Quantcast

CT: 27 dead including 18 kids in CT school shooting. There are no words - WTF?!

  • Come enter the Ridemonkey Secret Santa!

    We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
www.amazon.com said:
What point do you think I'm trying to make? Is that to hard?
Click to expand...
Amazon - let's summarize what everyone is saying.
1. The second amendment is correct in its place and need not be changed.
2. The expansion of the use and ownership of assault weapons has become prolific
3. The only purpose of an assault weapon is the shooting of another human being
4. The need for armor piercing rounds and high capacity clips is unnecessary outside of a war zone.
5. Hunting is fun and has a purpose, but you don't need an assault rifle for that
6. Most NRA funding comes from gun manufacturers
7. Restrictions about who can own weapons is not in place well enough to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.
7b. If a household has an individual with known mental illness, then guns should not be allowed in those households.
8. The US has more gun related deaths by percentage of population and number of guns than the rest of the Western world combined.
8b. After Australia outlawed assault weapons, their shooting accident and murder rates dropped drastically. *note - hunting rifles are still legal*

Let me know if I missed anything here. The only reason to have an assault weapon is to shoot other human beings. There is no reason those need to be in inividual hands. Unless you think the US government is going to try and make US prisoners within our own homes.

You let us know which part about this that you are arguing against, because it sure sounds like you are just raving about 'taking my rights' without actually looking at the context in which those rights were given.
 
Last edited:
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,550
2,180
Front Range, dude...
I am willing to bet also that amazon has never spent a day in unifom or in service to anyone but himself, yet his rights are sacred. Because he shed so much sweat and blood for them...
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,005
22,038
Sleazattle
stoney said:
Amazon - let's summarize what everyone is saying.
1. The second amendment is correct in its place and need not be changed.
2. The expansion of the use and ownership of assault weapons has become prolific
3. The only purpose of an assault weapon is the shooting of another human being
4. The need for armor piercing rounds and high capacity clips is unnecessary outside of a war zone.
5. Hunting is fun and has a purpose, but you don't need an assault rifle for that
6. Most NRA funding comes from gun manufacturers
7. Restrictions about who can own weapons is not in place well enough to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.
7b. If a household has an individual with known mental illness, then guns should not be allowed in those households.
8. The US has more gun related deaths by percentage of population and number of guns than the rest of the Western world combined.
8b. After Australia outlawed assault weapons, their shooting accident and murder rates dropped drastically. *note - hunting rifles are still legal*

Let me know if I missed anything here. The only reason to have an assault weapon is to shoot other human beings. There is no reason those need to be in inividual hands. Unless you think the US government is going to try and make US prisoners within our own homes.

You let us know which part about this that you are arguing against, because it sure sounds like you are just raving about 'taking my rights' without actually looking at the context in which those rights were given.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think it should be added assault rifles have been designed and optimized as offensive weapons with rounds designed specifically for the efficient killing of people. They are not good or even legal hunting rifles in most places and they are not good for home defense unless you like to have bullets over-penetrate and shoot your neighbors.

Handguns also pose a serious problem but they do at least have a valid use in self defense. Some states do a pretty good job of regulating handguns, it makes perfect sense to simply apply "best practices" nationwide and apply these regulations to rifles with high capacity potential.
 
H8R

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
Westy said:
it makes perfect sense to simply apply "best practices" nationwide and apply these regulations to rifles with high capacity potential.
Click to expand...
Pick a state and copy/paste the regulations?
 
W

www.amazon.com

Monkey
Aug 23, 2011
241
0
Your right JohnE I haven't. I am in school. Just because I have not means I shouldn't be allowed to have rights?. Dumb bit.ch

I am seeing things where only pistols were used in the shooting.
 
Last edited:
dan-o

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
stoney said:
7b. If a household has an individual with known mental illness, then guns should not be allowed in those households.
Click to expand...
As somebody who has a mentally ill brother (schizophrenic) I've got issues with blanket statements like this.

The NRA's calling for a National Registry of the Mentally Ill, like that which exists for sex offenders, makes my blood boil. Being mentally ill is not a crime and should not be viewed as such. Ever.

Should there be restrictions on gun ownership in relation to mental illness? Absolutely.
Should households with mentally ill family members be categorically prevented from owning guns? Absolutely not.

All the weapons in my mom's house, mostly bird guns and a few deer rifles, are secured in a gun safe within a locked room. That's more for peace of mind with my sons and niece than my brother, however. I can't recall in time in the 20yrs since he was diagnosed nor the 19 years before that, where he acted out violently in any way. It simply isn't in his character.
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
dan-o said:
As somebody who has a mentally ill brother (schizophrenic) I've got issues with blanket statements like this.

The NRA's calling for a National Registry of the Mentally Ill, like that which exists for sex offenders, makes my blood boil. Being mentally ill is not a crime and should not be viewed as such. Ever.

Should there be restrictions on gun ownership in relation to mental illness? Absolutely.
Should households with mentally ill family members be categorically prevented from owning guns? Absolutely not.

All the weapons in my mom's house, mostly bird guns and a few deer rifles, are secured in a gun safe within a locked room. That's more for peace of mind with my sons and niece than my brother, however. I can't recall in time in the 20yrs since he was diagnosed nor the 19 years before that, where he acted out violently in any way. It simply isn't in his character.
Click to expand...
I dont think its about individual cases... That would be impossible to monitor.
In cases like this you have to draw a line.
Just like there is no such thing as allowing guns only for "responsible gunowners".
The real world simply doesnt work like that.
 
Last edited:
stevew

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,162
10,101
dan-o said:
(schizophrenic)
Click to expand...
had a friend who was schizophrenic in high school.

he wasn't a fan of whatever meds he was on.

preferred mushrooms/acid instead.

interesting to deal with at times.
 
stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
Amazon - any comment or argument against my note? I see you have responded to others questions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom