. You're living in a fantasy world and not paying attention to our history if you don't believe gangs as well as organized crime would operate huge underground gun networks should we ban guns. It would be a profit bonanza for them.
There are people who are very attached to their guns. The last time there was serious talk of banning guns, sales went up. People who had more guns than they could use bought more. Guns aren't going away in this country.
Many more people would have been killed if the people who acted had not been there. If you read about the culprit, the question that comes to my mind was why was he allowed to be on the street.
Many more people would have been killed if the people who acted had not been there. If you read about the culprit, the question that comes to my mind was why was he allowed to be on the street.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we keep talking about people illegally buying guns when we have a huge problem with people LEGALLY buying guns.
They don't now... but they did back then. If it were me I would send the national guard after any criminal syndicate running guns. (In the case of a ban)
Probably because a vast majority of the murders in this country are committed by people who didn’t legally purchase the firearm.
So, if most crimes are already committed via guns that are obtained on the underground market, why do you think there would be a significant uptick in weapons purchased through underground markets?
Are you saying that you just think there would be a higher volume of crimes?
If you just banned the sale / purchase of new or used firearms rather than the ownership of grandfathered ones I wouldn't see why you would have more crimes, as people could still own and carry them for their protection, but over time the population of guns / gun owners would decrease.
1). That would leave 400 million guns in the US. It would raise the price of guns as there would be no new guns hitting the market but I fail to see how it would accomplish any reduction in street violence.
2). I’m saying if you confiscated guns the price of guns would dramatically rise with the market controlled by criminal organizations. Guns would likely rival or maybe even exceed drugs as their primary source of income. Would crime increase as criminal organizations battled for territory...don’t know. I do know their customer base and territories would greatly expand leading to more and broader “turf” wars. Would that result in more violence over a larger area?
Aston just a perfect example of how the left refuses to actually think about real solutions to problems. The only deterrant to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Change my mind.
Bang. You're dead. Got you from behind while you were looking for ice cream in the frozen food section. Turns out the good guy with a gun didn't save you.
Change my mind.
People are being shot in the frozen food section of Reasors now?
Lol.
Snap. Guy coming up behind you snapping your neck. Didnt need a gun did he? Ban anyone with hands.
Hes just flawed. Point flew right over his head.
Edit:didnt mean to call him a bad name.
Last edited:
You don’t agree with common sense hand control? You monster
On a side note,im happy our church has at least 2 people at every service that conceal carry. 100% for it.
Just illustrating a point. If someone is willing to take another person's life in an offensive fashion, they usually aren't worried about the "good guy with a gun" that might stop them. And if they're really crazy enough, then a "good guy with a gun" isn't going to have a chance in hell to stop them.
Take for example the guy that shot up Vegas a couple years ago from the window of a high rise. What good was a "good guy with a gun" in that situation? How many folks do you think were probably carrying at that country concert? I'm willing to bet at least a hundred. It did nothing. It did nothing to Oswald. A good guy with a gun didn't save Kennedy, or Kennedy, or Reagan, or Lennon, or Tupac, or Selena, or Marvin Gaye, or Gabby Giffords, or Dr. King, or Malcolm X.
Not the kids at Columbine, or SandyHook, or those down in Miami. Not the ones on the campus at UT, or in a Walmart in El Paso, or in the nightclub in Miami. Good guys with a gun have certainly failed to save hundreds in LA, Chicago, and NY and in a hundred other cities around the country.
The only deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is him believing that his life is worth living and that other peoples' are too. A good guy with a gun is like putting a bandaid on a chainsaw wound then telling the victim that you're doing your best to save them. Notice that two people died for no reason before a well prepared church in Texas could even react.
Similar threads
