TOTALLY GEEKED!

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Gun control=a solution in search of a problem

---

 But mass shootings have started to go up. I am not okay with school shootings. If I send my kids to school, I want them to be safe. If I go to the movies or an office party, I want to be safe. 

I like some of LL'S ideas. 

---

And laws regulating law abiding citizens are not going to help that.  The government knowing how much ammo I own doesn't change that.  What does change it?  People being able to defend the schools.   Stop making schools soft targets.   

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Gun control=a solution in search of a problem

---

 But mass shootings have started to go up. I am not okay with school shootings. If I send my kids to school, I want them to be safe. If I go to the movies or an office party, I want to be safe. 

I like some of LL'S ideas. 

---

 Carry a gun.

---

 I can't aim worth a damn.  I am nervous, especially in crowds, and panic easily when people yell. 

I would add to the problem, not solve it. 

---

OK.  Then have the people comfortable carrying them, carry them.  Including school personnel. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Gun control=a solution in search of a problem

---

 But mass shootings have started to go up. I am not okay with school shootings. If I send my kids to school, I want them to be safe. If I go to the movies or an office party, I want to be safe. 

I like some of LL'S ideas. 

---

 Carry a gun.

---

 I can't aim worth a damn.  I am nervous, especially in crowds, and panic easily when people yell. 

I would add to the problem, not solve it. 

---

 Sometimes, there is no solution.  A determined gunman isn't going to be deterred. 

Take san Bernadinao.  Some of the weapons were purchased legally by the shooters.  Others were purchased legally by a friend,

 

now, he's in trouble for that--but it's under existing laws and doesn't do the victims much good at this point.

 

 

Dona, as much as we disagree--I do sympathize with your position and your concern.

However, I'm not in favor of useless measures. Obama even admitted that his executive actions would have made zero difference in any of the recent mass shootings since and including sandy hook. His answer when pressed as to why then do them was "we have to do something"--but if that something is essentially nothing, then what good is it beyond political posturing?

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona, as much as we disagree--I do sympathize with your position and your concern.

However, I'm not in favor of useless measures. Obama even admitted that his executive actions would have made zero difference in any of the recent mass shootings since and including sandy hook. His answer when pressed as to why then do them was "we have to do something"--but if that something is essentially nothing, then what good is it beyond political posturing?

---

 Well, what do you suggest then? You and Gaga have done exactly what I talked about in the OP. Talk about how nothing will work.

And if your little granddaughter was one of the babies gunned down? Would you roll over an accept it then?

No, I do not want to make things harder for the law abiding citizens. And I know that more gun control and gun laws will not wipe out gun crimes.
But, I do not think that tightening the loopholes and making it harder for criminals is a bad thing either.

Just like Gun Free Zones. Yeah, a gun free zone is a zone where LAW ABIDING people cannot bring their guns. And it is ripe target practice for criminals. I really don't understand how some of you cannot understand this basic concept.

As for what do WE suggest? What do you suggest? Yeah, more gun laws. Show us where more gun laws anywhere has amounted to a hill of beans. It hasn't. It just feel goodism to pretend we have "done something" when in reality we are making it EASIER for criminals to outnumber us in terms of guns and have the upper hand.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And if your little granddaughter was one of the babies gunned down? Would you roll over an accept it then?

No, I do not want to make things harder for the law abiding citizens. And I know that more gun control and gun laws will not wipe out gun crimes.
But, I do not think that tightening the loopholes and making it harder for criminals is a bad thing either.

---

But that's the thing.  All the crying for gun control is about making it harder for all the law abiding people. 

 

And here's the thing - yes, these shootings are horrible, but considering all the gun owners out there - we are talking an very tiny, tiny, tiny percent of people that do mass shootings.  Murders by gang members and drug runners way out number it.  ALL other murders outnumber it.  Do you know how many murders were committed by illegal aliens last year?  Had the government enforced our immigration laws, those victims would be alive.

 

Do you know that counties have a quota of how many people have to die at an intersection before they will put in a light?  

 So, no, I don't think restricting Constitutional rights is the correct course of action.  I think making the laws we have actually mean something. 

More kids will DIE if you clamp down on guns. Do you not understand that?

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Asylums have a bad name, and for good reason. We cannot randomly strip mentally I people of all of their rights. We somehow have to balance personal freedom with safety of others, and it is hard, and as a society we can't seem to find that balance.

---

 Well, there you were offered a suggestion and you are saying "it won't work".  So, that happens on both sides.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

A gun is the ONLY thing that can make a woman as powerful as man. Nothing else. A knife, a club , a bat. NOTHING. A gun is the ONLY equalizer for woman against the brute strength of a man.

---

 I read an unfortunate statistic that if a woman owns a gun she is more likely to be killed by one--usually her own. 

I never had time to verify it though. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Asylums have a bad name, and for good reason. We cannot randomly strip mentally I people of all of their rights. We somehow have to balance personal freedom with safety of others, and it is hard, and as a society we can't seem to find that balance.

---

 Yet gun control advocates want to do that very thing.

FNW wrote:

---

Lock 'em up. The right to live is greater.

---

 What if it was one of your sons?

flan

Is there a case where the was enough evidence to look the shooter up? VA Tech, the shooter been to court mandated treatment but still could by a gun later. Is the bar to lock some one up lower than to preclude them from buying a gun.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

More kids will DIE if you clamp down on guns. Do you not understand that?

---

 Oh gag, I am not saying "clamp down on guns" at all what nonsense. 

We have to be over 21 and show I'd to buy alcohol. 

You have to be over 18 and show id to buy tabacco. 

We must be over 18 to vote, and at leat here, you have to show id. That is a civil right, you know. 

Why should buying ammo be a free for all? Yes, we should crack down on other laws too, but I don't see how having a couple of very simple requirements to buy ammo is such a HUGE inconvenience to your typical law abiding citizen.  

 

burns07 wrote:

---

making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms or ammunition does nothing to limit the ability of criminals to obtain firearms--nothing---amazes me how many gun control advocates cannot grasp this simple truth

---

 So...another vote for "Let's do NOTHING!"

flan

I bought cigs when I was 15 on a regular basis. I bought alcohol a few times when I was 16. And laws were in place. We have enough laws.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I am reliably informed that just because people will still do it doesn't mean it should be legal.

---

 Like abortion. 

 

 

Forgot my emoticon.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 21st of January 2016 06:17:34 PM

But really, if you can afford a $700 dollar gun (that requires a background check, and the government knows you bought) and you can afford the 1000 rounds of ammunition to target practice and otherwise have fun with, then no, I don't see why requiring a photo id that shows you have cleared a background check to buy the ammo is such a big deal.

And the government already tracks certain ammo no matter what, and I do believe they track all ammo when bought in bulk at certain ammounts.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

More kids will DIE if you clamp down on guns. Do you not understand that?

---

 Really? You know that for a FACT?

flan

---

 Yeah.  Chicago.  Schools.  Gun free zones.  It couldnt be any more clear.  

---

 Gaga, I do believe I have made it clear that I think law abiding citizens should be able to carry guns, with the small but I do believe reasonable caveat that they should prove a small amount of accuracy first. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona - Gaga has a point you can't ignore. Almost all mass shootings take place in gun free zones where people are helpless.

---

 I don't know why gun free zones were ever brought into it. I have already said teachers should be allowed to carry,  just not required to carry. 

And yes, the NRA suggested it. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

But if you limit ammo, the effectiveness of having a gun is reduced. And if you are not going to limit ammo, what is the point of keeping track of it?

---

 What and double what? 

I have said specifically I am NOT in favor of limiting OR tracking it. 

I am talking about a background check being required to BUY it.