In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 196
Online now 153 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
well ....Great Britain is a great place....enjoy....
Well, you nailed it. Background checks and waiting periods. I also think that we need to fix the gun show loop holes. Plus go back to some of the restrictions in the assault rifle ban such as limits on magazine sizes. Yes I know the argument that super size magazine jam more often. I also know a nervous shooter is more likely to make a mistake when changing magazines, plus victims have a better opportunity to stop a shooter when he is switching out.
I already said I do not think a case like this one is the kind that will be stopped. I also know the real criminal element will be able to get their hands on guns, but most people do not have access to black market weapons. The majority of gun deaths are not caused by hardened criminals. These waiting periods and background checks would stop many people who use weapons in domestic violence cases where it is not unusual for a person to go out buy a gun and use it that night against their partner. Same goes for suicides with weapons.
I would like to see tougher licensing for ownership of a weapon. Make gun owners prove proficiency and safety knowledge. This might help cases like the idiot who shot his 7 year old in the chest this week because he didn't know the gun he was trying to sell had a round in the chamber.
I don't like laws that interfere with a business from being able to keep armed people from coming in. Bars, concerts, and sporting events are not the place for weapons. College dorms are not a good place for guns. These laws are stupid and need to stop.
This post was edited by Rosebowl91 16 months ago
How many times do I have to hear after a another gun slaughter that "now is not the time talk about this?" We didn't talk about this after Aurora, we didn't about this after Columbine. We didn't talk about this after Virginia Tech! We didn't talk about this After Gabby Giffords was shot! Its always too soon! There is one correlation that stands out. The more guns we have in this culture, the more often this is going to happen. We are then told, that if more people had guns this wouldn't happen. Well there was a guy with a gun there the day Gabby Giffords was shot. Didn't stop it then either. When are we going to talk about restricting the number of weapons in the hands of people unqualified to have them?
Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
By the way, A 36-year-old man stabbed 22 students and one adult in rural China before being arrested. No deaths reported. Police identified the farmer as Min Yingjun.
This post was edited by D A Stankovich 16 months ago
Tous pour un, un pour tous
I wonder which Gun Law currently on the books isnt working. Seems everytime we "must pass one" we get no better results. What went wrong with those?
As for "non military" folks with guns, that's funny right there. That crack pot muuuslim that went nuts on Fort Hood was trained by our military's finest.
There just idiots out there that get their hands on guns. Guns don't go get their hands on them. It seems to be more of a reflection of a socitety that has lost its moral compass and the conditioning people are put through.
Lets see if your kid gets a hold of your gun and has a accident, you could go to jail, be held responsible, and are a down right bad person.
Your kid is a drunk driver your a very very very bad parent and the drunk driver is very very bad, but the CAR, eh not so much and if you were pulled over in a Prius you may get a pass. Seems we always forget to have discussions about "car laws" everytime someone is killed in a car.
Better yet, lets talk about school bus laws. I think we should have each kid strapped in like they are in their own Nascar race car. Every year more kids are hurt and die in a bus crash then by shooting at schools. We need more bus laws....oh but wait, we need to spend more money on teacher, adminstrations (that are failing by the way, some real dip sticks), but we never talk about who is "driving the bus".
But back to Guns, yes guys, they are the only invention that has a mind of their own.
Well why did not the founding fathers make 2nd amendments "Pot is legal" smoke what ever you grow and the 3rd amendment "no fucking guns for you cause your stupid America:.....if they only had the forsight so many more Americans would be happy in 2012.
Stank i agree, so whats wrong with the Culture......What is the time line of events that parallel this shift in our culture? What has changed in the last 50 year and please don't use Bush?
As for Giffords yes it was talked about then. Even Obama said we should not talk about violance with those who disagree, yet in the week those that disagree proclaim to have a Civil War, this happens. With that type of voilent talk it is no wonder the culture reacts in this manner. I do not think it was Rush Limbaugh who called for the civil war and there for it is not news worthy in this culture to condem such talk. I am not sure but our Government at that time has just given guns to drug lords so it may have been bad timing?
Who is unqualified to smoke pot? Who should not be allowed to drink becasue they are an angry drunk?
The 36 year old man who stabbed the 22 kids was not very good with his knife. Lucky for those involved. I trust you were not saying it is better to be wounded with a knife the killed with a gun?
This post was edited by FanofSC 16 months ago
If there is an iota of sense in that screed I have yet to find it.
First this is the first Supreme Court EVAH! That found a universal right to own firearms. ALL OF THE PREVIOUS SUPREME COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT GUN RIGHTS CAN BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE THE RIGHT WAS NOT UNIVERSAL.
Hmmmm so who was right? All those other courts or Antonin Scalia? Somehow I suspect those other courts were right. Also we put restrictions on the ability to drive and in theory drink. (Remember driving is a privilege.)
Nobody is saying that guns have a mind of their own. But what you ignore is that the current Supreme Court's decision to lift many of the restrictions have had a correlative effect.
The Answer of the Gun nuts is more guns. There were yesterday Bills introduced to allow guns on campuses. Greeaaaatttttt!!!! Cha Chi gets to carry a block! That'll a show em.
If you are not aware, a number of our gun laws expired. Bush let the assault weapons bill laps along with its many provisions.
In addition I think some here have made it clear what went wrong with the laws....the gun show loop hole, and weak standards for background checks.
You show a lack of seriousness when you compare a car to a gun. A gun has a purpose of killing. Cars do not. The founding fathers you want to reference said the militia should be well regulated. That is exactly what we are discussing.
nice twist i could take it to killing the unborn here stank, the supreme court says that killing unborn kids is a right too.....
no guns involved....guess we just need to get the little suckers earlier in life and we can have a clear conscience.....
Can anybody explain to me, why that woman had one of these?
Its one of the weapons the killer had. Not much of a hunting rifle is it?
Unless you are hunting people?
Are there any conservatives still on this board that can translate whatever FanofSC is trying to say? He has mentioned something about a Civil War and a whole bunch of other stuff that doesn't seem related.
Can any of you help me understand what he is trying to say? Is he making sense to you?
We are having a Civil War, it was announced by Union Leader James Hoffa Jr.
That tone of conversation leads to these things. By God we know talk radio does, right, well in this case the unions are now calling for one. Just wasn't sure they were related. Thought that kind of talk could be the cause. All you libs have agreed with that logic in the past, why not this time?
I know people always bring up video games, movies, etc. after incidents like this, and perhaps they do play a significant role? "Call of Duty" is one of the most popular video games out there, where you literally try to kill as many people as you can. Stank posted a stat, 6 out of the 12 deadliest incidents in the U.S. have happened since 2007 - or - during the period that the Call of Duty franchise really became popular. Now obviously this kid was messed up in the head, and obviously there are other video games out there like Call of Duty, but I feel like these games where teens brag about how many "kills" they have can influence people like the CT shooter.
Non Sequitur! What the Supreme Court has said is that it is not the responsibility of anyone to allow another against their will to use the their body to keep that other alive! You may be dying but you can't have my kidney to keep you alive unless I give it to you. Nor does a woman have to sustain a the life of baby in her body against her will!
The Supreme Court again until recently only even considered that fetus's had rights. They are not full citizens even.
Oh and you talked about paying teachers more in your previous post. Maybe we should. There is a commercial where they talk about US Marines as the only people who run toward gunfire. That isn't true. Cops do it. And somebody else does it as well as we found out yesterday!
Vicki Soto threw herself in front of the gunman to shield her students. She was killed for it.
Who knew that the Motto for teachers in the 21st Century should be "First in the fray...the last to take flight!"
From Yahoo!: Connecticut Shooting Victim's Cousin: 'In Our Eyes, She Is a Hero'
Well if we are having a civil war...then the first soldier died in it yesterday.
Yeah it was a Union Employee.
Why is it not a hunting rifle?
If you allude that works for hunting people, why not for animals?
"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK
By the way, there was another shooting at an Alabama Hospital this morning. The man shot two patients at St. Vincents Hospital and wounded a police officer before being shot and killed by a second officer this morning.
With a 30 round clip? That weapon is designed to put the most firepower on an object possible. You hit a bird with that thing and you don't get either a meal or trophy. If it hits a bird that thing gets blown to pieces. You can kill an animal with a rock. That doesn't mean that's what rocks were designed for.
That weapon was designed to kill a human being as quickly as possible. Its designed for Law Enforcement and the Military.
Are birds the only thing hunted? Have you ever tried to bring down a moose?
The shotgun I have allows me to load 6,8 rounds at a time.
THey play just as many violent video games in Japan and Canada, they don't have the issue we do. Video games are not the cause.
Pumping 30 rounds of semi automatic fire into a moose isn't hunting. Its just shooting. As for loading a shotgun. You are pumping buck shot into a moose or a bird. If you are trying to kill the animal half the test is putting the weapon on the target and succeeding in killing it with the force at hand.
A Bush Master if used for shooting is better for target shooting.
Using it on a moose is just wanton killing.
No hunter worth his salt should use that kind of weapon on an animal. That is not what it is designed for and no one who would should call himself a hunter.
Wasn't saying let's blame video games over guns, just that I think they contribute to this "kill as many people as possible" mindset and fantasies about being in war/battle. Wasn't that asshole yesterday wearing army/battlefield garb? And didn't the movie theater shooter have on a bullet-proof vest? Maybe the two just mentioned don't play the games I've described, but being in my generation they sure as hell know what they are. Even if they had no influence on the two, I still think it's the job of the parents to keep their mentally unstable children away from that stuff (yeah, this is now going off on a tangent but perhaps Japanese and Canadian parents do a better job monitoring their kids?).
Since I'm the one who made the comment about who owns weapons and the military being involved, I'm going to try to unravel what seems to be a stream of consciousness rant.
I'd like you to point out where I said, implied or in any way suggested that restricting the ownership of weapons to those who have served in the military would solve the problem.
Go ahead, I'll wait while you look for it.
Okay. Back? Good.
Yeah, I didn't say that. In fact, I don't think it's ever going to happen that we reduce the number of gun deaths down to the level of Great Britain.
But are you saying that a restriction like that wouldn't help reduce it? Or requiring some sort of proficiency test wouldn't reduce the number of people who are shot accidentally? Or are you so wrapped up in your right-wing agenda that you're taking an all or nothing approach?
That if it won't fix the problem entirely that means it shouldn't be attempted at all?
I'll tell you what; you keep clinging to this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and see how much it helps. You'll be on here a lot, trying to defend your right for instant gratification in getting whatever weapon you desire, because this shit isn't going to be stopping anytime soon.
Just out of curiosity, are you drunk when you type this stuff? Because frankly, it's really close to nonsensical.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports