Suspected gunman dead after Colorado shooting spree

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abynissa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea behind gun-free zones is that no one, including a criminal, would bring in a gun. So the idea that it needs any kind of further explanation or excuse just goes to show what a dismal failure gun control is.

The whole point to the 2nd Amendment and owning your own weapons is that the government cannot always protect oneself, which is conceded in the prior point in that police can’t keep up.

That’s old news.

Gun control is not the answer. People can decide for themselves whether or not to own a gun.

Criminals who really want them will always find ways to get them no matter big and well-intention government is.

So then why didn’t Prohibition work?
Gun control helps. It doesn’t eliminate shootings, it reduces them. Making the sale of liquor legal did not eliminate the need to regulate alcohol sale and use. Alcohol is still a BIG problem, though the laws help. The laws like not selling to minors or those who are intoxicated, or the hours of sale or those who are driving. See, it’s still regulated by laws and it makes sense.
 
There’s actually some evidence that restricting prescription pain drugs, like oxycodone, has driven increases in the use of illegal drugs like heroin. In Washington State, heroin use increased in the wake of stricter controls prescription pain meds.

usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/study-heroin-abuse-increase-may-be-due-to-prescription-painkiller-crackdown
So what has that got to do with anything? Heroin is still bad news and people still overuse drugs legal or not.
 
LOL! It is certainly valid to you, but as an opinion that would limit another person’s rights, not so much. Your use of all-caps is hardly convincing, and circumstantial evidence that you are making a mis-characterization of my position. If you took the time to read the “black part” you would see that I object to indiscriminate regulation, and one of the forms of indiscriminate regulation is fear driven emotional judgements in spite of the facts. Courting outrage is not an argument, and it weakens your position.
What’s weakening your position is that you don’t acknowledge any reason why we should limit sale of guns, the main one being, guns are inherently dangerous weapons that even a kid could use to kill another person…and HAS!!
 
An AR-15 is among the most common weapons owned by civilians. It’s excellent for home defense, and medium game and predator hunting. It’s very easy to shoot, which is especially important for women and very customizable. Why should seeing one freak anybody out?
The way you glorify the gun should send red flags up… It’s excellent for home defense and easy to shoot… yes even a child could shoot it…and a madman who will take out plenty of victims…4 dead in the Colorado Springs shooting spree… A loved one of any of those victims who died would be shocked to hear you talk of it so casually.
 
Before, you didn’t need a prescription to buy pseudoephedrine, now in many states you do. Now, if you’re going to make people jump through a bunch of hoops to get pseudoephedrine,
What hoops? They ask you for your drivers license and will not dispense more than a week or two without a prescription. If you need it on an ongoing basis, get a prescription… That way it will not get into the wrong hands… Simple…
 
Before, you didn’t need a prescription to buy pseudoephedrine, now in many states you do. Now, if you’re going to make people jump through a bunch of hoops to get pseudoephedrine, shouldn’t you have to show that doing so makes it harder to get methamphetamine, which is the goal of the restriction? By the same token, if you’re going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to procure firearms, shouldn’t you have to show that places with stricter policies on firearms are safer than those without? In other words, shouldn’t you have to demonstrate at least, a positive correlation between strict gun laws and low rates of murder?
No because circumstances change all the time… A person gets a FOID card and they move or get married to someone with a problem or has a psychological meltdown or becomes an alcoholic…But now he’s got 20 rifles in his possession!!!.. who keeps track of all that…? Who’s law abiding and who’s not? I just said persons can get several weapons from several shops and then sell them illegally on the street. If there were more regulations and limits on sale, they wouldn’t get so many. Yes we should make it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun, as it is, it’s too easy. I say monitor them similar to how they monitor prescription drugs… What they are doing is not enough…🤷
 
A police is a trained professional, who is continually trained on weaponry and how to handle situations such as this.
Ordinary police officers merely have to hit a target with a fair degree of accuracy once per year. They are NOT continually trained on weaponry. There are many, many civilians who are more proficient with firearms than an ordinary law enforcement officer is required to be.
What the heck was a guy doing with an AR-15 in the first place?
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today.
 
Ordinary police officers merely have to hit a target with a fair degree of accuracy once per year. They are NOT continually trained on weaponry. There are many, many civilians who are more proficient with firearms than an ordinary law enforcement officer is required to be. .
I’d rather be protected by a policeman who has the authority to defend me than some doopa on the street who thinks he knows all there is about guns, and how and when to use them.
 
What’s weakening your position is that you don’t acknowledge any reason why we should limit sale of guns, the main one being, guns are inherently dangerous weapons that even a kid could use to kill another person…and HAS!!
Oh my, the all-caps again. I can see how you could see it that way, especially since you apparently don’t bother to read what I write. The only thing that I can think of that I don’t acknowledge, are your activist claims. Guns are indeed dangerous, as are many other tools in our civilization. What I don’t believe in is subsidizing my moral responsibility via poorly thought out laws, which result in more knee jerk poorly thought out laws, ad infinitum.
 
Oh my, the all-caps again. I can see how you could see it that way, especially since you apparently don’t bother to read what I write. The only thing that I can think of that I don’t acknowledge, are your activist claims. Guns are indeed dangerous, as are many other tools in our civilization. What I don’t believe in is subsidizing my moral responsibility via poorly thought out laws, which result in more knee jerk poorly thought out laws, ad infinitum.
What we are doing now isn’t working… Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds every day… We have a gun-happy culture and it’s sickening IMO…
 
I thought police were running around shooting unarmed black men. But when it comes to arguing gun control, they’re what? Prim and proper professionals? :confused:

See, this is one of the many problems whenever progressive arguments are taken up.

PS— most gun owners take their ownership seriously as well, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them were better at using their guns than the police.
Police take their jobs seriously as well and many have lost their lives in the line of duty and have become targets because of stereotyping… Again, quit stereotyping. For your information, I’m not a liberal progressive just because I feel there needs to be stronger gun control laws… I’m doing my best to follow in the path of Jesus who never taught us to retailiate, eye for an eye. He taught us to be peacemakers, not to have peacemakers. Remember?? peacemakers a term for guns that the people of the Wild Wild West used??
 
No because circumstances change all the time… A person gets a FOID card and they move or get married to someone with a problem or has a psychological meltdown or becomes an alcoholic…But now he’s got 20 rifles in his possession!!!.. who keeps track of all that…? Who’s law abiding and who’s not? I just said persons can get several weapons from several shops and then sell them illegally on the street. If there were more regulations and limits on sale, they wouldn’t get so many. Yes we should make it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun, as it is, it’s too easy. I say monitor them similar to how they monitor prescription drugs… What they are doing is not enough…🤷
There is zero correlation between gun laws and homicide rates, so what you’re saying, is restrictive gun laws are an end unto themselves. Whether they make people safer or not is irrelevant.
 
Police take their jobs seriously as well and many have lost their lives in the line of duty and have become targets because of stereotyping… Again, quit stereotyping. For your information, I’m not a liberal progressive… I’m doing my best to follow in the path of Jesus who never taught us to retailiate, eye for an eye. He taught us to be peacemakers, not to have peacemakers. Remember?? peacemakers a term for guns that the people of the Wild Wild West used??
The Catholic Church calls self defense a right, and calls defending others a grave duty.
CCC 2265 - Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
The Catholic Church is not a pacifist denomination.
 
There is zero correlation between gun laws and homicide rates, so what you’re saying, is restrictive gun laws are an end unto themselves. Whether they make people safer or not is irrelevant.
Are you saying the Brady Bill didn’t help?
 
The Catholic Church calls self defense a right, and calls defending others a grave duty.

The Catholic Church is not a pacifist denomination.
The Catholic Church doesn’t make a statement on gun control laws it leaves that up to the nations. Even the Pope in his recent Congressional visit spoke out against our gun laws.
 
What we are doing now isn’t working… Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds every day… We have a gun-happy culture and it’s sickening IMO…
Define “isn’t working.”

What would qualify as “working”? Then please provide a suitable example of something resembling “working” today. What are the qualifications, requirements of “working”? After decades of gun control, more laws and regulations than one could count, tell me how more regulation is going to fit into your idea of “working.”

You may indeed be sickened by the preference of others, but that in itself is not a reason to restrict the rights of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top