Originally Posted by cabmando (Post 10547501)

I picked that one part mostly because no one that supports banning a certain type of weapon can explain how banning just that weapon platform will make any difference. A lot of people support banning the AR platform but can't put into words what good it will do. The response is "we have to do something" (look at the report about DeWine in Ohio and people yelling do something! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/dayton-shooting-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-shouted-down-during-vigil/ar-AAFm9E9?li=BBnb7Kz "
The truth, and any honest person knows this is the truth, is that we start with the AR and we move to the next weapon of choice, then on to the next... all in the name of "doing something". They say "we aren't after your hunting rifles" right up until someone starts using them to kill others and then POOF they're gone too. How about rather than just doing "something" we take steps that would actually make a difference and that don't restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners? I fully support changing our background check system to include medical records focusing on what prescriptions the person has had and why. If something turns up, a full evaluation should be done to determine whether that person should be allowed to own a firearm or not. Read the report on the Dayton shooter. He had a kill list in high school. How does this guy EVER get to buy a gun? Look at the shooter in Florida... same thing. I'd bet if you look at the El Paso shooter's past you'd find red flags as well. There are things we could all agree to that would actually go a long way toward reducing the number of mass shootings as well as reduce the number of casualties when someone does go off the rails. Let's focus on things that would actually help.

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547651)

Here's the explanation: because assault weapons are force multipliers. The Dayton shooter killed 9 and shot 27 others in 32 seconds before the good guys with guns showed up. Way more than he could have with a handgun, shotgun, or any other commonly available platform. That's why those seeking to maximize body count choose those weapons.

Most people have no difficulty understanding why we need to remove nuclear weapons from North Korea. Nobody chants "nukes don't kill people, people kill people."

Originally Posted by tabs (Post 10547661)

If background checks included a mental health test about half of you Boyz would be on the no buy list...that goes for both political persuasions.

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547651)

Here's the explanation: because assault weapons are force multipliers. The Dayton shooter killed 9 and shot 27 others in 32 seconds before the good guys with guns showed up. Way more than he could have with a handgun, shotgun, or any other commonly available platform. That's why those seeking to maximize body count choose those weapons.

Most people have no difficulty understanding why we need to remove nuclear weapons from North Korea. Nobody chants "nukes don't kill people, people kill people."

Originally Posted by Chocaholic (Post 10547670)

Guess you can’t keep your misguided BS in PARF where it belongs. The guy with a higher PARF post count than almost anyone now criticizes PARF as beneath him while spewing his crap in OT where it does not belong.

And...in direct response, there are not 300 million nukes already in public circulation. Your analogy is nothing but emotional tripe.

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547651)

Here's the explanation: because assault weapons are force multipliers. The Dayton shooter killed 9 and shot 27 others in 32 seconds before the good guys with guns showed up. Way more than he could have with a handgun, shotgun, or any other commonly available platform. That's why those seeking to maximize body count choose those weapons.

Most people have no difficulty understanding why we need to remove nuclear weapons from North Korea. Nobody chants "nukes don't kill people, people kill people."

Originally Posted by Sooner or later (Post 10547663)

If he had used a shotgun and killed "only" five and wounded ten would you be satisfied?

If we remove access to straight razors from a guy with suicidal tendencies have we eliminated the threat to himself?

Originally Posted by manbridge 74 (Post 10547676)

So much wrong here. Virginia Tech murderer killed plenty with just a pistol...

Originally Posted by Chocaholic (Post 10547670)

Guess you can’t keep your misguided BS in PARF where it belongs. The guy with a higher PARF post count than almost anyone now criticizes PARF as beneath him while spewing his crap in OT where it does not belong.

And...in direct response, there are not 300 million nukes already in public circulation. Your analogy is nothing but emotional tripe.

Originally Posted by daepp (Post 10547598)

As barbaric as it may seem, a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time/an appeal (if necessary for any judicial/process errors/then a swift punishment was a necessary component for a civil society until recently. I hate that capital punishment is necessary, but it is necessary at times.

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547691)

Tell you what--we'll give you a straight razor, and give a depressed, body armor wearing Trump supporter an AR15. Fifteen paces, then turn around and go at it.

I know who my money is on.

Originally Posted by javadog (Post 10547721)

The 8Chan site was taken off-line, that’s a good start.

Originally Posted by svandamme (Post 10547711)

I have no problem with capital punishment if it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she did it.

The evidence has to be crystal clear, not based on evidence that can be discredited.
I mean the criminal would have had to be caught red handed , knife still dripping and his hands.


Not the kind of case the likes of OJ Simpson or whatever lawyer fest we have seen in other cases.. Where they have to "convince" a jury with all kinds of circumstantial evidence.


Mass shooters
Terrorists
Serial killers
Serial Recidivist Rapists

Black and white, open and shut cases.
I'm all for it.

But then do it swiftly
No 20 years Death Row

And humane.. put em down like a dog.
No screwing around with painful injections, or unable to find a vein... electricity, hanging drowning, shooting..

Co2 gas em in their cell while they sleep without even telling them when.
No need for any rituals.

Just get rid of a problem.

Originally Posted by Sooner or later (Post 10547716)

Would only five dead due to a crazy using a shotgun be an acceptable body count?

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547697)

Not my thread--should be in PARF, as I said. I was responding--politely--to your post, and you of course had to respond in your usual style, with insults and the inevitable claim of "emotional."

The PARFcons have driven everyone out with lies, threats of personal violence, doxing, etc., and now, as Higgins says, you have to chew through rope and pollute other forums because nobody will come into your cesspool.

Originally Posted by madcorgi (Post 10547651)

Here's the explanation: because assault weapons are force multipliers. The Dayton shooter killed 9 and shot 27 others in 32 seconds before the good guys with guns showed up. Way more than he could have with a handgun, shotgun, or any other commonly available platform. That's why those seeking to maximize body count choose those weapons.

Most people have no difficulty understanding why we need to remove nuclear weapons from North Korea. Nobody chants "nukes don't kill people, people kill people."