Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NSFW Classic Chris Rock: Bullet Control (Original Post) Grassy Knoll Jul 2012 OP
Bullets r not covered by the second amendment. Ban them samsingh Jul 2012 #1
I think you're onto a great debate... Grassy Knoll Jul 2012 #2
Neither are guns, actually Scootaloo Jul 2012 #3
As a practical matter Warpy Jul 2012 #4
No, we don't have to concede any such thing. Scootaloo Jul 2012 #5
No, I'm saying we need to take the focus off the gun and put it Warpy Jul 2012 #7
Well, where theres a will theres a way typically.. iamthebandfanman Jul 2012 #6
That's so right. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #8
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
3. Neither are guns, actually
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:27 AM
Jul 2012

The amendment merely says "arms."

It'd be perfectly constitutional to levy a full-scale ban on guns... and instead of drive-by shootings, we could go back to jousting.

Warpy

(111,140 posts)
4. As a practical matter
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:22 AM
Jul 2012

I think we have to concede that this week's mass murder would likely have taken place without guns, given the explosives he had booby trapping his apartment. The death toll might have been far higher had he used explosives combined with an accelerant.

But I've said they need to license the sale of ammo for years.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
5. No, we don't have to concede any such thing.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:40 AM
Jul 2012

We can speculate, but that doesn't actually accomplish a damn thing.

This dude mowed down over 70 people with a gun. "he could have done it with an explosive!" is just as meaningless as "he could have killed more if the clip hadn't jammed!" - all that matters is what actually happened, why it happened, and possible ways to prevent it from happening again.

In a way - I'm sure it's unintentional - what you're saying is that because you think he might have killed those people some other way anyway, we shouldn't bother looking at obvious ways to make it less easy to mow down over seventy people with a gun.

Warpy

(111,140 posts)
7. No, I'm saying we need to take the focus off the gun and put it
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:16 PM
Jul 2012

on things like the appalling lack of access to mental health care, the stigma that prevents people who are starting to slip off the rails from seeking it, and the incompetence of a TSA that fails to track things like large ammo, explosive and SWAT gear purchases by a single civilian.

All these factors combined to produce that slaughter. The gun didn't walk in there by itself.

iamthebandfanman

(8,127 posts)
6. Well, where theres a will theres a way typically..
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:14 AM
Jul 2012

ill agree with that notion..

but that doesnt mean you make it easier for someone

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»NSFW Classic Chris Rock: ...