Reply to Filibuster for Gun Safety

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Filibuster for Gun Safety"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Who filibustering to protect us from criminals? Criminals will not surrender their guns. If they don't have one yet need one, they'll get one. That's wha criminals do. They don't obey law. [/quote]
How many 'criminals" have shot up schools and workplaces?  Most of these guys bought guns legally, and even passed a background check.  These guys weren't criminals until they started shooting at people.

I have kids. I don't worry about "criminals" shooting the school.  I do worry about the crazies who can buy guns easily because they don't have a criminal record yet shooting the schools.

How many "criminals" have  you shot at, or how many times have you had to use a gun to protect yourself from a criminal?  Yes, I know it happens.  But you know what seems to happens more frequently? Kids dying from an accidental shooting either from their own hands or other kids' hands.  You know how many school shootings there were?  Probably more than the number of times you might've had to use that gun to protect yourself.[/quote]

This emotional tirade, based upon the author's unnatural fear of guns, is completely devoid of facts. [/quote].

Every shooter that shot up a school or bar was a criminal! They intended to commit a crime, set a plan, and executed a plan. They put a lot of time and effort into their plans - Columbine and San Hook illegally procured guns by theft. Orlando did so legally buT he would have found a way to murder all those people with or without legally getting guns. You don't spend all that time and effort planning something only to give up because you can't buy a gun. He could have made PVC pipe bombs just as easy (Columbine duo made almost a 100) or done something else. He planned on breaking the law by illegally carrying a handgun without a license, he illegally carried weapons into an establishment that sold alcohol, he illegally carried gun into an establishment with a no-carry sign, he illegally fired a weapon in a public establishment, he illegally shot over 100 individuals, and he illegally murdered 49 others. But I'm sure he NEVER would have illegally found a means to procure a weapon if he couldn't have legally bought one. How silly of me.

We can't even enforce current law and you think new ones will solve everything. Why not question why the FBI wasn't informed of his intent to purchase when the first gun shop turned him away and report suspicious behavior? Or when Disney reported his suspicious behavior? The FBI had him! What stopped them? Fix those laws. Enforce current laws. [/quote]
?  Every shooter was not a criminal until they shot up a school.  And many of the shooters got the guns legally.

As I stated before, there are crazy people everywhere, and no, you can't stop every crazy person, but we should make it harder, not easier for them to kill so many people in the span of a few minutes, and I'm not just talking about the shooting in Orlando.[/quote].

Why do all shootings happen in gun-free zones? Because the majority of gun owners obey the law. If you are crazy and want to kill a bunch people you want to first make sure you can do that by choosing a place where almost no one can fire back. I know there was one off duty cop. But he couldn't get close enough to routine fire without worrying about hitting someone. And I say this with the utmost respect for law enforcement but most cannot hit a moving target-they just do t practice it (although defensive pistol practice is becoming more popular). Do you think a shooter would try and attack a place when 50 out of the 300 May have been armed? probably not. Crazy people are crazy, not stupid. Why did the Boston marathon bomber use pressure cooker bombs and not guns? Too much security that would have fired back? I don't know. The issue with Orlando is not the gun. The gun is a tool. Taking away the fun doesn't make what he did harder necessarily. He could have just as easily driving a car into the building with a homemade bomb. What would have made it harder for these guys would be to imprison them when we had the chance. Or had better monitoring in place but again lots of crazy people with limited money and resources to track them all. Some will slip through so we need a fall back. Maybe one cop in a bar that holds 350 isn't enough. Maybe one cop per 25 people. Plainclothes cops in large numbers would make someone think twice. So maybe they decide not to use a gun-maybe they decide to make a bomb instead and maybe the us can better track who are purchasing material to build bombs or googling it and they can catch these guys sooner. [/quote]

my wedding our venue required 1 officer per 50 people since we were serving alcohol as a precaution. That's seems reasonable. 1 cop for 300 is probably not enough. The toddler that died at Disney was tragic and many would say it was Disneys responsibility to provide for the safety of its patrons (as much as they could) so isn't it also then any business owners responsibility? Maybe require at least 1 cop per 100? But then there is the debate over cost and is that a police state? Again I don't know. I do know BOTH sides have to be willing to compromise. As a gun owner I'm fine having mandatory license's for ownership but I can't speak for all them. Or making semi-auto rifles like AR15 a class C (or new glass) firearm. However I don't believe that will solve the issue since in get real banning things only seems to make it easier for criminals. Ban drugs, gangs see drugs as a means to make money, drugs become s bigger issue. I think an AR15 gun ban will do the same, but the other side doesn't believe that and since both sides need to give and I get that[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics