(09-01-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

Opportunists? Is that what you would call family members of the victims who are bringing this issue up?

Perhaps you would just prefer to have these sort of things happen and no one make a fuss.

Because honestly , that's what it sounds like.

Family members are the exception. They are too emotionally devastated right now to be thinking clearly. If a year from now they are still championing the anti-gun cause then I'll ask them the same question that I asked you and the other anti-gunners.

No, what I would like is honest, well thought out ideas on what we could change to prevent this from happening in the future instead of exploiting a tragedy to try and advance a movement that has been defeated on just about every legal front they have attempted to fight.

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

Opportunists? Is that what you would call family members of the victims who are bringing this issue up?

Perhaps you would just prefer to have these sort of things happen and no one make a fuss.

Because honestly , that's what it sounds like.

Family members are the exception. They are too emotionally devastated right now to be thinking clearly. If a year from now they are still championing the anti-gun cause then I'll ask them the same question that I asked you and the other anti-gunners.

No, what I would like is honest, well thought out ideas on what we could change to prevent this from happening in the future instead of exploiting a tragedy to try and advance a movement that has been defeated on just about every legal front they have attempted to fight.

Even if I disagree with the ultimate notion they are trying to further, the whole idea that we shouldn't discuss firearms legislation after firearms tragedy is nonsense, and wholly without merit. I suppose we shouldn't discuss food safety issues after a massive poisoning, or industrial safety after an industrial accident.

(09-01-2015 01:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

Opportunists? Is that what you would call family members of the victims who are bringing this issue up?

Perhaps you would just prefer to have these sort of things happen and no one make a fuss.

Because honestly , that's what it sounds like.

Family members are the exception. They are too emotionally devastated right now to be thinking clearly. If a year from now they are still championing the anti-gun cause then I'll ask them the same question that I asked you and the other anti-gunners.

No, what I would like is honest, well thought out ideas on what we could change to prevent this from happening in the future instead of exploiting a tragedy to try and advance a movement that has been defeated on just about every legal front they have attempted to fight.

Even if I disagree with the ultimate notion they are trying to further, the whole idea that we shouldn't discuss firearms legislation after firearms tragedy is nonsense, and wholly without merit. I suppose we shouldn't discuss food safety issues after a massive poisoning, or industrial safety after an industrial accident.

If there is a change that could be made that would have had an effect on the situation that brought about the discussion then go for it.

But bringing up gun control after this situation when there was no conceivable way that any realistic law would have prevented the situation you are trying to exploit is like bringing up the mercury content of tuna fish right after a bunch of people died of botulism from canned corn.

(09-01-2015 01:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

Opportunists? Is that what you would call family members of the victims who are bringing this issue up?

Perhaps you would just prefer to have these sort of things happen and no one make a fuss.

Because honestly , that's what it sounds like.

Family members are the exception. They are too emotionally devastated right now to be thinking clearly. If a year from now they are still championing the anti-gun cause then I'll ask them the same question that I asked you and the other anti-gunners.

No, what I would like is honest, well thought out ideas on what we could change to prevent this from happening in the future instead of exploiting a tragedy to try and advance a movement that has been defeated on just about every legal front they have attempted to fight.

Even if I disagree with the ultimate notion they are trying to further, the whole idea that we shouldn't discuss firearms legislation after firearms tragedy is nonsense, and wholly without merit. I suppose we shouldn't discuss food safety issues after a massive poisoning, or industrial safety after an industrial accident.

If there is a change that could be made that would have had an effect on the situation that brought about the discussion then go for it.

But bringing up gun control after this situation when there was no conceivable way that any realistic law would have prevented the situation you are trying to exploit is like bringing up the mercury content of tuna fish right after a bunch of people died of botulism from canned corn.

We've been talking this thing to death ever since Jim Brady got hit during the Reagan assignation attempt. Funny, no good new ideas or inspirations in more than 30 years.

Funny, it's almost as if they want the issue more than they want "solutions".