Connecticut school shooting: Lawmakers offer prayers amid calls for gun control

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It also seems to be highly regarded by those who want to do mass casualties on other people, the same as the AK47 type models. 🤷
Click to expand...
Then what additional gun controls do you want… and how would they have stopped the CT shooting?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t stop all abortions. Should we give up? Prior to the election it was to protect as many as possible, when it comes to gun control it’s don’t tread on me???
Click to expand...
Ah, but only one of those is an intrinsic evil. There is nothing intrisically evil about the ownership of Glocks and AR-15’s
 
RTC success: Florida has issued the most carry permits–nearly 2 million—but revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.9

Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel: “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences…But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”10

An article on Michigan’s RTC law: “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded… National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin…There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”11
  1. Florida Division of Licensing, Monthly Statistical Report (licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html).
  2. David Kopel, “The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits,” Policy Review, July-Aug. 1996, p. 9.
  3. “Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don’t believe gun foe scare tactics,” Detroit News, 1/14/01
 
ProVobis said:
Let’s be fair here. It seems that those on the other side aren’t offering any workable solutions either. Just like with cars and alcohol, there is some responsibility that must be assumed by those using them. We’re all in this together and sometimes we have to police one another as law enforcement seems to be scarce these days.
Click to expand...
But he was denied when he tried to buy a rifle because of the current gun control. So how would more gun control measures have stopped him?
 
Bill_Martin said:
The 2nd Amendment is not ,was never, and never will be about hunting.
Click to expand...
It’s intent was and is about militias. I think we have sufficient militias, in my opinion. Now we can discuss other purposes like hunting.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s intent was and is about militias. I think we have sufficient militias, in my opinion. Now we can discuss other purposes like hunting.
Click to expand...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia. It’s very clearly about individual rights.
 
Brendan said:
So, propane tanks were the explosive of choice for the Columbine shooters, should we ban those too, just because they were valued by those who wanted to inflict mass casualties?
Click to expand...
Maybe we should start by approaching items for what they were designed for, and then other items. Guns were designed for one purpose, to kill. Propane tanks, cars, and other type items were not designed for killing. Now, they can be used for intentional killing, but then they need to be able ‘conceal’ the tanks, cars, etc., and their use for ‘mass’ killings is extremely rare. How many did the Columbine shooters set off?
 
Bill_Martin said:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia. It’s very clearly about individual rights.
Click to expand...
So, as Christians, we should place our ‘rights’ above the Gospel teaching?
 
ProVobis said:
What do you mean by it? Serious means serious in my book.
Click to expand...
well it’s obvious some choose the importance of their rights based on their beliefs, and feel their beliefs should b mine!!
so yes I would say those gun control crowd do NOT take it as serious as I do
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Maybe we should start by approaching items for what they were designed for, and then other items. Guns were designed for one purpose, to kill. Propane tanks, cars, and other type items were not designed for killing. Now, they can be used for intentional killing, but then they need to be able ‘conceal’ the tanks, cars, etc., and their use for ‘mass’ killings is extremely rare. How many did the Columbine shooters set off?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what they were designed for. What the operator uses them for is the only thing that matters. All of my guns were designed to kill. Big deal, they’ve never been used for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top