All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > We Need Knife Control Laws - STAT!!!
4/15/2013 5:05 AM (edited)
Posted by masterdebate on 4/15/2013 12:17:00 AM (view original):
there's very little to no problem with the bill. the problem is, its not the correct way to solve the problem. tighter background checks don't tell you anything if people with unreported or undiagnosed mental illness don't have anything on their backgrounds to check, much like many of the recent mass shooters.
I agree 100%.

The problem will not be solved, but the bill certainly addresses some things that have needed addressing for quite some time.

Bottom line is no law will make a criminal law-abiding or stop tragedies from ever happening again.

The point is to make it more difficult for the obviously dangerous people to legally acquire firearms and to lessen the severity of tragedies when they do occur. 

To that end I think the bill is a great success.

@Swamp:
I get the slippery slope argument. We do some common sense things and improve what we currently have on the books and then when another Columbine happens the left cries "See it's not enough! We still need MORE restrictions and less rights".

Having said that, I just can't use it as an excuse for not passing a very sensible bill, and it seems that most of the opposition to this bill is coming from the right.
4/15/2013 5:18 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/15/2013 1:20:00 AM (view original):
I realize the Tea Party and the NRA are going to come down against this bill.

I find it fairly innocuous.

The problem is if we let this be the solution when it doesnt work we get the infamous slippery slope.

What about the "ban guns" group on this board.

Are any of you happy with this?
Who on this board has said to ban all guns? And since you said "group" it needs to be a "group."  It does not have to be a "score" however.

I want my own nuke...are you okay with that? It's for self-defense.

4/15/2013 2:05 PM
I never actually said ban "All" guns. Just ban guns as a solution.

I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

And as it has been pointed out before "Keep and bear arms" clearly applies to personal hand held weapons.

Are you happy with the bill, given that it may end the discussion about this topic.
4/16/2013 4:58 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/15/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I never actually said ban "All" guns. Just ban guns as a solution.

I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

And as it has been pointed out before "Keep and bear arms" clearly applies to personal hand held weapons.

Are you happy with the bill, given that it may end the discussion about this topic.
so you are okay with banning some guns?

And why does "keep and bear arms" clearly apply to personal hand held weapons? What about a flame thrower or a LAW?

4/16/2013 8:20 AM

I'd be all for giving you a flamethrower.    I imagine you'd torch yourself within the hour.

4/16/2013 4:35 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 4/16/2013 4:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/15/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I never actually said ban "All" guns. Just ban guns as a solution.

I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

And as it has been pointed out before "Keep and bear arms" clearly applies to personal hand held weapons.

Are you happy with the bill, given that it may end the discussion about this topic.
so you are okay with banning some guns?

And why does "keep and bear arms" clearly apply to personal hand held weapons? What about a flame thrower or a LAW?

1 No. I meant that you guys want to ban some guns.

2 The definition of bear in this case is to carry or move with. You cannot bear a cannon in this case.

I realize you are trying to draw a logical paralell between banning AGs and banning an ICBM.

I never claimed that there was no weapon that shouldnt be banned or that banning AGs is out of the question from a Constitutional standpoint.

I just say it doesnt make sense. It will not work. We need a plan to save kids.
4/18/2013 4:52 AM
<<I just say it doesnt make sense. It will not work. We need a plan to save kids.>>

So I say we make them play soccer.
4/18/2013 4:54 AM
If I can carry it, then I should be allowed to have it? Is that what you are saying? What if I can drive it?

Just trying to figure out where you draw the line, or if are you just interested in a theoretical debate...but not really addressing any real problem.

4/18/2013 4:58 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2013 8:20:00 AM (view original):

I'd be all for giving you a flamethrower.    I imagine you'd torch yourself within the hour.

I wonder why you would imagine that, since

a. you don't know me and my mechanical adroitness (and the probably is me)

-or-

b. that is the kind of thing you imagine about people (and the problem is you)...in which case you have some serious issues that need addressing. That's okay...the Republicans in the Senate don't really care who has a gun anyway.

4/18/2013 8:03 AM
You read too much into it.   I just don't care if you catch yourself on fire.
4/18/2013 8:15 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 4/16/2013 4:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/15/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I never actually said ban "All" guns. Just ban guns as a solution.

I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

And as it has been pointed out before "Keep and bear arms" clearly applies to personal hand held weapons.

Are you happy with the bill, given that it may end the discussion about this topic.
so you are okay with banning some guns?

And why does "keep and bear arms" clearly apply to personal hand held weapons? What about a flame thrower or a LAW?

After the oklahoma city and the Boston marathon bombings I thought the government should ban all bombs.... Oh wait!

And after the columbine and newtown shootings I thought the government should ban all guns on school grounds.... Huh? They already are?


What a lot of good banning does, eh? Why argue for something that is so ineffective at stopping those that don't care if something is banned.
4/18/2013 9:49 AM
The left feels we have to "do something" in order to get that "feel good". 

The "best" thing to do is require registration of ALL guns and impose HEAVY penalties for possession of a non-registered gun.  This won't stop a crazy from using a registered gun to kill school children in their classrooms or shoot a rival gang member in the street but it's something. 
4/18/2013 3:56 PM
Why not sell bombs at Wal-Mart? The criminals will get them anyway, no need to make it more difficult for them.
4/18/2013 3:58 PM

Wal-Mart security sucks. 

4/18/2013 7:45 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 4/18/2013 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Why not sell bombs at Wal-Mart? The criminals will get them anyway, no need to make it more difficult for them.
Cause banning things makes them difficult to get right? Like pot? Coke? Cuban cigars? And yes illegal weapons or ammunition?
of 4
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > We Need Knife Control Laws - STAT!!!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.