Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
Poll Question: Should the CT Shootings Call for Gun Control?
Choice Votes Statistics
Yes! 17 36%
No! 26 56%
I'm not sure yet. 3 6%

Newtown CT Shooting: Should there be more gun control? Options
SuperSoldier124
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:28:12 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2007
Posts: 2,947
Points: 8,902
Location: Falcon, Colorado
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?

add me on xbox live and PSN

PS3: wartorn11b
360: precious blood1

Thundercron
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:29:44 PM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,442
Points: 31,621
Location: Vancouver, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.




I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


People are advocating more guns for the civilian population in order to protect themselves. Facts show that in the few situations where a crazed shooter was confronted with a civilian with a concealed weapon, the situation was diffused in one way or another.

You're saying that with stricter gun laws that Lanza could not have gotten his guns. How is this possible? Lanza got the guns from his mother. So you're saying that her background check should have included not only her, but her family as well? Is that how extensive these background checks should be? Not only for yourself--but your entire family needs a background check??

I also mentioned in a previous post that a kid being socially awkward and autistic does not scream "MASS SCHOOL SHOOTER OVER HERE!". Please, I'd like someone to tell me how the family was supposed to know this was going to happen. What "signs" did this kid demonstrate that told everyone he was a homicide risk?
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:30:59 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
And...for all those people that think it's "wrong" to take away everyone's gun just cause there are a whole bunch of deaths (thousands)caused by guns in this country every year.....well....answer this single question.

Would you turn in all your guns right now if you knew it could save the life of one of those kids in Connecticut?

Because that's the price.

Enacting and carrying out a policy banning guns in this country is not fast, and it isn't flashy. it isn't likely to yield immediate, vote winning results. It's likely to piss off a lotta people

But....simple ground based common sense tells you that if we have the balls and the stomach for such a lengthy and difficult action, we will save lives. Lots of lives.

And that's worth the work. That's worth the loss of votes...and the bad PR from the gun nuts. That's worth the short term pain. That's worth it.


If only we had the stones for it as Americans. If only half our population didnt give a (banned) about the lives lost when balanced against losing their precious guns.
If only people were able to ignore nonsensical taglines devsed by multi-billion dollar special interests like the NRA who dont give two (banned)s about anything other than lining their own pocket.


Care about those 20 damned kids...and eveyr other victim of gun viloence past and future. Give up your (banned)ing gns.
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:19 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?



Why?

why can't we stop being so violent?

It would be (banned)ing hard...and long...but worth it dont you think, to do this?

And, reversing the "gun culture" we are currently immersed in would be a great start.
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:34:55 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Thundercron wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.




I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


People are advocating more guns for the civilian population in order to protect themselves. Facts show that in the few situations where a crazed shooter was confronted with a civilian with a concealed weapon, the situation was diffused in one way or another.

You're saying that with stricter gun laws that Lanza could not have gotten his guns. How is this possible? Lanza got the guns from his mother. So you're saying that her background check should have included not only her, but her family as well? Is that how extensive these background checks should be? Not only for yourself--but your entire family needs a background check??

I also mentioned in a previous post that a kid being socially awkward and autistic does not scream "MASS SCHOOL SHOOTER OVER HERE!". Please, I'd like someone to tell me how the family was supposed to know this was going to happen. What "signs" did this kid demonstrate that told everyone he was a homicide risk?



If bushmasters were illegal, his mom nor him would ever have had it. If guns were illegal in general, you think either of them would have had any guns? maybe. But very likely not.


As far as the reason people are advocating more guns...I know reason. Because they've seen too many (banned)ing action movies and like the idea of a "good guy" gunning down a "bad man".
Of course, the shockingly obvious truth is two-fold. 1) A death is a death, and without the guns noone has to die 9the bad man orthe good guy)
2) More guns just means thereis more guns out there. DUH. and we already, obviously, have a shockingly easy to access lot of guns in this country already.
Thundercron
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:37:38 PM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,442
Points: 31,621
Location: Vancouver, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?



Why?

why can't we stop being so violent?

It would be (banned)ing hard...and long...but worth it dont you think, to do this?

And, reversing the "gun culture" we are currently immersed in would be a great start.


How long do you think it would take? How high the price? The last time we tried outlawing something outright to this magnitude was during Prohibition. After thirteen years or so, the country was worse off than before prohibition started. Some say organized crime would not be what it is today had prohibition never come to be.

You say it would be long, hard, and worth it. So how long, and how hard, do you suppose, exactly?
Jim
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:41:20 PM

Rank: CCL Mobile App Dev
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 10,419
Points: 10,096,227
Location: Everett, WA
comicuniversity wrote:
I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


Your passion for the subject is certainly noted.

Both your facts can...in fact...be disputed though.
1. He was carrying two hand guns capable of shooting up to 17 rounds..more than enough to kill that many people. Both are less powerful than the Bushmaster
2. If his mother was in possession of illegal weapons then by proxy he would have had access to them.

IMO, more control does not equate to more saftey or at least enough safety. It would take an outright ban on them and insanely stiff penalties for gun possession to satisfy an acceptable safety margin. I'm just not sure that will ever happen in our lifetime.

CCL Android app
CCL Android Free app
CCL Windows Phone app
ukblueky
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:43:24 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,199
Points: 12,597
Location: Kentucky
I get that your very upset over this matter ComicU and rightfully so, but the truth of the matter is drugs and drunk drivers kill more kids every year than guns.Do you get this upset when you hear about one of these tragedies? How many children die every year from child abuse and neglect? Quite a few I would guess.It seems like all summer long we are hearing stories of some parent leaving their baby in a hot car and it dying.How many children die in a year from starvation? Sure it happens more in other countries than here in the US but those people love their kids as much as we do.Then there are the children that are kidnapped and sold into human trafficking.Where is the outcry over all these things like there has been about guns?

SuperSoldier124
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:43:42 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2007
Posts: 2,947
Points: 8,902
Location: Falcon, Colorado
comicuniversity wrote:
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?



Why?

why can't we stop being so violent?

It would be (banned)ing hard...and long...but worth it dont you think, to do this?

And, reversing the "gun culture" we are currently immersed in would be a great start.
because our history is based on violence. our freedom was founded on it. all the way to the frontier and wild west of america. everyone is shocked but are you really surprised? i grew up playing army and indians and cowboys hunting and shooting reading stories about gun fight and comics about war and beating the sh!t out of "evil". no. no we cant reverse it. its engrained in the american blood line. people will never give up the right to own guns. and even if they... people its impossible to get them all. the govnt would have to go door to door getting them? oh well they're registered. well none of mine are. becuase CO doesn't require you too. if i lived on post at Ft. Carson i would have to register them with the MP station... and not many people even do that. where it needs to start are people to be educated and weapons out of the hands of retard like this waste bio-matter that used to be this lazra kid.

add me on xbox live and PSN

PS3: wartorn11b
360: precious blood1

Thundercron
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:45:05 PM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 2,442
Points: 31,621
Location: Vancouver, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
Thundercron wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.




I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


People are advocating more guns for the civilian population in order to protect themselves. Facts show that in the few situations where a crazed shooter was confronted with a civilian with a concealed weapon, the situation was diffused in one way or another.

You're saying that with stricter gun laws that Lanza could not have gotten his guns. How is this possible? Lanza got the guns from his mother. So you're saying that her background check should have included not only her, but her family as well? Is that how extensive these background checks should be? Not only for yourself--but your entire family needs a background check??

I also mentioned in a previous post that a kid being socially awkward and autistic does not scream "MASS SCHOOL SHOOTER OVER HERE!". Please, I'd like someone to tell me how the family was supposed to know this was going to happen. What "signs" did this kid demonstrate that told everyone he was a homicide risk?



If bushmasters were illegal, his mom nor him would ever have had it. If guns were illegal in general, you think either of them would have had any guns? maybe. But very likely not.

As far as the reason people are advocating more guns...I know reason. Because they've seen too many (banned)ing action movies and like the idea of a "good guy" gunning down a "bad man".Of course, the shockingly obvious truth is two-fold. 1) A death is a death, and without the guns noone has to die 9the bad man orthe good guy)
2) More guns just means thereis more guns out there. DUH. and we already, obviously, have a shockingly easy to access lot of guns in this country already.


I'll agree that the heavy artillery should be outlawed from civilian use, so a point for you.

As for your reason why people want their guns--no, that's a blanket statement. Many people want their guns for protection from the very people who do these shootings. I would like to have the option of deciding my own fate in that sort of situation. Even if I'm scared to death and can't get the gun out in time, I'd certainly like the option of having my fate in my own hands, and not be a victim of some crazed shooter.
SuperSoldier124
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:45:52 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2007
Posts: 2,947
Points: 8,902
Location: Falcon, Colorado
but thats just my opinion. i could be wrong i could be right. really i dont care. the best i can do is pray something like CT never happens at my kids school.

add me on xbox live and PSN

PS3: wartorn11b
360: precious blood1

comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:54:31 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
but thats just my opinion. i could be wrong i could be right. really i dont care. the best i can do is pray something like CT never happens at my kids school.


Supersoldier, it's people like you that snap me back down to Earth.
In a sea of people who argue frustratingly based on nonsensical taglines, you are the rare sort that can disagree with me, but actually do it logically, without hyperbole or lie/distortions.
You're not the only one in this thread, just the latest. Thank you.


Like you, I am aware that I could be wrong. In fact, my agitated emotional state when dealing with these events does compromise me a little. And....My friends and family, heck, even my buddies here on CCL...will attest to the fact that i have a tendency to get worked up into a "righteous" rage from time to time, that actually hurts my ability to get my point across more than it helps.


This is how I have begun to break it down after a coupel weeks of debating.


I have heard (more than any other argument)---and I'm paraphrasing---We will never ever stop anyone from commiting violence, so we might as well just get more violent ourselves to combat the violent people.

To me that is a hugely dissapointing defeatist attitude. I hope that Americans (at least the majority) are made of sterner stuff. I hope, this latest tragedy finally spurs us to action on the imposing task of changing the violent culture we live in.

In short, let's not turn America into Thunderdome (even though that's a pretty good movie.
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:57:59 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Thundercron wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Thundercron wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.




I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


People are advocating more guns for the civilian population in order to protect themselves. Facts show that in the few situations where a crazed shooter was confronted with a civilian with a concealed weapon, the situation was diffused in one way or another.

You're saying that with stricter gun laws that Lanza could not have gotten his guns. How is this possible? Lanza got the guns from his mother. So you're saying that her background check should have included not only her, but her family as well? Is that how extensive these background checks should be? Not only for yourself--but your entire family needs a background check??

I also mentioned in a previous post that a kid being socially awkward and autistic does not scream "MASS SCHOOL SHOOTER OVER HERE!". Please, I'd like someone to tell me how the family was supposed to know this was going to happen. What "signs" did this kid demonstrate that told everyone he was a homicide risk?



If bushmasters were illegal, his mom nor him would ever have had it. If guns were illegal in general, you think either of them would have had any guns? maybe. But very likely not.

As far as the reason people are advocating more guns...I know reason. Because they've seen too many (banned)ing action movies and like the idea of a "good guy" gunning down a "bad man".Of course, the shockingly obvious truth is two-fold. 1) A death is a death, and without the guns noone has to die 9the bad man orthe good guy)
2) More guns just means thereis more guns out there. DUH. and we already, obviously, have a shockingly easy to access lot of guns in this country already.


I'll agree that the heavy artillery should be outlawed from civilian use, so a point for you.

As for your reason why people want their guns--no, that's a blanket statement. Many people want their guns for protection from the very people who do these shootings. I would like to have the option of deciding my own fate in that sort of situation. Even if I'm scared to death and can't get the gun out in time, I'd certainly like the option of having my fate in my own hands, and not be a victim of some crazed shooter.



I didnt say that's why people want their guns (I fully recognize that there are many gun owners out there that own their guns so responsibly you'd never even know they had them)......I said that's why people are advocating for MORE GUNS after this tragedy.
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:59:55 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?



Why?

why can't we stop being so violent?

It would be (banned)ing hard...and long...but worth it dont you think, to do this?

And, reversing the "gun culture" we are currently immersed in would be a great start.
because our history is based on violence. our freedom was founded on it. all the way to the frontier and wild west of america. everyone is shocked but are you really surprised? i grew up playing army and indians and cowboys hunting and shooting reading stories about gun fight and comics about war and beating the sh!t out of "evil". no. no we cant reverse it. its engrained in the american blood line. people will never give up the right to own guns. and even if they... people its impossible to get them all. the govnt would have to go door to door getting them? oh well they're registered. well none of mine are. becuase CO doesn't require you too. if i lived on post at Ft. Carson i would have to register them with the MP station... and not many people even do that. where it needs to start are people to be educated and weapons out of the hands of retard like this waste bio-matter that used to be this lazra kid.



Seriously? Engrained in our bloodline?
ukblueky
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:01:04 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,199
Points: 12,597
Location: Kentucky
comicuniversity wrote:


In short, let's not turn America into Thunderdome (even though that's a pretty good movie.


Would that make Tina Turner the President of the United States?

comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:01:17 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


Your passion for the subject is certainly noted.

Both your facts can...in fact...be disputed though.
1. He was carrying two hand guns capable of shooting up to 17 rounds..more than enough to kill that many people. Both are less powerful than the Bushmaster
2. If his mother was in possession of illegal weapons then by proxy he would have had access to them.

IMO, more control does not equate to more saftey or at least enough safety. It would take an outright ban on them and insanely stiff penalties for gun possession to satisfy an acceptable safety margin. I'm just not sure that will ever happen in our lifetime.



Ahhhh...and here's the exact thing I'm talking about. You actually state that if we did this incredibly hard thing, it's likely make America a much safer place, but you dont want us to bother because it would take too long.

Come on man. We have to have more intestinal fortitude than that.
ukblueky
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:05:30 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,199
Points: 12,597
Location: Kentucky
Who was it that said something along the lines of "anyone who would trade their freedom for security deserves neither." Pretty smart feller.

Jim
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:45:25 PM

Rank: CCL Mobile App Dev
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 10,419
Points: 10,096,227
Location: Everett, WA
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


Your passion for the subject is certainly noted.

Both your facts can...in fact...be disputed though.
1. He was carrying two hand guns capable of shooting up to 17 rounds..more than enough to kill that many people. Both are less powerful than the Bushmaster
2. If his mother was in possession of illegal weapons then by proxy he would have had access to them.

IMO, more control does not equate to more saftey or at least enough safety. It would take an outright ban on them and insanely stiff penalties for gun possession to satisfy an acceptable safety margin. I'm just not sure that will ever happen in our lifetime.



Ahhhh...and here's the exact thing I'm talking about. You actually state that if we did this incredibly hard thing, it's likely make America a much safer place, but you dont want us to bother because it would take too long.

Come on man. We have to have more intestinal fortitude than that.

Not quite what I was trying to get across. Think more along the lines of the Cold War. I won't disarm unless I know everyone else is disarmed...but we know what the likelihood of that is anytime soon.

UK, I think that was Jefferson who said that and I pretty much agree.

CCL Android app
CCL Android Free app
CCL Windows Phone app
KingZombie
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:55:19 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.


Your passion for the subject is certainly noted.

Both your facts can...in fact...be disputed though.
1. He was carrying two hand guns capable of shooting up to 17 rounds..more than enough to kill that many people. Both are less powerful than the Bushmaster
2. If his mother was in possession of illegal weapons then by proxy he would have had access to them.

IMO, more control does not equate to more saftey or at least enough safety. It would take an outright ban on them and insanely stiff penalties for gun possession to satisfy an acceptable safety margin. I'm just not sure that will ever happen in our lifetime.



Ahhhh...and here's the exact thing I'm talking about. You actually state that if we did this incredibly hard thing, it's likely make America a much safer place, but you dont want us to bother because it would take too long.

Come on man. We have to have more intestinal fortitude than that.


To say it's incredibly hard is an understatement. It would be near impossible to impose such a ban. Confiscating every gun in the U.S.? Not only would this take years if not decades, it would create just as much violence as the type we'd like to prevent.

Remember the saying "from my cold, dead hands"? A lot of people feel that way about giving up their guns. You send in police to invade and search every home to look for guns and you create a government the 2nd amendment was actually created to prevent against.
SuperSoldier124
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:56:51 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2007
Posts: 2,947
Points: 8,902
Location: Falcon, Colorado
comicuniversity wrote:
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
SuperSoldier124 wrote:
its obvious to you... because its your opinion. was it a tragic event? yup. but really armed guards everywhere or no weapons at all is the only "gun control" that will prevent this. and lets be honest. that's ridiculous and will never happen. i agree with jim. not on the plan but that realistically thats the only thing that would prevent this. and it'll never happen because of the sheer number of weapons. We're destined to be a violent orient culture. so... move to canada, maybe?



Why?

why can't we stop being so violent?

It would be (banned)ing hard...and long...but worth it dont you think, to do this?

And, reversing the "gun culture" we are currently immersed in would be a great start.
because our history is based on violence. our freedom was founded on it. all the way to the frontier and wild west of america. everyone is shocked but are you really surprised? i grew up playing army and indians and cowboys hunting and shooting reading stories about gun fight and comics about war and beating the sh!t out of "evil". no. no we cant reverse it. its engrained in the american blood line. people will never give up the right to own guns. and even if they... people its impossible to get them all. the govnt would have to go door to door getting them? oh well they're registered. well none of mine are. becuase CO doesn't require you too. if i lived on post at Ft. Carson i would have to register them with the MP station... and not many people even do that. where it needs to start are people to be educated and weapons out of the hands of retard like this waste bio-matter that used to be this lazra kid.



Seriously? Engrained in our bloodline?

yup.

add me on xbox live and PSN

PS3: wartorn11b
360: precious blood1

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.380 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO241