General Discussion

Cary

(11,746 posts)

12. As with any other problem you wish to solve, you need to focus on the goal.

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:46 PM

Jan 2013

That is, if you wish to solve it.

I am not for banning any guns just for the sake of banning. The most horrific crimes are these mass gun murders and the military style weapons, designed for no other purpose than to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, is the weapon of choice.

On the other side of that, no one actually needs these military style weapons with the only real exception being the police. For people who want the occasional experience of shooting targets with these weapons, you can have them in some kind of club environment where they can be rented and used to shoot targets.

So there's your starting point.

With respect to handguns, that is a separate argument and in my opinion a little more difficult.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please Help Me Craft A Response To A Tea Bagger [View all] SweepPicker Jan 2013 OP

Here's my response: Zoeisright Jan 2013 #1

lol SweepPicker Jan 2013 #3

It's a stupid argument Glitterati Jan 2013 #2

He's right. Recursion Jan 2013 #4

He's obfuscating. Cary Jan 2013 #6

Why not just focus on handguns? Seriously? Recursion Jan 2013 #8

As with any other problem you wish to solve, you need to focus on the goal. Cary Jan 2013 #12

Nearly every rifle sold today is a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine Recursion Jan 2013 #14

These are different issues. Cary Jan 2013 #21

Yes, that a weapon being "military style" means nothing Recursion Jan 2013 #22

That's another canard. Cary Jan 2013 #23

I'm not the one hung up on "military style" Recursion Jan 2013 #24

Is there a rule against stating my opinion as to your motivations? Cary Jan 2013 #25

Right brush Jan 2013 #26

Automatic weapons are essentially *never* used in crimes Recursion Jan 2013 #35

Oh Yeah? brush Jan 2013 #37

Yeah. Glad to know you agree with me Recursion Jan 2013 #38

You don't call those automatic weapons? brush Jan 2013 #39

Of course not. They aren't automatic Recursion Jan 2013 #40

I saw this one too Cary Jan 2013 #5

This: Iggo Jan 2013 #7

Evidence reteachinwi Jan 2013 #9

rational? pretty subjective and flat wrong. Terminal ballistics...oh never mind. educate yourself galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #17

John Allen Mohammed and William Spengler reteachinwi Jan 2013 #32

He cited the (very low) rate of murders with rifles. Recursion Jan 2013 #10

You can run away from clubs and bats (and knives). You cannot LeftinOH Jan 2013 #11

How many people can be fatally wounded in a matter of seconds Lex Jan 2013 #13

Shouldn't he just arm and protect himself with the more leathal Bat or Hammer?? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #15

Heh. Lex Jan 2013 #18

Okay. First paragraph is enough. Festivito Jan 2013 #16

Not since 2005. "Other than handguns" guns accounted for more murders than blunt objects. sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #19

Adam Lanza did not kill 20 kids and 6 adults with a hammer or club mnmoderatedem Jan 2013 #20

Why are you arguing with idiots who will never change their minds? Waste of time. nt. OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #27

Ask the moran for a link RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #28

You can't argue with stupid liberal N proud Jan 2013 #29

Baggers blow, why bother with that? lonestarnot Jan 2013 #30

Responding to a teabagger is like flushing your carefully crafted answer down the toilet. nt Speck Tater Jan 2013 #31

use simple words, maybe 2 or 3 letters each samsingh Jan 2013 #33

might agree with his thing about base ball bats--the chicago cubs have not been using them correctly dembotoz Jan 2013 #34

Did he/she go to that site? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #36