And that Lambo is registered and required to be insured so we know who was responsible and there is most likely a financial payout for the victim and their families.
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
And that Lambo is registered and required to be insured so we know who was responsible and there is most likely a financial payout for the victim and their families.
required? he could let the insurance lapse...just because something is required by law doesn't mean people are adhering to it...thus the argument that criminals do not follow laws so adding laws does not affect criminals who will not follow them...
There are laws in place for guns but what you find is 8 times out of 10 those rules were not followed. Keep making rules then they are never followed. Until you hold a responsible party(ie pawn shop, store etc) liable then things won't change. Then on top of that you can still get one out of someone's trunk for cash. How do you stop that? Most of us don't have airplanes and tide pods only come from Tide so you can limit that all you want. People use cars to drive into a large crowd killing and injuring. No one holds car manufacturers liable. You can't ban cars. What does it all come back to? Hate. Ban every gun and fix cars in a way that they will not be around large crowds then what? Someone with hate will find a way to harm people other ways. You can't deny that. If I love my neighbor then I will help them and lift them up. If I hated my neighbor so much that I wanted to cause harm then I will find ways to harm them. *edited to add this. Find me the strictest gun law cities and I'll show you a death by guns. The same ones are reported all the time. How often do you hear of a shooting in Chicago then nothing ever happens? More laws more laws more laws. Then more shootings.
It seems like an argument is why enforce/create law as ppl will still find a way to cause harm. If
And when ppl start driving cars thru crowds, car manufacturers will be in congress answering questions about what can be done to prevent that from happening.
You missed my point. My point is in other situations ppl did something. When guns are involved the answer is nothing could have prevented it.
And when ppl start driving cars thru crowds, car manufacturers will be in congress answering questions about what can be done to prevent that from happening.
So your argument is not to have laws because someone might break the law?
Thanks Alex. Will you eventually be telling us all this shooting didn’t really happen and was just faked by the media?
In terms of the watch list we all know that if they added that as a blocker for the background check as soon as someone hit that there would be people screaming that someone with no criminal background was being denied a gun. It would conveniently be ignored that it was because they were part of the Klan or a Proudboy and just focus on not being a convicted criminal.
No argument. I am just stating the obvious that even tho there are laws, people break them and no amount of additional laws is going to change that...laws are for the law abiding...not the criminal because they don't follow them. pretty standard logic. I never said don't have laws so no one would break them...
But you agree that the laws that require cars to be registered and insured makes them more likely to be registered and insured, correct?
Yes, same as the laws dealing with guns are followed by law abiding gun owners but criminals intent on killing will not follow those laws.
Here th
But hasn't prices already increased? So if they did and this bill isn't in effect, what else would explain the increase in pricing. Corporate greed.
You’re ignoring the fact the Colorado shooter was a legal, law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger at the grocery store.
So had we required him to register his gun and show proof of insurance to pick up the weapon, the laws I’m proposing would have been followed.
also, you pay an Uninsured Motorist fee in SC to cover people that don't pay for insurance. The State knows of the problem but in turn makes us law abiding drivers/car owners pay to cover people breaking the law...makes no sense..
He was legal, not law abiding...there's a big difference. I have no problem with crazies not getting guns...just do not place burdens on me to cover their stupidness...see my above post regarding uninsured motorist fees
Which leads me to the end game of “gun control”. It will end up as, “since we cannot tell who is a crazy, we must take all guns from the populace.” If you can’t see that’s the ultimate target, you’re fooling yourself.
But guess what?? The criminals will not turn theirs over but the law abides will.
But he was "law abiding" until he wasn't - just like literally every other person on the planet. Until you commit your first crime, you're "law abiding." And thus, having a current "law abiding" status is not an indicator of future behaviors.
I mean if you’re unwilling to agree to reasonable gun control measures, what other option is there?
I’m trying to find a reasonable middle ground and you guys refuse to budge an inch.
What is reasonable? I buy guns. I don’t commit crimes with those guns. Answer this...what am I doing wrong?
See this post Todd:
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
No but if the owner of the lambo decided to do 180 down I26 he could kill you if you were in front of him...he would have chosen to operate his car in an illegal fashion and you would be a innocent casualty on your way to a nice wkd in Charleston. And that Lambo is registered and required to...
southcarolina.forums.rivals.com
You’re making it easier for people to break the law.
So you admit that that is the only option?? Thank you for finally admitting. The end game is no guns for anyone...
You want no politics and you go right to assault rifle (political hot potato) ? You jest.
That is a stupid post...did you think before typing it? My having guns does nothing to “make it easier for people to break the law.”
asinine thing to say and totally discounts your position
now there was an important if there. Can you complete the if statement ?
The “responsible restrictions” have been put into place by the same crowd that thinks that the constitution is a living, breathing thing! Anything that goes against “shall not be infringed” is most likely illegal. Our founders never wanted the population to be outgunned by our government. We are, of course. However, there are truly many of us that would fight to our death to protect all of the constitution.
Can felons legally have/buy a gun? No
Can I legally sell a gun to someone that can’t legally own it? No
Can someone legally lie on a background check form in order to get a gun they legally shouldn’t have? No
So what do you propose we need to do more? I’m open to background checks on person to person sales. That is reasonable. I’m open to some sort of mental check. That’s reasonable.
What more do you propose?
People murder......guns just sit there in the safe, on the table or in the rack . Guns can not do anything on their own as they are intransitive objects which only function when guided by PEOPLE. Guns don’t kill....people commit murder.
It's funny how the most vocal supporters of the Constitution rarely understand it.
You’ve literally spent two days arguing against making it harder for criminals to get firearms.
Do you honestly not understand that?
The only reasonable middle ground is for you to stay away from guns, read the constitution and thank your neighbors that own guns. Because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I don’t know what state you live in but here in Georgia we have open carry. Although most conceal (I do), we can wear a side arm in most places. The folks who carry have been registered, been finger printed and are never the individuals who you hear about on the news.
Yeah that’s why gun control measures typically impact people and not guns...
I don’t think anyone has any issue with a company making guns just for them to sit in a warehouse never touched by humans. It just wouldn’t be a profitable endeavor.
You said that my having guns makes it "easier for people to break the law."
If you have read my posts I am not for criminals/crazies having guns. I have never argued against making it harder for criminals to get firearms. Check yourself.
Please explain your post below how my guns make it easier for people to break the law:
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
No but if the owner of the lambo decided to do 180 down I26 he could kill you if you were in front of him...he would have chosen to operate his car in an illegal fashion and you would be a innocent casualty on your way to a nice wkd in Charleston. And that Lambo is registered and required to...
southcarolina.forums.rivals.com
How do my having guns make it easier for people to break the law? I'll wait for a response.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
- Latest: uscwatson21
-
-
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: 2025 Recruiting Breakdown, Ole Miss Summer Preview- Latest: Caleb Alexander
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: 2025 Recruiting Breakdown, Ole Miss Summer Preview
- Latest: Caleb Alexander