Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Which of these mass shootings do you think "common sense" background checks would've stopped?

Columbine - Harris and Klebold were minors and got someone else to buy the guns for them. If they were 18 they would've passed a background check anyways.

Virginia Tech - Seung Hui Cho legally purchased his guns, had a run-in with police before the shooting but nothing that would make him fail a background check.

Northern Illinois - Steven Kazmierczak was an exemplary student with no criminal history that got his guns in a Champaign store in a state that already had strict gun laws. Oops.

Aurora - James Holmes had no criminal past and purchased his own guns.

Newtown - Adam Lanza could have passed a background check but didn't need to as he used his mother's guns.

So basically, you want to strip a fundamental constitutional right from anyone convicted of a felony in our infallible justice system while not keeping complete psychopaths from getting them? I guess it's all right as long as gun laws make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, right?

And that's kinda the whole, sad part of this debate. I can understand people having opinions on either side of the gun control debate, but what we're debating right now isn't even about gun control or about protecting kids or anything like that. Nothing that is being proposed will have any real effect on the mass shootings that have prompted this debate in the first place, and nothing being proposed will have any discernible effect on the more significant issue of just overall gun violence throughout the country. Basically, it's a gun control debate that doesn't have any chance, if it passes or doesn't, of actually controlling guns.

Like I said, I understand the passion on both sides, but if we're going to have a debate, it needs to be about either allowing guns or banning them entirely. That's real gun control, if that's what we want. That would have a chance (not a surety mind you) of really minimizing mass shootings and would really have a chance of ratcheting down (but again not completely eliminating) gun violence. I understand that it's a debate that the gun control advocates won't be able to win in today's political reality, but if we want to be genuine about gun control that's what we need to be proposing. It's disingenious to go to Sandy Hook and say that we want to pass this gun control measure that's being talked about now when it's such a hollow gun control measure that Sandy Hook would've likely still happened anyway.

Banning guns?



The United States sells guns to everyone else in the world...high capacity weapons to almost every corner of the Earth...and yet it wants to ban the sale of those items to our own people. Heck, we sell anti-aircraft weapons to hotheads who are only temporarily on our side.

The drug dealers will continue to do their trade and will use whatever weapons are available. No gun control will ever stop them because they will have the money to purchase anything out there.

Mexican drug lords already openly target policemen...as has been done in many South and Central American countries. No different than the drug lords in Afghanistan, diamond thugs in Africa, Russian mod, and any other well organized group of whack-jobs around the world. And now we have some nuts targeting our D.A.s and other civil and law enforcement folks.

I'd rather have Obama and the Congressional clowns focus on our real problems...the economy and dealing with the real bad guys, rather than grandstand about some "tough' new laws that accomplish nothing.

Nothing is going to get banned.

AshevilleApp wrote:Nothing is going to get banned.

Huh? Some states have banned high capacity magazines and are banning the sale of certain guns.

Cluck U wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:Nothing is going to get banned.

Huh? Some states have banned high capacity magazines and are banning the sale of certain guns.

At the Federal level. The House will never vote for it.

Banning guns in general is futile.

Politicians suggest it because it plays to the populist base. It is nothing more than politics, in the name of "doing something".

If we really want to have a substantive discussion about how to stop mass shootings, we need to start with acknowledging the fact that disarming Americans is not going to happen and it is off the table.

The solutions are out there, but bickering just to inflame the respective bases is easier, so that's what we do.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:Banning guns in general is futile.

Politicians suggest it because it plays to the populist base. It is nothing more than politics, in the name of "doing something".

If we really want to have a substantive discussion about how to stop mass shootings, we need to start with acknowledging the fact that disarming Americans is not going to happen and it is off the table.

The solutions are out there, but bickering just to inflame the respective bases is easier, so that's what we do.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I'm curious, what would be the solutions that would stop mass shootings? Many of those who have done these crimes weren't previously considered mentally ill. What would stop the mass killings if we don't ban guns? (and relax, I'm not personally advocating that either).

This football after all the kicking around seems to be boiling down to the individual states. States whose legislatures want gun control measures passed are passing them. Those like mine that don't will not.

Probably best handled this way anyways.

Wedgebuster wrote:This football after all the kicking around seems to be boiling down to the individual states. States whose legislatures want gun control measures passed are passing them. Those like mine that don't will not.

Probably best handled this way anyways.

Like most things.

CID1990 wrote:The solutions are out there, but bickering just to inflame the respective bases is easier, so that's what we do.

That statement pretty much sums up Washington DC on any issue.

Meanwhile, we should ban knives, scissors, nail clippers, etc.

(CNN) -- Multiple people were stabbed Tuesday morning at a Houston-area college, CNN affiliates reported -- an incident that has prompted the school to urge students to take shelter.
At least 12 people and as many as 14 have been injured in the incident at Lone Star College's CyFair campus in Cypress, according to CNN affiliates KHOU, KTRK and KPRC, who are citing authorities.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/justice/t ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UNI88 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The solutions are out there, but bickering just to inflame the respective bases is easier, so that's what we do.

That statement pretty much sums up Washington DC on any issue.

Very true. The 2014 mid-term elections will be telling. So far, the first few months of Obama's second term haven't done anything for the GOP. Some days I wonder why I'm still registered Republican, Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

GannonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Banning guns in general is futile.

Politicians suggest it because it plays to the populist base. It is nothing more than politics, in the name of "doing something".

If we really want to have a substantive discussion about how to stop mass shootings, we need to start with acknowledging the fact that disarming Americans is not going to happen and it is off the table.

The solutions are out there, but bickering just to inflame the respective bases is easier, so that's what we do.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I'm curious, what would be the solutions that would stop mass shootings? Many of those who have done these crimes weren't previously considered mentally ill. What would stop the mass killings if we don't ban guns? (and relax, I'm not personally advocating that either).

Well, as cliche as it sounds, a school resource officer at Sandy Hook could well have prevented the shooting. I've heard all the "a guard can be shot too, the Columbine cop was AWOL, blah blah", but an armed guard IS a deterrent. Remember that the douche at Sandy Hook killed himself not when the police showed up, not when he was confronted, but when he heard sirens.

I was a resource officer many years ago so Im not just whistling Dixie about this.

There are more solutions as well. We could take a serious look at mental health in this country. There was a time when a lot of these people were institutionalized. If a paranoid schizophrenic has access to society, then he will have access to weapons, period. When I was growing up, a kid like that one in CT would have been at Camp Butner in NC long before he decided to finally go full nut.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Driving while texting can be deadly...I say we ban high capacity keyboards...

T at wa we ca d scou age te t ng...

Or least make it much harder to read

We need to ban swings too:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=24697751
That story is horrible, that parent is going to be haunted until the day they die.


That bad part about life is, there is only one way out of it. Trying to get someone that refuses to obey the law to obey it by passing more laws to disobey seems pretty stupid to me.

Cluck U wrote: I'd rather have Obama and the Congressional clowns focus on our real problems...the economy and dealing with the real bad guys, and making sure the Sequester does not impact 93henfan's paycheck.

Hear, hear!

93henfan wrote:

Cluck U wrote: I'd rather have Obama and the Congressional clowns focus on our real problems...the economy and dealing with the real bad guys, and making sure the Sequester does not impact 93henfan's paycheck.

Hear, hear!

Turn your speakers up if you cannot hear.

If you ban pussy liberals or just kill them.

Nothing else would need to be banned because men know how to deal with things.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If you ban pussy liberals or just kill them.

Nothing else would need to be banned because men know how to deal with things.

Hey, Dick Weed, need some cash? Check out my gun forfeiture offer thread. Maybe you can finally get that herpes medication with the proceeds?

You dont talk to me like that fat boy.......You will never get my guns not for cash or cats.

Lip off again and you will wish you were Tina Turner

The mass shooters names and photos have been splattered all over the news media like movie stars. They craved attention and are getting attention.

Again, though, at the end of the day, after all this posturing and bickering and grandstanding and trotting out the parents and familie of Sandy Hill victims, what has been accomplished? Nothing we are posturing and bickering and grandstanding over right now (namely the expanded background checks) would have done anything to stop that tragedy and likely will do little to nothing to prevent a similar one. If we're going to talk about making things safer and gun control, then let's talk about actual gun control and taking guns away. That's a real debate that would have real impacts on safety. It almost likely wouldn't fly and would never get passed, but it would be a genuine debate. It's like that line from the movie "The American President" - "congratulations, you passed a crime bill that will do nothing to reduce crime". Same here, we're going to pass something we're going to call a "gun control" bill with no real chance of controlling guns more than we did before.

GannonFan wrote:Again, though, at the end of the day, after all this posturing and bickering and grandstanding and trotting out the parents and familie of Sandy Hill victims, what has been accomplished? Nothing we are posturing and bickering and grandstanding over right now (namely the expanded background checks) would have done anything to stop that tragedy and likely will do little to nothing to prevent a similar one. If we're going to talk about making things safer and gun control, then let's talk about actual gun control and taking guns away. That's a real debate that would have real impacts on safety. It almost likely wouldn't fly and would never get passed, but it would be a genuine debate. It's like that line from the movie "The American President" - "congratulations, you passed a crime bill that will do nothing to reduce crime". Same here, we're going to pass something we're going to call a "gun control" bill with no real chance of controlling guns more than we did before.

It's a "check in the box", plain and simple.

Pwns wrote:So basically, you want to strip a fundamental constitutional right from anyone convicted of a felony

Yeah.

You want felons to keep all of their constitutional rights?