The point you are missing is that you want to ban a legal gun because someone did something illegal to it and with it.

 

I can buy a diesel and fertilizer legally, but if I blow up a building with them I used them illegally. Does Diesel and Fertilizer need to be outlawed? You can buy a car get in it drunk and drive through a Parade killing dozens, do cars and beer need to be banned?

 

Quit blaming the objects and blame the criminals...there is evil in this world and there will always be evil, no new warm and fuzzy law will change that.

 

Are there some things (nothing that you've proposed outside of better back ground checks) that can and should be done, sure. But even the most well thought out changes will not prevent bad people from doing bad things.

 

99.99% of Mass Shootings fall into one of three categories.

1) Criminal Activity (Think Gangs, drugs, etc)

2) Mental Illness (see How many mass shooters were on psychotropic drugs prior)

3) Ideologues (Planned Parenthood, Radical Islamist)

 

So what do we do?

 

1) We battle them with stiffer penalties for gun crimes, no plea bargain and walk deals.

2) We rewrite HIPPA to allow mental health records to be part of the background check process

3) No law we write will stop these people from carrying out attacks...whether it is a mass shooting, blowing up a church with dynamite or crashing a plane into the White House

In the last two mass shootings, the weapons used in the attacks certainly were a part of the equation. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

By the way, do you think that our two extremists in San Bernardino went online to purchase the parts needed to modify the two .223 rifles? Is it that simple?

No, you've not...I just think that he is trying to spare you.

Ha ha. Spare me from death by cliches.

In the last two mass shootings, the weapons used in the attacks certainly were a part of the equation. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

By the way, do you think that our two extremists in San Bernardino went online to purchase the parts needed to modify the two .223 rifles? Is it that simple?

Columbine didn't need these kinds of weapons...the weapons are for the most part irrelevant. Could have done the exact same with pistols, shotguns or semiauto hunting rifles. I'm not sure how simple it is to convert (but it is illegal), can't be any easier than mixing fertilize and diesel...my point is that if you plan to kill you will do what ever it takes.

 

You keep slinging out questions hoping to get a gotcha moment, but your lack of knowledge on this subject is overwhelming.

 

I know you thought you had a gotcha question when you asked me, "If these guns would have been illegal during the Assault Weapons Ban?" I'm sure you had read that or heard that somewhere from someone else that didn't understand the ban or what it actually entailed.

Ha ha. Spare me from death by cliches.

 

It's not a death cliche, it to spare you from looking bad post after post in this thread.

It's not a death cliche, it to spare you from looking bad post after post in this thread.

Only those that have "played the sport" are eligible to comment. That's what Bob Trumpy used to yell at callers when he was doing sports talk on WLW. Ha ha.

 

Sounds like you and your pal RTS need to get new hobbies. Have you considered becoming pro wrestling fans? Collecting nutcrackers? Bird watching? Far lest costly than guns, bombs and bullets.

It's not a death cliche, it to spare you from looking bad post after post in this thread.

 

Actually, TTP is bringing up good points. But many are refusing to legitimately consider them because he is the messenger

 

He's allowed his opinion. His opinion is no less valid than any of the rest of the posters.

Only those that have "played the sport" are eligible to comment. That's what Bob Trumpy used to yell at callers when he was doing sports talk on WLW. Ha ha.

 

Sounds like you and your pal RTS need to get new hobbies. Have you considered becoming pro wrestling fans? Collecting nutcrackers? Bird watching? Far lest costly than guns, bombs and bullets.

Ah yes, a sad and desperate effort to try to save face. Try to belittle those that are making you look foolish because you have no clue of what you're speaking of. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Actually, TTP is bringing up good points. But many are refusing to legitimately consider them because he is the messenger

 

He's allowed his opinion. His opinion is no less valid than any of the rest of the posters.

I've got no problem with his opinion, it's his facts that are wrong...that's what has been pointed out over and over.

Actually, TTP is bringing up good points. But many are refusing to legitimately consider them because he is the messenger

 

He's allowed his opinion. His opinion is no less valid than any of the rest of the posters.

 

No, he really isn't and he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to firearms. He's coming off extremely foolish. But by all means, he certainly has the right to do so.

Only those that have "played the sport" are eligible to comment. That's what Bob Trumpy used to yell at callers when he was doing sports talk on WLW. Ha ha.

 

Sounds like you and your pal RTS need to get new hobbies. Have you considered becoming pro wrestling fans? Collecting nutcrackers? Bird watching? Far lest costly than guns, bombs and bullets.

 

What are you talking about? All I said was no one was talking about Death.

I've got no problem with his opinion, it's his facts that are wrong...that's what has been pointed out over and over.

 

Bingo.

I've got no problem with his opinion, it's his facts that are wrong...that's what has been pointed out over and over.

 

Well, I have to say...I'm skeptical of the "facts". I've found those opposed to any changes are prone to downplay the issue, and I have yet to see an answer to the question, "What does one need with an AK15 (et al)?" that I consider legitimate.

No, he really isn't and he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to firearms. He's coming off extremely foolish. But by all means, he certainly has the right to do so.

 

Yes he really is. You don't hold the only valid opinion, not raise the only good points.

Well, I have to say...I'm skeptical of the "facts". I've found those opposed to any changes are prone to downplay the issue, and I have yet to see an answer to the question, "What does one need with an AK15 (et al)?" that I consider legitimate.

 

Are you talking semi-automatic or full auto?

Yes he really is. You don't hold the only valid opinion, not raise the only good points.

 

Why? Because his thinking falls in line more with yours? Again, he has his facts wrong and he doesn't understand firearms.