15+ Dead In Texas School Shooting; 18-y.o. student Salvador Ramos Identified As Shooter

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
You start to limit guns and ammo, then criminals will lose access as well.
Ah yes, that worked so well with alcohol, weed, narcotics, etc. Totally limited the access of criminals to them. Amirite?
If you have strict gun control laws, you can charge criminals with violating those laws and imprison them.
Rather, if you had laws that actually punished criminals who use guns while commiting their crimes, instead of laws that punish citizens who haven't committed crimes, then you'd have something.
If there are few guns in society, how can criminals gain access to them?
Theft, black market, smuggling, etc..
And seriously, do you sit on your recliner every night with your gun in hand waiting for those home invaders to show up?
Why would anyone need to do that. Just have your gun near your nightstand for easy access. You really are clueless aren't you?
Do you take your gun to the bakery in case you run into a robber?

You sure about that?
If so, you should maybe see a therapist.

Why do you need a gun? Why does anyone who is not a criminal or psychopath?
To defend ourselves from criminals and psychopaths...... This ain't rocket science.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
Not interested in whining or prayers.
Am interested in legislative action with teeth to address gun violence in America.

This country is an outlier among developed countries in gun violence and as gun sales skyrocket and restrictions are removed, we see more and more needless deaths, of schoolchildren, shoppers, churchgoers, subway riders.
And the RW response is, so what! Let's do nothing except sell more guns! Arm everyone!!
You're ranting doesn't solve the problem. What kase would have prevented this?
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
All of what I out lined taken together would reduce the number of guns in this country, and the guns in the hands of people who should not have them. This would decrease gun deaths by murder as well as suicide.

You have no practical suggestions on how to reduce gun deaths. Or if you do, you have been very silent on this. And no, prayers are not what will fix this problem, a problem unique to the USA, because of our lax gun laws.
I said PREVENT!!!!! Not reduce Why do gun haters do this? Your feigned outrage is useless.

Have you ever asked yourself why a police station or NRA convention has never been attacked? Please stop your pretend preaching
 

vibise

Well-known member
You are ducking my question
I admit I don't know if that statement is in scripture. Probably not.
Now, respond to the rest of that post. In case you have forgotten, here it is:

If you sit on the sidelines in the face of tragedy, and do nothing, then nothing gets done.
God is not coming down from heaven to take guns away from murderers. Not now, not in the past, and not in the future.
He gave us free will and the ability to run our own societies, so it is up to us to do something.
Sitting around with long faces while failing to address the actual problems is what you are proposing. Not going to fix anything.

Respond to that, please.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
I admit I don't know if that statement is in scripture. Probably not.
Now, respond to the rest of that post. In case you have forgotten, here it is:

If you sit on the sidelines in the face of tragedy, and do nothing, then nothing gets done.
God is not coming down from heaven to take guns away from murderers. Not now, not in the past, and not in the future.
He gave us free will and the ability to run our own societies, so it is up to us to do something.
Sitting around with long faces while failing to address the actual problems is what you are proposing. Not going to fix anything.

Respond to that, please.
The only laws that would even begin to PREVENT this is confiscation of existing guns and outlawing the manufacture sales and ownership of guns. Is that YOUR ultimate goal? Yes or no?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
I admit I don't know if that statement is in scripture. Probably not.
Now, respond to the rest of that post. In case you have forgotten, here it is:

If you sit on the sidelines in the face of tragedy, and do nothing, then nothing gets done.
God is not coming down from heaven to take guns away from murderers. Not now, not in the past, and not in the future.
He gave us free will and the ability to run our own societies, so it is up to us to do something.
Sitting around with long faces while failing to address the actual problems is what you are proposing. Not going to fix anything.

Respond to that, please.
So if it is not in scripture, why do you presume it to be how God does things.
There are many instances in the Bible where God acted without the assistance of humans. In fact, humans acting on their own was counter to the plan of God.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Stop asking creepy stalker questions of people.

What are "military-styled weapons"?


How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.



What are 'large magazines'?

And how would any of these three things have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

You were fine with Obama pushing untrackable straw purchases in his F&F program. But how are you going to determine when a straw purchase has occurred?

And how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

You do know that will simply lead to more thefts and 3d printing, right?

How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Are you fully responsible for crimes committed with your car by someone that stole it?

Again, how would that have prevented this shooting given the shooter is dead? Be specific.

How would you feasibly oversee such a thing? A Big Brother omnipresent camera system? How are you going to prevent exchanges in the woods?

And how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Red flag laws didn't work in New York with the Buffalo shooter.

How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Ownership? Sure. Unless one is emancipated.

But how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

WHat sort of limits?

And how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Already the case in most places. Interesting though, the left fighting for the right for felons to vote but then this.....

But how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Violation of due process.

How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

So, no guns allowed to be carried anywhere? Unconstitutional.

How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

How about self defense? Collection? Or do we now not have the basic right to do either of those things?

How would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

No issue there.

But how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

Hell to the no. My wife should be able to defend herself with my guns, as should my teens, should I not be around. Not to mention that's absolutely unenforceable.

And how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.


That's incredibly racist.

And how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

No one is stopping research into gun use. Obama had a very nice CDC run study that he promptly released at the end of the day on a Friday in hopes that little attention was paid to it, because it showed people with guns were more likely to escape a dangerous situation unscathed, and because it showed that defensive gun uses absolutely dwarf gun deaths even when one dishonestly includes suicides as gun deaths.

But again, how would that have prevented this shooting? Be specific.

I did not see a single thing in your list that would have prevented this shooting. If you think otherwise, answer one of my questions with specifics on how it would have done so.
I get it that people like you who own 169+ guns are very protective of your arsenals. Must make you feel so powerful and superior.

There is not a single statement in that long rant of yours in which you express sorrow over the needless and violent deaths of 18 little kids.

You have no policies that would stop these sorts of mass murders that are common in the USA but rare in other developed countries. The difference between us and them is our lax gun laws and availability of ever more powerful weapons. Weapons that you have no problem making available to anyone and everyone with no restrictions, right? And your response is to demand minutia about what defines assault weapons, and proof that any specific law would prevent deaths? Well, laws can actually prevent people from owning deadly weapons is linked to lower gun crime as shown in other countries. Why not give it a chance here? Maybe some other little kids won't have to die.

Restricting gun ownership and the types of guns would most definitely reduce gun deaths here as it does in other countries. If you think otherwise, then you should explain your thinking.

The fact is that your side has nothing to offer that would prevent such disasters. Zilch. Your only goal is to keep and expand your own arsenal and to allow others to do the same in total disregard of public safety.

We have followed your preferred path for decades, and what do we get, but more and more dead people, including little children. Have you ever considered that maybe guns for all is not the best path to take?

Nope. You are more concerned with protecting that arsenal of yours, because what are you without it.
 

vibise

Well-known member
She believes that her proposed laws would magically stop criminals from getting guns.
How about we give it a try and see what happens?

The gun lobby won't like that, as it will cut into their profits, and their bought and paid for Congressmen will see that it does not happen.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
I get it that people like you who own 169+ guns are very protective of your arsenals. Must make you feel so powerful and superior.

There is not a single statement in that long rant of yours in which you express sorrow over the needless and violent deaths of 18 little kids.

You have no policies that would stop these sorts of mass murders that are common in the USA but rare in other developed countries. The difference between us and them is our lax gun laws and availability of ever more powerful weapons. Weapons that you have no problem making available to anyone and everyone with no restrictions, right? And your response is to demand minutia about what defines assault weapons, and proof that any specific law would prevent deaths? Well, laws can actually prevent people from owning deadly weapons is linked to lower gun crime as shown in other countries. Why not give it a chance here? Maybe some other little kids won't have to die.

Restricting gun ownership and the types of guns would most definitely reduce gun deaths here as it does in other countries. If you think otherwise, then you should explain your thinking.

The fact is that your side has nothing to offer that would prevent such disasters. Zilch. Your only goal is to keep and expand your own arsenal and to allow others to do the same in total disregard of public safety.

We have followed your preferred path for decades, and what do we get, but more and more dead people, including little children. Have you ever considered that maybe guns for all is not the best path to take?

Nope. You are more concerned with protecting that arsenal of yours, because what are you without it.
So zero specifics, just vague generalities.
 

vibise

Well-known member
And indeed, even a smaller minority of actual gun homicides. Most of those are black on black inner city crime. But liberals don't care about that.
Of course we do care. Many of those guns come from straw purchases from specific gun shops in other states. How about we shut them down?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
How about we give it a try and see what happens?

The gun lobby won't like that, as it will cut into their profits, and their bought and paid for Congressmen will see that it does not happen.
How about we punish the law abiding for the acts of criminals
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
I get it that people like you who own 169+ guns are very protective of your arsenals. Must make you feel so powerful and superior.

There is not a single statement in that long rant of yours in which you express sorrow over the needless and violent deaths of 18 little kids.

You have no policies that would stop these sorts of mass murders that are common in the USA but rare in other developed countries. The difference between us and them is our lax gun laws and availability of ever more powerful weapons. Weapons that you have no problem making available to anyone and everyone with no restrictions, right? And your response is to demand minutia about what defines assault weapons, and proof that any specific law would prevent deaths? Well, laws can actually prevent people from owning deadly weapons is linked to lower gun crime as shown in other countries. Why not give it a chance here? Maybe some other little kids won't have to die.

Restricting gun ownership and the types of guns would most definitely reduce gun deaths here as it does in other countries. If you think otherwise, then you should explain your thinking.

The fact is that your side has nothing to offer that would prevent such disasters. Zilch. Your only goal is to keep and expand your own arsenal and to allow others to do the same in total disregard of public safety.

We have followed your preferred path for decades, and what do we get, but more and more dead people, including little children. Have you ever considered that maybe guns for all is not the best path to take?

Nope. You are more concerned with protecting that arsenal of yours, because what are you without it.
So I will ask you AGAIN do you want gun confiscation and laws prohibiting the manufacture sales and possession of guns? Yes or No?
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
How about we give it a try and see what happens?

The gun lobby won't like that, as it will cut into their profits, and their bought and paid for Congressmen will see that it does not happen.
Nothing will happen because guns will still be available. You think bad guys follow the law. It amazing.
 
Top