Omaha Red Sox wrote:Hey, now, check out the author. It wasn't me.
Doh! So Knapp is the rabbit killer then.
Yeah, I got dogs and shotguns. I don't mess around.
Not a dog fan at all. If the pet doesn't stay in a bowl or cage, I don't want one.
Now shotguns are no problem. Tons of those around here (Texas - we hunt).
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Omaha Red Sox wrote:Hey, now, check out the author. It wasn't me.
Doh! So Knapp is the rabbit killer then.
Yeah, I got dogs and shotguns. I don't mess around.
Not a dog fan at all. If the pet doesn't stay in a bowl or cage, I don't want one.
Now shotguns are no problem. Tons of those around here (Texas - we hunt).
You don't let Hammy roam free? That's cruel Mad, just cruel.
Hammy runs around all the time. Little bugger.
He doesn't live with me though, so that's not a huge concern of mine.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Fireball Express wrote:My stance has been heard before here. I'm an advocate for a gun in every house. Of course that does not include houses inhabited by someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness.
Do I think current gun control laws are perfect? Most certainly not. There needs to be a way to keep the guns out of the black market and hence out of the hands of criminals. Maybe limit the sale of guns to 1 per person per year.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance; although i don't think a "gun in every house" is really the answer. I certainly don't want one, although it is the libertarian in me that supports gun ownership rights.
What I disagree with is the opinion of some people in this country that gun sales should be left unregulated and unrestricted, and that anyone who says otherwise is some kind of Michael Moore loving treehugger. That's certainly not the case, and there needs to be regulation. The big "black market" argument is ridiculous; can't we crack down on this black market? The war on drugs is a waste of time, why don't we put some resources simply toward preventing people, particularly children and wack jobs, from obtaining guns illegally?
This guy, however, who killed the Amish girls; he's clearly a sociopath and it has now been reported that he intended to rape those girls before shooting himself. He was a perfectly normal, churchgoing member of his community. And he took his own guns plus 300 rounds of ammo and committed a horrible atrocity. How can gun control prevent something like that from happening?
Basically, i guess it can't.
The problem with attempting to just "crack down" on the illegal gun market is that without any more guns produced, there are still enough on the streets to arm pretty much anyone who wants one. It's not like we can set up a bunch of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco officers at the border at stop the guns from coming in - they are produced here, leagally, and often stolen. Because of the permanent nature of a gun, attempting to take them out of circulation isn't feasible. Gun-round-ups, where guns are traded in, only accrue 1000 guns in a very sucessful event - this equates to .1 less homicide.
So, if the weapons are out there, and we can't get them away from those that want to use them, the only solution seems to be give them a good reason to not use a gun, such as the person you may be robbing, raping, etc. might shoot you back.
Fireball Express wrote:My stance has been heard before here. I'm an advocate for a gun in every house. Of course that does not include houses inhabited by someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness.
Do I think current gun control laws are perfect? Most certainly not. There needs to be a way to keep the guns out of the black market and hence out of the hands of criminals. Maybe limit the sale of guns to 1 per person per year.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance; although i don't think a "gun in every house" is really the answer. I certainly don't want one, although it is the libertarian in me that supports gun ownership rights.
What I disagree with is the opinion of some people in this country that gun sales should be left unregulated and unrestricted, and that anyone who says otherwise is some kind of Michael Moore loving treehugger. That's certainly not the case, and there needs to be regulation. The big "black market" argument is ridiculous; can't we crack down on this black market? The war on drugs is a waste of time, why don't we put some resources simply toward preventing people, particularly children and wack jobs, from obtaining guns illegally?
This guy, however, who killed the Amish girls; he's clearly a sociopath and it has now been reported that he intended to rape those girls before shooting himself. He was a perfectly normal, churchgoing member of his community. And he took his own guns plus 300 rounds of ammo and committed a horrible atrocity. How can gun control prevent something like that from happening?
Basically, i guess it can't.
The problem with attempting to just "crack down" on the illegal gun market is that without any more guns produced, there are still enough on the streets to arm pretty much anyone who wants one. It's not like we can set up a bunch of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco officers at the border at stop the guns from coming in - they are produced here, leagally, and often stolen. Because of the permanent nature of a gun, attempting to take them out of circulation isn't feasible. Gun-round-ups, where guns are traded in, only accrue 1000 guns in a very sucessful event - this equates to .1 less homicide.
So, if the weapons are out there, and we can't get them away from those that want to use them, the only solution seems to be give them a good reason to not use a gun, such as the person you may be robbing, raping, etc. might shoot you back.
I see what you're saying; basically Jim Bob can take a muzzle loading musket made in 1850 and blow someone's brains out.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Fireball Express wrote:My stance has been heard before here. I'm an advocate for a gun in every house. Of course that does not include houses inhabited by someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness.
Do I think current gun control laws are perfect? Most certainly not. There needs to be a way to keep the guns out of the black market and hence out of the hands of criminals. Maybe limit the sale of guns to 1 per person per year.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance; although i don't think a "gun in every house" is really the answer. I certainly don't want one, although it is the libertarian in me that supports gun ownership rights.
What I disagree with is the opinion of some people in this country that gun sales should be left unregulated and unrestricted, and that anyone who says otherwise is some kind of Michael Moore loving treehugger. That's certainly not the case, and there needs to be regulation. The big "black market" argument is ridiculous; can't we crack down on this black market? The war on drugs is a waste of time, why don't we put some resources simply toward preventing people, particularly children and wack jobs, from obtaining guns illegally?
This guy, however, who killed the Amish girls; he's clearly a sociopath and it has now been reported that he intended to rape those girls before shooting himself. He was a perfectly normal, churchgoing member of his community. And he took his own guns plus 300 rounds of ammo and committed a horrible atrocity. How can gun control prevent something like that from happening?
Basically, i guess it can't.
The problem with attempting to just "crack down" on the illegal gun market is that without any more guns produced, there are still enough on the streets to arm pretty much anyone who wants one. It's not like we can set up a bunch of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco officers at the border at stop the guns from coming in - they are produced here, leagally, and often stolen. Because of the permanent nature of a gun, attempting to take them out of circulation isn't feasible. Gun-round-ups, where guns are traded in, only accrue 1000 guns in a very sucessful event - this equates to .1 less homicide.
So, if the weapons are out there, and we can't get them away from those that want to use them, the only solution seems to be give them a good reason to not use a gun, such as the person you may be robbing, raping, etc. might shoot you back.
I see what you're saying; basically Jim Bob can take a muzzle loading musket made in 1850 and blow someone's brains out.
No, I'm not saying that, because I'm not retarded.
To think that these guns won't stay in circulation for at least 50 years is stupid. I have a shotgun that is roughly 75 years old, and it can hit the target just fine. So the idea, if your pithy comment veiled ignorance of the underlying point, is that you can't just stop people from getting new guns, and expect the gun problem to go away.
Fireball Express wrote:My stance has been heard before here. I'm an advocate for a gun in every house. Of course that does not include houses inhabited by someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness.
Do I think current gun control laws are perfect? Most certainly not. There needs to be a way to keep the guns out of the black market and hence out of the hands of criminals. Maybe limit the sale of guns to 1 per person per year.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance; although i don't think a "gun in every house" is really the answer. I certainly don't want one, although it is the libertarian in me that supports gun ownership rights.
What I disagree with is the opinion of some people in this country that gun sales should be left unregulated and unrestricted, and that anyone who says otherwise is some kind of Michael Moore loving treehugger. That's certainly not the case, and there needs to be regulation. The big "black market" argument is ridiculous; can't we crack down on this black market? The war on drugs is a waste of time, why don't we put some resources simply toward preventing people, particularly children and wack jobs, from obtaining guns illegally?
This guy, however, who killed the Amish girls; he's clearly a sociopath and it has now been reported that he intended to rape those girls before shooting himself. He was a perfectly normal, churchgoing member of his community. And he took his own guns plus 300 rounds of ammo and committed a horrible atrocity. How can gun control prevent something like that from happening?
Basically, i guess it can't.
The problem with attempting to just "crack down" on the illegal gun market is that without any more guns produced, there are still enough on the streets to arm pretty much anyone who wants one. It's not like we can set up a bunch of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco officers at the border at stop the guns from coming in - they are produced here, leagally, and often stolen. Because of the permanent nature of a gun, attempting to take them out of circulation isn't feasible. Gun-round-ups, where guns are traded in, only accrue 1000 guns in a very sucessful event - this equates to .1 less homicide.
So, if the weapons are out there, and we can't get them away from those that want to use them, the only solution seems to be give them a good reason to not use a gun, such as the person you may be robbing, raping, etc. might shoot you back.
I see what you're saying; basically Jim Bob can take a muzzle loading musket made in 1850 and blow someone's brains out.
No, I'm not saying that, because I'm not retarded.
To think that these guns won't stay in circulation for at least 50 years is stupid. I have a shotgun that is roughly 75 years old, and it can hit the target just fine. So the idea, if your pithy comment veiled ignorance of the underlying point, is that you can't just stop people from getting new guns, and expect the gun problem to go away.
Hey, I apologize if my comment came off that way... because I was serious. My girlfriend's father has a musket that was made over a hundred years ago and it's something he's quite proud of. He still, occassionally, takes it shooting. My point is, technically, he could shoot someone with that gun which was made so long ago.
I'm actually supporting your argument... guns are far more resilient than, say, a Chrysler automobile. What I don't quite know is how many guns are produced each year. Are they made to supply the same people buying more guns, or are a lot of people buying guns for the first time? I'm also a fan of capitalism, and I would not support butting gun manufacturers out of business for a political point.
I still support going after this underground gun trade, and I think there should be a security standard for any retailer that sells firearms... it seems that guns typically aren't stolen from Wal-Marts and K-Marts, but from small time gun dealers.
But the point is, although we don't see quite eye to eye, my pithy was not nearly as sarcastic as it seemed.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Madison » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:50 pm 
