Today in Texas, a fourth grader brought a hand grenade to school with the pin intact.
But if I look at some of the responses above, then we should blame "Hand Grenade" control laws, and not the boy or his parents.
And before you research, I'm sure America leads the world in Hand Grenade deaths not in third world countries.
Let's take a couple of comments and change them to see how ridiculous they sound. (word "gun" changed to "hand grenade")
THOMAS QUINN should say: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a hand grenade.
MAGICAL FREDDIE MERCURY should say: Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Texas lawmakers.
This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!
Or how about some logical comments instead:
MUSIC MAN: Outlawing hand grenades would merely produce a black market for them.
That's right! And there is! But this must be just an isolated case.
MR. JINGLES: The thought of giving the average citizen the right to own a hand grenade "just in case shit happens" is absolutely absurd.
I just thought that sounded funny.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
My verbatim quote, Microwave, was "a few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat."
So even though you thought I said the NFL made RULE changes, I didn't, and my above comments show clearly that they were suggestions, not rule changes, so I proved my point, you've prove you're excellent at factual misinterpretation.
Further, I blame the shooter 100%. The guns didn't walk up and start shooting people on their own. This is obvious. And I know that it's obvious and you'd agree 100% that he MAY have killed no one or a lot fewer than 32 if he had a knife instead of a gun.
So even though you thought I said the NFL made RULE changes, I didn't, and my above comments show clearly that they were suggestions, not rule changes, so I proved my point, you've prove you're excellent at factual misinterpretation.
Further, I blame the shooter 100%. The guns didn't walk up and start shooting people on their own. This is obvious. And I know that it's obvious and you'd agree 100% that he MAY have killed no one or a lot fewer than 32 if he had a knife instead of a gun.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Let's take a couple of comments and change them to see how ridiculous they sound. (word "gun" changed to "hand grenade")
THOMAS QUINN should say: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a hand grenade.
MAGICAL FREDDIE MERCURY should say: Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Texas lawmakers.
Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!
[/QUOTE]
Interestingly, the only ridiculous sounding comment here is yours since both TQ and I blamed 'the idiot' you complain no one has blamed, AND you are the one spinning it to say what no one else here has said.
That's the problem with these knee-jerk reactions some pro-gun folk seem to have. Rather than listen to opposing opinions, they have preconceived notions about what the opposition will say and that's what they respond to. It's enough to make the anti-gun folk yet more concerned about the mental stability of (some of) those supporting the right to bear arms.
Let's take a couple of comments and change them to see how ridiculous they sound. (word "gun" changed to "hand grenade")
THOMAS QUINN should say: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a hand grenade.
MAGICAL FREDDIE MERCURY should say: Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Texas lawmakers.
Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!
[/QUOTE]
Interestingly, the only ridiculous sounding comment here is yours since both TQ and I blamed 'the idiot' you complain no one has blamed, AND you are the one spinning it to say what no one else here has said.
That's the problem with these knee-jerk reactions some pro-gun folk seem to have. Rather than listen to opposing opinions, they have preconceived notions about what the opposition will say and that's what they respond to. It's enough to make the anti-gun folk yet more concerned about the mental stability of (some of) those supporting the right to bear arms.
Sorry Magical Freddie Mercury, it was my ill attempt to lighten up this subject a bit. I was being sarcastic. There are no "hand grenade" control laws. I blame the nutcase and nobody else.
But for those who wish to blame others, add EBAY to the list:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CNN reports [/QUOTENAME]Investigators are seeking records related to an e-mail and eBay account that may have been used by Cho, a source close to the investigation said. The account being checked was used last month to buy magazine clips that would fit one of the handguns used by Cho in his shooting rampage.
A CNN check of eBay transaction records online showed that the account that investigators are examining -- Blazers5505 -- was used in numerous transactions over the past several months.
Those included the March 22 purchase of two empty, 10-round magazines for a Walther P22 handgun from a company in Rigby, Idaho, that sells hunting and shooting supplies. Authorities have said one of the two handguns used by Cho was a Walther P22 pistol.[/QUOTE]
But for those who wish to blame others, add EBAY to the list:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CNN reports [/QUOTENAME]Investigators are seeking records related to an e-mail and eBay account that may have been used by Cho, a source close to the investigation said. The account being checked was used last month to buy magazine clips that would fit one of the handguns used by Cho in his shooting rampage.
A CNN check of eBay transaction records online showed that the account that investigators are examining -- Blazers5505 -- was used in numerous transactions over the past several months.
Those included the March 22 purchase of two empty, 10-round magazines for a Walther P22 handgun from a company in Rigby, Idaho, that sells hunting and shooting supplies. Authorities have said one of the two handguns used by Cho was a Walther P22 pistol.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My verbatim quote, Microwave, was "a few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat."
So even though you thought I said the NFL made RULE changes, I didn't, and my above comments show clearly that they were suggestions, not rule changes, so I proved my point, you've prove you're excellent at factual misinterpretation.
Further, I blame the shooter 100%. The guns didn't walk up and start shooting people on their own. This is obvious. And I know that it's obvious and you'd agree 100% that he MAY have killed no one or a lot fewer than 32 if he had a knife instead of a gun.[/QUOTE]
im·ple·ment - to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.
My apologies. I was taking you too literally. I just know for a fact that some teams (Philadelphia, for example) have not made any changes due to the Corey Stringer death.
And yes, I agree about the knife. But do you agree it could have been more if it were, say, a hand grenade?
So even though you thought I said the NFL made RULE changes, I didn't, and my above comments show clearly that they were suggestions, not rule changes, so I proved my point, you've prove you're excellent at factual misinterpretation.
Further, I blame the shooter 100%. The guns didn't walk up and start shooting people on their own. This is obvious. And I know that it's obvious and you'd agree 100% that he MAY have killed no one or a lot fewer than 32 if he had a knife instead of a gun.[/QUOTE]
im·ple·ment - to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.
My apologies. I was taking you too literally. I just know for a fact that some teams (Philadelphia, for example) have not made any changes due to the Corey Stringer death.
And yes, I agree about the knife. But do you agree it could have been more if it were, say, a hand grenade?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Interestingly, the only ridiculous sounding comment here is yours since both TQ and I blamed 'the idiot' you complain no one has blamed, AND you are the one spinning it to say what no one else here has said. [/QUOTE]
So what did you mean when you said it was the lawmakers fault, or did I misunderstand? I'm not spinning anything. You guys blamed government and gun control, I disagreed and it became "What's wrong with America" time.
My whole point has been responsibility. I didn't bring up Isreal or the NFL, I simply pointed out another point-of-view to those side-plots.[/QUOTE]
So what did you mean when you said it was the lawmakers fault, or did I misunderstand? I'm not spinning anything. You guys blamed government and gun control, I disagreed and it became "What's wrong with America" time.
My whole point has been responsibility. I didn't bring up Isreal or the NFL, I simply pointed out another point-of-view to those side-plots.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a gun. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Virginia lawmakers.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!
[/QUOTE]
You think I'm serious? Geez!
I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a gun. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Virginia lawmakers.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!
[/QUOTE]
You think I'm serious? Geez!
I totally agree with you Microwave about the hand grenade. And I applaud you for your beliefs that you firmly stand behind. We can go back and forth over NFL deaths, deaths by automobiles, death by grenades of deaths by refrigerators falling on people. I understand that there are bad people everywhere. We've had multiple gun murders in Canada before, and sadly will again. If Canada banned handguns, someone would still get their hands on one if they want to inflict damage. Same as the US. I guess we just disagree over ease of access to them, and don't see the correlation between gun ownership and personal safety/protection, which I assume would be the overwhelming reason people would want to own a gun. Doesn't make either of us bad people, just differing in our opinions.
On THAT note, my work is done here!!!
On THAT note, my work is done here!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So what did you mean when you said it was the lawmakers fault, or did I misunderstand? I'm not spinning anything. You guys blamed government and gun control, I disagreed and it became "What's wrong with America" time.
[/QUOTE]
As a fellow American, I can honestly say I love my country but that love does not make me blind to its faults. If anything, it makes me eager to help correct them. One of the faults I see is lax gun laws in states such as Virginia.
To answer your question - what I meant regarding blame for lawmakers was precisely as I said in my reply to TQ. I blame Cho, a.k.a. "the idiot". First and foremost blame goes to the shooter. Always. However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
The article I quoted earlier substantiates my position on this -
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said.
"A person who has been found in a commitment proceeding to be a danger to himself and committed to out-patient care ... is disqualified from purchasing a firearm under federal law," Richard Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia's Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, told Reuters.
But under state law, he said, the prohibition only appears to extend to people who have been committed to a hospital, which Cho was not.
As a result, his details would not have been captured by an FBI background check system used by gun sellers."
So what did you mean when you said it was the lawmakers fault, or did I misunderstand? I'm not spinning anything. You guys blamed government and gun control, I disagreed and it became "What's wrong with America" time.
[/QUOTE]
As a fellow American, I can honestly say I love my country but that love does not make me blind to its faults. If anything, it makes me eager to help correct them. One of the faults I see is lax gun laws in states such as Virginia.
To answer your question - what I meant regarding blame for lawmakers was precisely as I said in my reply to TQ. I blame Cho, a.k.a. "the idiot". First and foremost blame goes to the shooter. Always. However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
The article I quoted earlier substantiates my position on this -
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said.
"A person who has been found in a commitment proceeding to be a danger to himself and committed to out-patient care ... is disqualified from purchasing a firearm under federal law," Richard Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia's Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, told Reuters.
But under state law, he said, the prohibition only appears to extend to people who have been committed to a hospital, which Cho was not.
As a result, his details would not have been captured by an FBI background check system used by gun sellers."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."
[/QUOTE]
Good, and this is good dialogue to have so I'm glad we can discuss this rationally. But what I have a problem with is you attacking law. First, it wasn't federal law, but State law that supercedes in this case. Check out CNN on today's story about Cho. It wasn't the law that was at fault. Incompetant procedures played a part.
And again, FYI, had Cho purchased all 3 guns from a private collector (he only did one that way), he would have circumvented any background check at all.
Also, he knew the laws and made sure he purchased his guns a month apart. This guy knew from the start that he was going to do this.
However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."
[/QUOTE]
Good, and this is good dialogue to have so I'm glad we can discuss this rationally. But what I have a problem with is you attacking law. First, it wasn't federal law, but State law that supercedes in this case. Check out CNN on today's story about Cho. It wasn't the law that was at fault. Incompetant procedures played a part.
And again, FYI, had Cho purchased all 3 guns from a private collector (he only did one that way), he would have circumvented any background check at all.
Also, he knew the laws and made sure he purchased his guns a month apart. This guy knew from the start that he was going to do this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I Doesn't make either of us bad people, just differing in our opinions.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, are you kidding me? I thoroughly enjoyed the intellegent debate. Everybody agreeing with each other is so boring and does nothing. Nobody here is wrong for what they believe in, and should be applauded for what they firmly believe in.
Or we could go back to Queen isn't Queen without Freddie!
But, yes, BTR, totally respect you and your opinions, as I do all of you. It's good that we can all talk about this, even though it can get heated. Just shows this is a topic that is of great concern to all of us.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, are you kidding me? I thoroughly enjoyed the intellegent debate. Everybody agreeing with each other is so boring and does nothing. Nobody here is wrong for what they believe in, and should be applauded for what they firmly believe in.
Or we could go back to Queen isn't Queen without Freddie!
But, yes, BTR, totally respect you and your opinions, as I do all of you. It's good that we can all talk about this, even though it can get heated. Just shows this is a topic that is of great concern to all of us.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."
[/QUOTE]
Good, and this is good dialogue to have so I'm glad we can discuss this rationally. But what I have a problem with is you attacking law. First, it wasn't federal law, but State law that supercedes in this case. Check out CNN on today's story about Cho. It wasn't the law that was at fault. Incompetant procedures played a part.
And again, FYI, had Cho purchased all 3 guns from a private collector (he only did one that way), he would have circumvented any background check at all.
Also, he knew the laws and made sure he purchased his guns a month apart. This guy knew from the start that he was going to do this. [/QUOTE]
I agree with much of what you say here... though I've agreed with you before and you still had a go at me. You tend to do that, you know. As for rational discussion, I’d say there’s been plenty in these twelve pages. Opposition doesn’t necessarily mean irrational.
As to your comments here... my posts said it was state law not federal law, so I agree with that. Cho could have acquired everything illegally and therefore circumvented background checks, etc. I agree with that as well.
However, I have to attack the law that permitted him to get at least one gun because it purposely ignored his mental incompetence. I don't know the law in this area but I would hope if he'd applied for the gun and a background check showed his psychosis, then they wouldn’t simply refuse him and send him on his way. I’d hope a further check would have been required. An incompetent man seeking to buy a weapon should fire red alerts, yes? Perhaps an additional background check would have uncovered this unstable man's plan or purchase of other weapons and therefore alerted law enforcement before his rampage at the school began.
Laws need to be revisited. Striping people of their rights is not the intent of all ‘anti-gun’ people. The idea of further checks and balances is. I’d like to think seasoned professionals - political pros, mental health pros, etc. – could provide a workable solution. Unfortunately, opposing sides, like what we’ve seen on these pages, seem to make compromise and concurrence impossible to come by.
However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun.
"Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."
[/QUOTE]
Good, and this is good dialogue to have so I'm glad we can discuss this rationally. But what I have a problem with is you attacking law. First, it wasn't federal law, but State law that supercedes in this case. Check out CNN on today's story about Cho. It wasn't the law that was at fault. Incompetant procedures played a part.
And again, FYI, had Cho purchased all 3 guns from a private collector (he only did one that way), he would have circumvented any background check at all.
Also, he knew the laws and made sure he purchased his guns a month apart. This guy knew from the start that he was going to do this. [/QUOTE]
I agree with much of what you say here... though I've agreed with you before and you still had a go at me. You tend to do that, you know. As for rational discussion, I’d say there’s been plenty in these twelve pages. Opposition doesn’t necessarily mean irrational.
As to your comments here... my posts said it was state law not federal law, so I agree with that. Cho could have acquired everything illegally and therefore circumvented background checks, etc. I agree with that as well.
However, I have to attack the law that permitted him to get at least one gun because it purposely ignored his mental incompetence. I don't know the law in this area but I would hope if he'd applied for the gun and a background check showed his psychosis, then they wouldn’t simply refuse him and send him on his way. I’d hope a further check would have been required. An incompetent man seeking to buy a weapon should fire red alerts, yes? Perhaps an additional background check would have uncovered this unstable man's plan or purchase of other weapons and therefore alerted law enforcement before his rampage at the school began.
Laws need to be revisited. Striping people of their rights is not the intent of all ‘anti-gun’ people. The idea of further checks and balances is. I’d like to think seasoned professionals - political pros, mental health pros, etc. – could provide a workable solution. Unfortunately, opposing sides, like what we’ve seen on these pages, seem to make compromise and concurrence impossible to come by.
Yes, the Federal law was in place to stop him. The state dropped the ball...
That's because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Key word: INVOLUNTARILY.
Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.
So Virginia never reported him, and he was not flagged in a background check.
That's because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Key word: INVOLUNTARILY.
Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.
So Virginia never reported him, and he was not flagged in a background check.
WOW!
I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap.
13 Pages and counting...
I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap.
13 Pages and counting...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]WOW!
I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap.
13 Pages and counting...[/QUOTE]
Okay, we should really be getting back to "The Queenie above you thread". And where's John Deacon?
C'mon Jingles, give us a new thread then. Make it abrasive and over-the-top.
I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap.
13 Pages and counting...[/QUOTE]
Okay, we should really be getting back to "The Queenie above you thread". And where's John Deacon?
C'mon Jingles, give us a new thread then. Make it abrasive and over-the-top.