LDS Teenager Murdered at her High School in Parkland

[_Maksutov]

Republicans are addicted to NRA money and kingmaking The NRA can reach the reptile brain like few other 'mainstream' organizations. And, oh yes, I'm aware there are many "gun rights" groups that are more extreme. How reassuring.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... d=fb-share

[_Markk]

Why would we need gun controls if they won't stop people from killing each other?

The answer, is because unless you can bait Darth J or DoubtingThomas into a false dilemma, which is unlikely, it isn't a choice between stopping all killing or doing nothing at all. So if restricting a magazine will reduce the number of killings, though not all of them, then it's on the table.

[SNIP!]

Some further issues brought up in this thread are media and gun culture. Nightlion brought up media attention. I think it's a reasonable speculation that getting immortalized by the news is a driving factor for committing a mass shooting. If there's any truth to that, then limiting magazine capacity may have a positive psychological effect. If the prospective killer can't see the ready means to beat the current high score, then it may not be worth trying at all.

DT is just throwing out a silly comparison between gun control and bathroom control that does not work at all, and then keeps asking me to answer his question even though I have.

Darth is just being a smart ass...in other words I am not baiting anyone, and neither addressed my OP..which ironically agrees partly with what you here about gun control "being on the table." If anyone, my op was being baited...as will this post.

Glad did you read my OP to Dr W's OP objectively...which reads basically; "if one is going to argue gun control, make a argument that makes sense."

The assault rife is really no more lethal than many guns not on the list you provide above. Looking on your list a semi auto 45 is legal, and a semi auto Uzi banned? That makes no sense at all... and just shows one of two things, either the folks authoring the bill are ignorant, or that they are smart and just pandering to a ignorant constituent. The only other option, which the NRA might argue is the intent, is that it is just one more step to the banning of all guns...which is a reality of many folks...we can't as you say..." take that off the table."

I want to give you an example of my point that a friend pointed out to me the other day. There is a ban, and I am not sure if it is state wide or national, that one has to put a "thumb guard" around a AR-15 pistol grip. It is basically a small plate that keeps one from wrapping their thumb around the pistol grip. All the money spent on that law, and others like this are just stupid. It can be removed just as easily as being installed...as if someone that is planning to go a a killing spree would some how follow that new law?

People have been killing others, indirectly or directly since time began, and will continue to do so...and as capabilities to do so it will still happen (by the way this statement will be blow out of context). We need certain gun controls, I get that, we also need to draw a line...and where that line is, is the real argument. So doesn't it make sense first, to make a clear line? Making a law about how many rounds a clip can hold is not the real issue, the issue should might be...semi auto, verses non semi auto?

In your opinion, and please be honest with me here...what is the end goal of the vast majority of gun control advocates, in regards to the guns, people dying by gun violence is a given that nobody wants?

[_Themis]

Making a law about how many rounds a clip can hold is not the real issue, the issue should might be...semi auto, verses non semi auto?

Clip size is part of the solution to events involving shooting of many rounds. It's a sensible solution that we see a lot of countries have done. Large clips are not really needed, and clips easy to make into large rounds should be banned until manufactures can make clips that are hard to alter.

[_DoubtingThomas]

DoubtingThomas is just throwing out a silly comparison between gun control and bathroom control that does not work at all, and then keeps asking me to answer his question even though I have

Yes, but you didn't answer the other question. Do restroom control laws stop predators and criminals from going to the ladies room?

Sure, it is a silly comparison when you give it no thought. You are like when Christians say the comparison between God and Santa Claus is silly and doesn't work.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The assault rife is really no more lethal than many guns not on the list you provide above. Looking on your list a semi auto 45 is legal, and a semi auto Uzi banned?

Well, the solution is to ban all weapons capable of killing many people in a minute. Unless you are a Scarface, then you really don't need more than a simple handgun to defend yourself from home invaders.

https://youtu.be/AU5xgpuFfwI?t=1m1s

Large clips are not really needed, and clips easy to make into large rounds should be banned until manufactures can make clips that are hard to alter.

Exactly!

[_Markk]

Yes, but you didn't answer the other question. Do restroom control laws stop predators and criminals from going to the ladies room?

Sure, it is a silly comparison when you give it no thought. You are like when Christians say the comparison between God and Santa Claus is silly and doesn't work.

yes I did..I said no...go back and read see my post on Friday, at 5:58.

[Guest]

yes I did..I said no...go back and read see my post on Friday, at 5:58.

"I said no" okay. So why even have any laws at all? If laws don't stop criminals from going to the ladies room, then the government doesn't need to make useless restroom control laws. If laws don't stop bad guys, then the solution is have a good guy in the ladies room to protect them. Therefore, we need co-ed restrooms. Right? or No?

[_DoubtingThomas]

I wonder if conservative NRA supporters would ever support the idea of a good guy in the ladies room.

[_Markk]

yes I did..I said no...go back and read see my post on Friday, at 5:58.

"I said no" okay. So why even have any laws at all? If laws don't stop criminals from going to the ladies room, then the government doesn't need to make useless restroom control laws. If laws don't stop bad guys, then the solution is have a good guy in the ladies room to protect them. Therefore, we need co-ed restrooms. Right? or No?

That is stupid...we are a country based on law...however some laws are good, some are idiotic. Some are enforceable, others are not. Prisons are full of people that broke laws. One law we have is don't kill people...your premise is not based on stopping killing but limiting it...which contradicts your theory here.

We have free will to either follow laws or not, when we don't we have a system that punishes for those laws.

[_EAllusion]

That is stupid...we are a country based on law...however some laws are good, some are idiotic. Some are enforceable, others are not. Prisons are full of people that broke laws. One law we have is don't kill people...your premise is not based on stopping killing but limiting it...which contradicts your theory here.

We have free will to either follow laws or not, when we don't we have a system that punishes for those laws.

The argument that gun laws are pointless because criminals will just ignore them while law abiding citizens will be disarmed is nearly an article of faith in opponents of gun control legislation that comes up frequently in debates over it. It has appeared here on this thread. However, it is the case that gun control laws probably are more enforceable than laws against transgender people using particular bathrooms. There is a definitely tension between people who both use the "criminals will just break the law anyway" argument against gun control laws and people who support legal restrictions on bathroom attendance.

DT probably should stay away from sex-crimes for his arguments by analogy, but the logic is perfectly fine to understand. Your posts here keep dipping into the logic he is attacking, only to back out with caveats that undermine what you are saying. Obviously successful restrictions on weapons that allow people to shoot high-powered guns at a rapid rate is going to cut down on mass murders. You can debate how to effectively implement such a ban or whether that loss of liberty is worth the increased safety it provides, but the argument that criminals will ignore the law, so the law is pointless is rather flimsy. As has been pointed out t you in a Darth J post you dismissed as snark, we don't see spree killings committed with machine guns even though machine guns would be more efficient.