DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> This is scary
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 240, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/04/2013 11:58:10 AM · #1
If you are going to work on legislation to ban something...atleast do the research and understand what you are trying to ban.

Colorado Politics

I am against the assault weapons ban and bans on magazines. The reason why this crap has gained traction is because of people like this that have no idea what they are talking about.

Message edited by frisca - fixing url.
 04/04/2013 12:11:43 PM · #2
Ignorance prevails! Yay, we can now pretend that we're safer!

Really though, it should be a crime to legislate on a subject which you don't fully understand. This is the genesis of most bad laws, such as the DMCA, patriot act, and our new gun laws.

As long as fools are driving the car, be prepared to go to foolish places.
 04/04/2013 12:13:39 PM · #3
Originally posted by Cory:


As long as fools are driving the car, be prepared to go to foolish places.


and fools elect them and keep them in office, so who's to blame?
 04/04/2013 12:19:29 PM · #4
Yeah I didn't vote on this current administration.
04/04/2013 12:21:48 PM · #5
I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but am leaning a little more towards the gun control side of the fence. Both sides make valid points and most of the one-liners I see on the internet are correct. There isn't a simple answer.

I think we need to do something to keep guns out of the hands of the nut jobs, but banning certain types of magazines and guns will not do much except make some politicians feel they have done *something*. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. However, guns do make mass killing easier.
04/04/2013 12:24:05 PM · #6
Colorado Politics

Parsed link.
 04/04/2013 02:05:11 PM · #7
And here's the kicker folks.

We can't even keep the guns out of PRISON!!!

Effectively, it is as I have promised - this will deter no-one who needs to be deterred, and shall work fantastically on all law abiding citizens.
 04/04/2013 02:11:56 PM · #8
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Yeah I didn't vote on this current administration.

You didn't vote in the Colorado 1st congressional congress race?
 04/04/2013 02:17:20 PM · #9
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Yeah I didn't vote on this current administration.

You didn't vote in the Colorado 1st congressional congress race?


Yeah...not what I meant....Obama is leading the charge on this. I am proud to say that I have never voted on him...
04/04/2013 02:49:44 PM · #10
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Yeah I didn't vote on this current administration.

You didn't vote in the Colorado 1st congressional congress race?


Yeah...not what I meant....Obama is leading the charge on this. I am proud to say that I have never voted on him...


Have you ever done anything on him? ;)
 04/04/2013 02:52:16 PM · #11
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Yeah I didn't vote on this current administration.

You didn't vote in the Colorado 1st congressional congress race?


He probably didn't. Colorado 1st is the city of Denver. I can't imagine cowboy being happy living in Denver. It's Denver that counterbalances the Fox news element in the rest of the state.
 04/04/2013 03:03:42 PM · #12
I dont want to live anyplace that enjoys taking away freedoms and make the citizens more dependant on the govmt. Colorado used to be sensible....I also would not be happy in New York or California.
 04/04/2013 03:08:40 PM · #13
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I dont want to live anyplace that enjoys taking away freedoms and make the citizens more dependant on the govmt. Colorado used to be sensible....I also would not be happy in New York or California.


you happily lived under Bush for 8 yrs.
 04/04/2013 03:15:51 PM · #14
What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.
 04/04/2013 03:17:57 PM · #15
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.


ROFL, really? Remember a little thing called the Patriot Act?
 04/04/2013 03:19:34 PM · #16
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.


ROFL, really? Remember a little thing called the Patriot Act?


ok I stand corrected...It just didn't come to mind.
 04/04/2013 03:21:38 PM · #17
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.


Oh. My. God.
 04/04/2013 03:31:12 PM · #18
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but am leaning a little more towards the gun control side of the fence. Both sides make valid points and most of the one-liners I see on the internet are correct. There isn't a simple answer.

I think we need to do something to keep guns out of the hands of the nut jobs, but banning certain types of magazines and guns will not do much except make some politicians feel they have done *something*. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. However, guns do make mass killing easier.


The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.

04/04/2013 03:36:04 PM · #19
Originally posted by Ann:

The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.


This seems to make sense, but I've seen tests posted on YouTube where the same number of rounds are fired using one clip, two clips and four clips. The difference was mere seconds. Good luck with getting your tackle in.
 04/04/2013 03:43:10 PM · #20
Originally posted by Ann:
The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.

And it would be even easier to take him down if he had some other weapon besides a gun.

How to allow "responsible gun owners" to have their toys while keeping them out of the hands of the nut jobs is the problem I am seeing. Banning guns is unrealistic. It won't happen in in the US, and I do agree if it did happen, it would make crime easier. The problem I see is that many of the mass shooting have been done by people who were "responsible gun owners". Until they snapped. Or stole the guns from someone who was "responsible".
 04/04/2013 03:49:07 PM · #21
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him
 04/04/2013 03:55:23 PM · #22
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him


i find it comical that you continue to blame Obama and liberals, its not their fault, its both parties fault. All politician rarely take the common sense approach, the knee jerk reaction to calm their constituents is the preferred course.

in reality Obama's programs are probably the way to approach it, if most crime is a function of poverty, why not try to reduce poverty.

04/04/2013 04:01:48 PM · #23
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ann:

The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.


This seems to make sense, but I've seen tests posted on YouTube where the same number of rounds are fired using one clip, two clips and four clips. The difference was mere seconds. Good luck with getting your tackle in.


That's all it takes if you're nearby. Think Gabby Giffords. My understanding from reading the article was that scenario (someone clubbed him over the head with a folding chair when he went to reload) is more common than not. It probably didn't hurt that he dropped the magazine when he was reloading.

I'd like to find that article again. I found it when we were discussing guns in that other thread, but now, every search I can think of brings up articles that are incredibly one sided (on both sides). But if I recall the study correctly, they looked at a bunch of public shootings where the shooter either shot 4 or more people (the FBI definition of a mass shooting), or it looked like he was planning to keep shooting, but was stopped. Something like 1.5% were stopped by another shooter. The majority of the rest were stopped by an unarmed nearby bystander.

04/04/2013 04:02:15 PM · #24
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I dont want to live anyplace that enjoys taking away freedoms and make the citizens more dependant on the govmt. Colorado used to be sensible....I also would not be happy in New York or California.


Antarctica? Mars perhaps?

You share the world with others. The option to be fully autonomous and self-determining is just not there. Nor should it be.
 04/04/2013 04:23:22 PM · #25
Originally posted by Paul:
The option to be fully autonomous and self-determining is just not there.


The funny thing is many people on DPC feel the option IS there until it's something they disagree with...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 05:16:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 05:16:01 PM EDT.