Adam Lanza Motivated by Norway Masacre

dtc said
Since when, my friend, does a person who advocates strengthening gun laws and restricting access to some people to some weapons tell you his concern is simply to limit MASS SHOOTINGS?

When those proposals are centered around banning "assault-style" weapons and magazine capacities. When the cries for more laws (or for existing ones to be enforced) are only voiced after a mass shooting.

dtc said
Seriously, not only are you grotesquely glossing over the heinous nature and preventability of these mass killings, but in so doing you're ignoring the real problem which is the other umpteen thousands of single person and two person killings that likely would be diminished with more restrictive gun laws like background checks.

This topic is about mass shootings and the lunatics who perpetrate them. Welcome to the thread. Tell me - what would banning "assault-style" weapons accomplish in your day-to-day shootings? What would limiting magazine capacities accomplish in your day-to-day shootings? (Not that you are in favor of these or have even mentioned them) Although I default to favoring fewer laws I've not opposed proposals such as "universal background checks" or mandatory firearms safety classes - merely the idea that solutions must exist in law. But as those in your camp will gladly point out (when it suits you), the purpose of laws is not to prevent crime, but to prosecute it after the fact. So again, what will new laws actually accomplish? And try to spell it out, apparently I'm slow to learn.

Edit:
I'd like propose a suggestion for consideration: To curb panic in those who are concerned about disappearing civil liberties and "slippery slope" issues, perhaps any new legislation intended to bob the ends off of the 2nd amendment (through whatever rationalization - valid or otherwise) should contain a clause to guarantee that no further infringement shall occur, and that the entire bill is null and void should that clause be altered, amended or removed in any way, or the contents be altered or amended in any way, or any new 2nd amendment legislation be passed. Or something like this, if it's even legal. I trust you understand my intent with this, even if it is clumsy or ill-conceived (in which case, it would fit in with many existing laws just fine).

dtc said
to callously overlook the thousands and thousands of deaths because they weren't part of a "mass killing" is asinine. It belies a callous indifference to human life that somehow you guys feel is less important than unfettered access to the weapons you might desire and the amounts, type and quantity of ammunition and accessories.

It's really appalling.

Maybe you could just come out and honestly say that you don't think your being inconvenienced by a form and a background check is worth the lives of those who might be saved?

Why not just be truthful and say that the price you're willing to pay for your gun rights is the occasional death of 25 1st graders and all the other thousands of folks who die because some nut case got hold of a gun he should never have had access to?

:blink1:

Seriously, dude? You forgot to mention dirty air and dirty water. C'mon.