Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[NorthDallas40]

First, you are correct that the NRA has also had it's fair share of Dems bought and paid for. They get no pass, either.

Second, however, your point about a particular year is rather silly since any change to gun laws, if there was one, would take quite awhile to take effect.

Over a 10 year period the FBI data shows neglible change in an assault weapons ban on the number of victims in mass shootings. Is that a long enough period?

 

[luthervol]

You convince me on what you want to change. You’re the one that wants it not me. You make your own damn arguments on what they should have done. You state YOUR position on this for debate.

I think they should have gone in and confiscated all of his guns, denied him the right to ever legally purchase a gun in the future, and placed an ankle bracelet on him that would be removed when he turns 21 if he had no further issues.

The gun lovers turn (not in hindsight). What do you think the FBI should have done based on the complaints and warnings they had received.

 

[luthervol]

This is Luther’s other obvious play in addition to sleighting attacks on the debater. He’s trying to shift the burden of proof.

Let him justify his own positions instead of us making his points for him.

“ oh I don’t know anything about these gun thingies so why don’t you tell me what I should do”. Voila you’ve taken on his burden for him.

Make him prove his own damn points. He has the burden.

Edit: and yeah that would have been the best spent cartridge in FLA that day too.

The flip side of that is what I see. Many of you want to sit back ready to pounce on anyone else's idea but will never go on record with your own opinions.

 

[tumscalcium]

Oh this should be good... please do explain how my posts erred...

Sure.

Means nothing.. You can not legislate human behavior

Really? You pay your taxes voluntarily, huh?

I reminded you of withholdings.....

Then you said..

Precisely my point. The taxes you pay are the result of legislation.

This has nothing to do with human behavior. I’d like to see your correlation between the will to kill people and having taxes forcefully removed from a paycheck.

 

[luthervol]

Should have said "we are watching you", even if they did not plan to. These crazies want to be made famous by the media not go to jail for minor crimes.

That would have been a start. But had they told him they would be watching him and then he did this, they would be castigated for that.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think they should have gone in and confiscated all of his guns, denied him the right to ever legally purchase a gun in the future, and placed an ankle bracelet on him that would be removed when he turns 21 if he had no further issues.

The gun lovers turn (not in hindsight). What do you think the FBI should have done based on the complaints and warnings they had received.

I support your stance in identifying this individual correctly with one exception. There needs to be a reconciliatory path to where if he exhibits responsibility his rights can be restored. And I’m willing to debate what that would mean. But I agree if he never passes that test his gun rights should not be restored.

So now that we have agreed on an outcome what is your proposed legislation to preemptively identify this individual while not falsely discriminating against other individuals?

And welcome to the NRA debate stance.

 

[lawgator1]

Over a 10 year period the FBI data shows neglible change in an assault weapons ban on the number of victims in mass shootings. Is that a long enough period?

No, not really.

And at any rate the kind of restrictions I'm thinking of would no doubt reduce gun violence of any kind, once the supply already out there naturally thinned out.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The flip side of that is what I see. Many of you want to sit back ready to pounce on anyone else's idea but will never go on record with your own opinions.

If course you see the flip side. Your brain couldn’t process anything else.

And I’ve made my stance clear. We partially gave up weapons and accessories for 10 years with no observable change in results. Thus we will not agree to this again as obviously it does not work.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No, not really.

And at any rate the kind of restrictions I'm thinking of would no doubt reduce gun violence of any kind, once the supply already out there naturally thinned out.

A) so you know that’s a logically fallacy in positing a possible outcome as reason for change now ( longer length of ban). With you background I know you have training in this

B) all I can see you would be eluding to here is revoking the 2nd amendment? A complete reversal of right to bear arms? If I am mistaken what is your premise.

 

[luthervol]

I support your stance in identifying this individual correctly with one exception. There needs to be a reconciliatory path to where if he exhibits responsibility his rights can be restored. And I’m willing to debate what that would mean. But I agree if he never passes that test his gun rights should not be restored.

So now that we have agreed on an outcome what is your proposed legislation to preemptively identify this individual while not falsely discriminating against other individuals?

And welcome to the NRA debate stance.

21 year old purchase age.
That type of weapon would be illegal to purchase.
Anyone making "terroristic/racist" type threats would not be allowed to purchase weapons.
Anyone expelled from a public school would not be allowed to purchase weapons for five years.
Any child on any type of medication for behavioral/emotional issues for greater than a six month period can not purchase a gun before the age of 25 and only after thorough background check and psychiatric evaluation.

 

[volfanhill]

21 year old purchase age.
That type of weapon would be illegal to purchase.
Anyone making "terroristic/racist" type threats would not be allowed to purchase weapons.
Anyone expelled from a public school would not be allowed to purchase weapons for five years.
Any child on any type of medication for behavioral/emotional issues for greater than a six month period can not purchase a gun before the age of 25 and only after thorough background check and psychiatric evaluation.

Can these people still vote?

 

[T-TownVol]

See above dude.

That is not a "behavior".....it is a reaction to a law......YUGE difference.....

 

[NorthDallas40]

21 year old purchase age.- negotiable

That type of weapon would be illegal to purchase.- if youre back to banning assault weapons no it doesn’t work

Anyone making "terroristic/racist" type threats would not be allowed to purchase weapons. - too broad and subjective. Freedom of speech. Refine.

Anyone expelled from a public school would not be allowed to purchase weapons for five years. - I could care less on this point at this point in my life I’ll let others pick this one up

Any child on any type of medication for behavioral/emotional issues for greater than a six month period can not purchase a gun before the age of 25 and only after thorough background check and psychiatric evaluation.- I would ask here that you review the laws currently on the books on this item first. I propose we have an administration problem

Welcome to the actual debate.

 

[T-TownVol]

Oh this should be good... please do explain how my posts erred...

Doubling down on ignorance huh???

Your statements sound like they are coming out of Pelosi's mouth.....

 

[golfballs]

[twitter]964966284822659072[/twitter]

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Sure.





I reminded you of withholdings.....

Then you said..



This has nothing to do with human behavior. I’d like to see your correlation between the will to kill people and having taxes forcefully removed from a paycheck.

Biopsy stated one cannot legislate human behavior. This is an asinine statement. Our behavior is legislated everyday of our lives. Your taxes are withheld, for example, because of legislation that creates taxes. You don't have a choice in that matter. You either pay your taxes or eventually go to jail.

Similarly, one's ability to kill massive number of people can be legislated. The banning of assault rifles is one way to do this. If you do not have an AR15 with a 100 round ammo clip on it, your ability to kill people declines significantly. This is obviously why mass murderers choose such assault rifles.

This is not rocket science.

Should each of us as American citizens have the right to own our own nuclear weapon? Of course not. Why? Because this is obviously a weapon of war. Assault rifles just like nuclear weapons have one place: war. You don't need them, I don't need them, sportsman don't need them, you don't need assault weapons. Get over it. Stop acting like spoiled children.

 

[golfballs]

Biopsy stated one cannot legislate human behavior. This is an asinine statement. Our behavior is legislated everyday of our lives. Your taxes are withheld, for example, because of legislation that creates taxes. You don't have a choice in that matter. You either pay your taxes or eventually go to jail.

Similarly, one's ability to kill massive number of people can be legislated. The banning of assault rifles is one way to do this. If you do not have an AR15 with a 100 round ammo clip on it, your ability to kill people declines significantly. This is obviously why mass murderers choose such assault rifles.

This is not rocket science.

Should each of us as American citizens have the right to own our own nuclear weapon? Of course not. Why? Because this is obviously a weapon of war. Assault rifles just like nuclear weapons have one place: war. You don't need them, I don't need them, sportsman don't need them, you don't need assault weapons. Get over it. Stop acting like spoiled children.

Assault rifles already are effectively banned. An ar-15 is not a military weapon. How many times do you have to be told that?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Biopsy stated one cannot legislate human behavior. This is an asinine statement. Our behavior is legislated everyday of our lives. Your taxes are withheld, for example, because of legislation that creates taxes. You don't have a choice in that matter. You either pay your taxes or eventually go to jail.

Similarly, one's ability to kill massive number of people can be legislated. The banning of assault rifles is one way to do this. If you do not have an AR15 with a 100 round ammo clip on it, your ability to kill people declines significantly. This is obviously why mass murderers choose such assault rifles.

This is not rocket science.

Should each of us as American citizens have the right to own our own nuclear weapon? Of course not. Why? Because this is obviously a weapon of war. Assault rifles just like nuclear weapons have one place: war. You don't need them, I don't need them, sportsman don't need them, you don't need assault weapons. Get over it. Stop acting like spoiled children.

And yet their 10 year ban had no impact on the actual statistics. Thus for your piece of mind and convenice and for no other reason what so ever I am supposed to give something up? GTFO

Unless you are actually inferring seizure of existing firearms already in the population which are purchased legally? Good luck with that one. Never going to happen. And out of curiosity when the speed limit was lowered to 55 did they retroactively issue speeding tickets? I repeat. Seizure and confiscation on a federal scale will never ever happen. So I guess you better buckle up for your own piece of mind!

 

[golfballs]

Also, technically, it’s not illegal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon

 

[davethevol]

Assault rifles already are effectively banned. An ar-15 is not a military weapon. How many times do you have to be told that?

He and the other commies love Rule 8 from Saul Alinsky: “keep the pressure on.” They don’t want a debate. They will just keep using the same false argument over and over until they get their desired change.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

[twitter]964966284822659072[/twitter]

Exactly.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It’s always fun when people tell you what you need and what you don’t need. Would be tyrants.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It’s always fun when people tell you what you need and what you don’t need. Would be tyrants.

If the AR platform had existed in the 1800’s it would have been in every saddlebag and wagon in the West. It is the modern day equivalent of the Winchester repeating rifle. It is NOT the Maxim or Gatling machine gun equivalent.

 

[TN Ribs]

If course you see the flip side. Your brain couldn’t process anything else.

And I’ve made my stance clear. We partially gave up weapons and accessories for 10 years with no observable change in results. Thus we will not agree to this again as obviously it does not work.

I'm curious as to how you are coming up with this conclusion. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just asking. Obviously there have been a number of articles written in the last several days about this very topic and some say it worked, some say it did not work. Unfortunately, each article uses different variables and metrics to support their case so its difficult to come up with a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm curious as to how you are coming up with this conclusion. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just asking. Obviously there have been a number of articles written in the last several days about this very topic and some say it worked, some say it did not work. Unfortunately, each article uses different variables and metrics to support their case so its difficult to come up with a definitive answer one way or the other.

Search back several pages. I posted a link from a professor that used the actual FBI data on the topic which they don’t refute. On YouTube the professor was even interviewed by Jake Tapper and corroborated the article. Also when observing statistics on this topic do not take them at face value. Absolutely question the source and validity. Bloomberg is on a personal mission to form the national dialog on this and has established several media outlets to get his statistics out.