Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
The point that he's making is that 80% of firearm related violence are gang related, meaning that these people are going to kill each other, period, no matter what you do. Why? Because they are fighting over millions of dollars over trafficking of illegal substances. Just because you ban guns outright doesn't mean you're going to really do anything about that; they'll just turn to stabbing, running people over with cars, etc. etc. etc. or just do it the old fashion way of bludgeoning someone to death with their bare hands and feet.
A vast majority of gun users are responsible users. No one is saying that they are against compromise (quite contrary, most people that are pro-guns actually don't mind some extra measures as long as they aren't extreme). However, the premise that you think that banning guns is going to do anything is hilarious.
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
Fine. Remove the "right" part from my post, then, and replace it with "crowd" or something neutral.
Still, no addressing any of my arguments and more name calling. I was talking about actual guns used in actual incidents of gun violence, then you started talking about hypothetical use of napalm and the media. Seriously, why is it so hard to talk about guns when talking about gun control?
Your last paragraph also betrays the largest flaw in your logic. By saying "people have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irrational, nonsensical or downright crazy ideas", you're automatically assuming the correctness in what gets done lies with your approval instead of the soundness of the actual solution. I'm willing to listen to good points and have a conversation on the issue, but it needs to be just that - on the issue, not on what-ifs and maybes.
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
Fine. Remove the "right" part from my post, then, and replace it with "crowd" or something neutral.
Still, no addressing any of my arguments and more name calling. I was talking about actual guns used in actual incidents of gun violence, then you started talking about hypothetical use of napalm and the media. Seriously, why is it so hard to talk about guns when talking about gun control?
Your last paragraph also betrays the largest flaw in your logic. By saying "people have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irrational, nonsensical or downright crazy ideas", you're automatically assuming the correctness in what gets done lies with your approval instead of the soundness of the actual solution. I'm willing to listen to good points and have a conversation on the issue, but it needs to be just that - on the issue, not on what-ifs and maybes.
Its hard to seriosly talk about guns with people beacuse they think its some be all end all embodiment to evil and the worst thing people can use to terrorize and kill people. In reality they're just tools no different then any other way to kill people. I'm fairly confident in my knowedge about guns is a ton higher then most people who are either wildly afraid of them or only get their information about them from news and politicians. An "assult weapon" ban won't do anything new or do anything helpful. That's not an opinion that's a fact from what happened from the last ban. All it ended up doing was sell more ar15s. A overhaul of the background check system is good and makes sense but when 70-80% of the guns used in crimes are ilegal anyway and won't be useing it what's the point with wasteing money on such an overhaul? Putting a memorandum on making certin capacity magazines is probably the best way forward from here there will still be a massive glut of them out there that everyone will be happy to sell for a huge markup on what the pre-ban cost was.
So now that I've worked though most of the things I've seen recently come out of the "anti-gun" crowd which do you want to talk about or something new that I didn't say in the post above?
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
Fine. Remove the "right" part from my post, then, and replace it with "crowd" or something neutral.
Still, no addressing any of my arguments and more name calling. I was talking about actual guns used in actual incidents of gun violence, then you started talking about hypothetical use of napalm and the media. Seriously, why is it so hard to talk about guns when talking about gun control?
Your last paragraph also betrays the largest flaw in your logic. By saying "people have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irrational, nonsensical or downright crazy ideas", you're automatically assuming the correctness in what gets done lies with your approval instead of the soundness of the actual solution. I'm willing to listen to good points and have a conversation on the issue, but it needs to be just that - on the issue, not on what-ifs and maybes.
Its hard to seriosly talk about guns with people beacuse they think its some be all end all embodiment to evil and the worst thing people can use to terrorize and kill people. In reality they're just tools no different then any other way to kill people. I'm fairly confident in my knowedge about guns is a ton higher then most people who are either wildly afraid of them or only get their information about them from news and politicians. An "assult weapon" ban won't do anything new or do anything helpful. That's not an opinion that's a fact from what happened from the last ban. All it ended up doing was sell more ar15s. A overhaul of the background check system is good and makes sense but when 70-80% of the guns used in crimes are ilegal anyway and won't be useing it what's the point with wasteing money on such an overhaul? Putting a memorandum on making certin capacity magazines is probably the best way forward from here there will still be a massive glut of them out there that everyone will be happy to sell for a huge markup on what the pre-ban cost was.
So now that I've worked though most of the things I've seen recently come out of the "anti-gun" crowd which do you want to talk about or something new that I didn't say in the post above?
The current interest in gun control is mostly related to the recent spate of mass shootings where assault rifles are used. Banning them would still help bring down gun violence because they are high-capacity and more powerful than just handguns. Also, the majority of the school and other mass shootings that have been happening were done with guns that were purchased legally.
Don't pull the "people will still find ways to kill other people" argument out of your ass because its stupid. The reason why so many people die from guns in the country is because its so easy to kill somebody with a gun. Just point and shoot and chances are they won't survive. try killing people with a knife. Chances are someone bigger than you would knock your face in before you got to do anything. There's a reason why countries with complete bans on any kinds of guns have close to zero gun-related deaths - because there simply isn't a gun to kill someone with. Of course nobody is asking for that here in america...Can you imagine how many people could have died if machine guns were legal and the newtown shooter had used one? Gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings on their own but they help.discourage.shootings. High capacity magazine bans, limiting the number of bullets you can buy at one time, etc. help
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
Fine. Remove the "right" part from my post, then, and replace it with "crowd" or something neutral.
Still, no addressing any of my arguments and more name calling. I was talking about actual guns used in actual incidents of gun violence, then you started talking about hypothetical use of napalm and the media. Seriously, why is it so hard to talk about guns when talking about gun control?
Your last paragraph also betrays the largest flaw in your logic. By saying "people have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irrational, nonsensical or downright crazy ideas", you're automatically assuming the correctness in what gets done lies with your approval instead of the soundness of the actual solution. I'm willing to listen to good points and have a conversation on the issue, but it needs to be just that - on the issue, not on what-ifs and maybes.
Its hard to seriosly talk about guns with people beacuse they think its some be all end all embodiment to evil and the worst thing people can use to terrorize and kill people. In reality they're just tools no different then any other way to kill people. I'm fairly confident in my knowedge about guns is a ton higher then most people who are either wildly afraid of them or only get their information about them from news and politicians. An "assult weapon" ban won't do anything new or do anything helpful. That's not an opinion that's a fact from what happened from the last ban. All it ended up doing was sell more ar15s. A overhaul of the background check system is good and makes sense but when 70-80% of the guns used in crimes are ilegal anyway and won't be useing it what's the point with wasteing money on such an overhaul? Putting a memorandum on making certin capacity magazines is probably the best way forward from here there will still be a massive glut of them out there that everyone will be happy to sell for a huge markup on what the pre-ban cost was.
So now that I've worked though most of the things I've seen recently come out of the "anti-gun" crowd which do you want to talk about or something new that I didn't say in the post above?
The current interest in gun control is mostly related to the recent spate of mass shootings where assault rifles are used. Banning them would still help bring down gun violence because they are high-capacity and more powerful than just handguns. Also, the majority of the school and other mass shootings that have been happening were done with guns that were purchased legally.
Don't pull the "people will still find ways to kill other people" argument out of your ass because its stupid. The reason why so many people die from guns in the country is because its so easy to kill somebody with a gun. Just point and shoot and chances are they won't survive. try killing people with a knife. Chances are someone bigger than you would knock your face in before you got to do anything. There's a reason why countries with complete bans on any kinds of guns have close to zero gun-related deaths - because there simply isn't a gun to kill someone with. Of course nobody is asking for that here in america...Can you imagine how many people could have died if machine guns were legal and the newtown shooter had used one? Gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings on their own but they help.discourage.shootings. High capacity magazine bans, limiting the number of bullets you can buy at one time, etc. help
False, both Brazil and Russia have extremely strict gun laws and yet they have tremendously higher homicide rates than the United States. I can find various other countries with the same thing; strict gun control, high rates of violence.
Two, mass shootings are extremely rare, and violence in the United States is on a downslide since the 1970s. This is a fact. You cannot argue it. Violent crimes overall have gone down, and although gun homicide numbers are up recently, that is mostly due to gang related violence (done with illegal guns anyways) and suicides.
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
What a horrible hyperpartisan post. You do know that there are anti gun control people on the left right? That even joe biden rallied anti gun control support when he was making his primary run. Although I guess I shouldn't hope for anything better for someone that refuses to read someones post and would rather dismiss it beacuse you don't like the words in it for some reason.
Like really you just called someone on hyperbole and then you go on the very next post hyperboleing like crazy. Pot kettle black much?
And I am for more gun control measures its just people that have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irational nonsensical or downright crazy ideas for what to do that makes it hard for me to support anything that comes from people who are "anti-gun".
Fine. Remove the "right" part from my post, then, and replace it with "crowd" or something neutral.
Still, no addressing any of my arguments and more name calling. I was talking about actual guns used in actual incidents of gun violence, then you started talking about hypothetical use of napalm and the media. Seriously, why is it so hard to talk about guns when talking about gun control?
Your last paragraph also betrays the largest flaw in your logic. By saying "people have no real idea on how they want to control guns more and propose irrational, nonsensical or downright crazy ideas", you're automatically assuming the correctness in what gets done lies with your approval instead of the soundness of the actual solution. I'm willing to listen to good points and have a conversation on the issue, but it needs to be just that - on the issue, not on what-ifs and maybes.
Its hard to seriosly talk about guns with people beacuse they think its some be all end all embodiment to evil and the worst thing people can use to terrorize and kill people. In reality they're just tools no different then any other way to kill people. I'm fairly confident in my knowedge about guns is a ton higher then most people who are either wildly afraid of them or only get their information about them from news and politicians. An "assult weapon" ban won't do anything new or do anything helpful. That's not an opinion that's a fact from what happened from the last ban. All it ended up doing was sell more ar15s. A overhaul of the background check system is good and makes sense but when 70-80% of the guns used in crimes are ilegal anyway and won't be useing it what's the point with wasteing money on such an overhaul? Putting a memorandum on making certin capacity magazines is probably the best way forward from here there will still be a massive glut of them out there that everyone will be happy to sell for a huge markup on what the pre-ban cost was.
So now that I've worked though most of the things I've seen recently come out of the "anti-gun" crowd which do you want to talk about or something new that I didn't say in the post above?
The current interest in gun control is mostly related to the recent spate of mass shootings where assault rifles are used. Banning them would still help bring down gun violence because they are high-capacity and more powerful than just handguns. Also, the majority of the school and other mass shootings that have been happening were done with guns that were purchased legally.
Don't pull the "people will still find ways to kill other people" argument out of your ass because its stupid. The reason why so many people die from guns in the country is because its so easy to kill somebody with a gun. Just point and shoot and chances are they won't survive. try killing people with a knife. Chances are someone bigger than you would knock your face in before you got to do anything. There's a reason why countries with complete bans on any kinds of guns have close to zero gun-related deaths - because there simply isn't a gun to kill someone with. Of course nobody is asking for that here in america...Can you imagine how many people could have died if machine guns were legal and the newtown shooter had used one? Gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings on their own but they help.discourage.shootings. High capacity magazine bans, limiting the number of bullets you can buy at one time, etc. help
Just curious what defines high capacity magazine? 100 rounds, 50 rounds, 25, 15, 10, 5, 3, 1? Where do you draw the line when doing this kind of ban? Same goes for how many bullets you can buy at once, or even own at any given time?
The reason that pro gun rights people like myself are apprehensive to these types of legislation is because its a slippery slope that slides towards a complete gun ban.
That is why pro gun advocates are much more willing to agree with mental health checks, stricter regulation on who can own a gun as to what kind of gun a responsible person can own.
I would actually strongly dispute the point that guns are "just tools no different than any other way to kill people." Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. What gets me is when people say "well we should outlaw cars and hammers because cars and hammers can kill people too." Some are made for hunting, yes, but you and I both know that you don't go use a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine to go shoot a deer.
Truthfully, I think you and I are not that far apart on views. There's no perfect solution, yes, and I actually do think that people should be able to own guns. Carrying them in public, though, is another matter. I also agree that magazines over a certain capacity should go, and there will be that glut, but that's unavoidable (unless the government instituted some buyback-and-destroy program).
I think the biggest issue is that we have a huge problem with the way we talk about gun rights in this country. Just for the hell of it, I went to the NRA website, and I almost laughed at how ridiculous it is. There are all these American flags and close-ups of eagles and shit everywhere. We have a problem as a nation, and we need to do something about it, and as long as one side is the boogeyman to the other, then we're never going to get anywhere.
On January 14 2013 05:45 TGalore wrote: I would actually strongly dispute the point that guns are "just tools no different than any other way to kill people." Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. What gets me is when people say "well we should outlaw cars and hammers because cars and hammers can kill people too." Some are made for hunting, yes, but you and I both know that you don't go use a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine to go shoot a deer.
Truthfully, I think you and I are not that far apart on views. There's no perfect solution, yes, and I actually do think that people should be able to own guns. Carrying them in public, though, is another matter. I also agree that magazines over a certain capacity should go, and there will be that glut, but that's unavoidable (unless the government instituted some buyback-and-destroy program).
I think the biggest issue is that we have a huge problem with the way we talk about gun rights in this country. Just for the hell of it, I went to the NRA website, and I almost laughed at how ridiculous it is. There are all these American flags and close-ups of eagles and shit everywhere. We have a problem as a nation, and we need to do something about it, and as long as one side is the boogeyman to the other, then we're never going to get anywhere.
There are plenty of hunters that use a semi-automatic for deer hunting. They're not black and scary looking weapons but they function just like an assault weapon with out the "tactical" accessories and normally have smaller magazines.
However here is a link to a video I posted before that uses the big scary assault weapon for a completely rational and responsible purpose. The weapons can be an effective tool other then killing people.
"This feral hog eradication program is funded by a group of farmers who are taking progressive action to reduce the devastation done to their crops by these animals. Each and every feral hog is estimated to cause $1400 in crop damage during its lifetime. As you can see this data in combination with the extraordinarily high and ever expanding hog population proves to be a very big problem. Through the support of the farmers of Haskell Co. the hog population is on its way to a more controllable state as well as a much higher crop yield for the farmers."
On January 14 2013 05:45 TGalore wrote: I would actually strongly dispute the point that guns are "just tools no different than any other way to kill people." Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. What gets me is when people say "well we should outlaw cars and hammers because cars and hammers can kill people too." Some are made for hunting, yes, but you and I both know that you don't go use a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine to go shoot a deer.
Truthfully, I think you and I are not that far apart on views. There's no perfect solution, yes, and I actually do think that people should be able to own guns. Carrying them in public, though, is another matter. I also agree that magazines over a certain capacity should go, and there will be that glut, but that's unavoidable (unless the government instituted some buyback-and-destroy program).
I think the biggest issue is that we have a huge problem with the way we talk about gun rights in this country. Just for the hell of it, I went to the NRA website, and I almost laughed at how ridiculous it is. There are all these American flags and close-ups of eagles and shit everywhere. We have a problem as a nation, and we need to do something about it, and as long as one side is the boogeyman to the other, then we're never going to get anywhere.
Yes you do. Have you ever shot a large animal in your life? 400-500 lb hogs for example? They do not go down in one shot. And once a massive 400-500 lb wild hog is pissed at you, it is not going to stop. You don't have time to think about reloading; you have to put out rounds quick to put it down fast otherwise you are going to die.
And people don't just hunt for sport; sometimes you have to hunt to kill off those animals because they are causing damage to the local environment, or are causing public safety hazards, or are just overrunning the damn place. For example, in Africa, sometimes lions, cheetahs, hyenas, etc. get a little too close and start actually attacking people. What are you to do? Try to relocate them? They will just find new human prey to attack. Once an animal has decided that people are no longer a real threat to them, they will just keep attacking them/harassing them. You have to put the animal down; no question about it. You think that a bolt action rifle is going to be enough to put a damn Lion down? No. Not in a million years. You better have a semi automatic high caliber high magazine rifle at the ready to put out rounds in a hurry, otherwise you're fucked.
I deer hunt with a bolt action rifle but I carry my semi-auto hand gun with me for exactly this reason. We have killed 3 hogs this year on my parents 400 acres ranch, all 200lb+. I don't want to be walking up on an aggressive animal that size with out semi-automatic capability.
On January 14 2013 05:45 TGalore wrote: I would actually strongly dispute the point that guns are "just tools no different than any other way to kill people." Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. What gets me is when people say "well we should outlaw cars and hammers because cars and hammers can kill people too." Some are made for hunting, yes, but you and I both know that you don't go use a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine to go shoot a deer.
Truthfully, I think you and I are not that far apart on views. There's no perfect solution, yes, and I actually do think that people should be able to own guns. Carrying them in public, though, is another matter. I also agree that magazines over a certain capacity should go, and there will be that glut, but that's unavoidable (unless the government instituted some buyback-and-destroy program).
I think the biggest issue is that we have a huge problem with the way we talk about gun rights in this country. Just for the hell of it, I went to the NRA website, and I almost laughed at how ridiculous it is. There are all these American flags and close-ups of eagles and shit everywhere. We have a problem as a nation, and we need to do something about it, and as long as one side is the boogeyman to the other, then we're never going to get anywhere.
False. I successfully hunted deer this year with an AK-47, using a 10-round magazine (as is required by law). The reason I used this rather than my 308 bolt-action rifle is the ergonomics are better in cold weather. The eye relief of the scope on my 308 is so close to the scope that when wearing thick cold weather clothing, my eye is too far to get a good sight picture. The shorter stock on my AK-47 allows the proper distance between eye and scope when wearing thick clothing. Plus the pistol grip and quad-rail with bipod improve the ergonomics that the traditional hunting rifle can't match. The semi-auto capability is actually a downside, imo, because you only really get 1 perfect shot anyway and the ejecting shell means you better not shoot left handed.
On January 13 2013 15:10 BluePanther wrote: Apparently that moderator is a Ravens fan. So little humor amongst that group (he'll probably ban me for this joke).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Right. So they'll get murdered with handguns instead. That makes EVERYTHING better. *rolls eyes*
Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said it was "ok" that poor people get murdered. But I'm not going to restrict firearm rights because one gang member shot another gang member. And that is what something like 80% of all firearm related homocides are about. They are fighting over drug dealing turf. WTF does a firearm ban have anything to do with that? You really think they're going to just stop fighting over millions of dollars because some PTA moms get mad? I mean, the guns they use for those crimes are ALREADY ILLEGAL, and ALREADY have HUGE criminal penalties attached to their use in hundreds of different crimes. Hell, just having a gun on you when you are caught with dope adds years and years to a punishment.
"Assault rifles" (which is an extremely misused word by the media narrative) have basically nothing to do with gun violence in the USA. It's statistically insignificant. If we let emotions run our country, we'd be f***ed. I'm just looking at it objectively. You have to take your emotions out of it when you discuss things like this, otherwise people say stupid stuff like "you hate poor people!" as if it's actually true. I spent a year working at a homeless shelter. I don't hate poor people. And just to cut off your future arguments, I'm not racist either. Or classist. Or whatever other stereotype you're going to paint me as.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
He was talking about the militia interpretation, I believe. Nobody was talking about what constitutes reasonable regulation.
1 - You want to distract from the argument about gun violence by debating semantics? Fine. The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter fired 30 rounds in 27 seconds. That's horrifying. If the Smith & Wesson MP15 Semi-automatic rifle with a 100 Round Drum Magazine he was firing didn't malfunction, imagine how many more people would have died? There's no emotion in the logic that guns that fire less bullets at a lower rate don't kill people as fast as guns that do.
2 - If you don't want people to call you insensitive, then don't say things that are insensitive. I didn't say "You hate poor people", but I'm sure there are lots of people out there who would take offense to the idea of their loved ones' deaths being tolerated because you in your high chair deem them less "innocent." Who are you to judge what constitutes an "innocent" person getting killed? And "PTA Moms"? Really? Could you possibly have used a worse (and, perhaps, revealing into your mindset) choice of words?
3 - I don't think it's objectively looking at the situation if you're unwilling to consider guns as part of the problem for what's being done with, I don't know, guns? The problem is that, for some reason, we're confusing regulating anything related to gun use with the intent to ban them outright. "Put codes on bullets and register them" or "limit magazine size" or "create a national gun database" gets heard as "They're taking our guns! Aaaaah! Tyrannical government! Tyranny! Tyranny!"
To quote Jon Stewart, for some reason, we are for some reason so afraid of some dystopic possible future that we're unwilling to do anything to address our own actual dystopic present. Until we nut up and act, we're going to keep having schools, theaters, malls, colleges, and offices get shot up.
You dodged my argument.
1. What differences does it make? A handgun would be just as dangerous in such a situation (and it shoots just as fast).
2. You definitely implied it. Don't pretend you didn't. You are using emotional trigger words to frame the conversation. Of course everyone thinks their loved ones are more important than everyone elses. But should we ban cars because someone got hit by a drunk driver? Should we ban alcohol because not doing so is insensitive to their family? No, because we as a society tolerate negative externalities because the positive results in a higher quality of life on the aggregate. That same logic applies to firearms, whether you like it or not. Your attempt to twist my comments into something insensitive is partisanship at its finest.
3. Because the vast majority of guns used for criminal activities are already illegal. I'm personally in support of all three of those suggestions, but I highly doubt they'll do anything to stop anything. Honestly, the media coverage extended to these events is "part of" what gives the killers the motivation and/or inspiration to partake in them. That makes media coverage "part of the problem". Should we blackout the media because they are a factor? Its the same argument you are making. Your arguments are bad, and I'm merely calling you out on it.
On January 14 2013 05:45 TGalore wrote: Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing.
No, guns are made because people buy them. Colt doesn't make guns to kill people, Colt makes guns so they can sell them and make a profit. What the purchaser does with them is not Colt's problem.
I own a rifle. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed what I was aiming at. Am I misusing my rifle? I must be if the only purpose for guns is to kill.
On January 14 2013 05:45 TGalore wrote: Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing.
No, guns are made because people buy them. Colt doesn't make guns to kill people, Colt makes guns so they can sell them and make a profit. What the purchaser does with them is not Colt's problem.
I own a rifle. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed what I was aiming at. Am I misusing my rifle? I must be if the only purpose for guns is to kill.
Beautiful...economic market response and you beat me to it.
On January 15 2013 02:15 TheFrankOne wrote: Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing. Not a "beautiful" response, just semantics.
Fine, but my second point still stands. I own a rifle. I've never killed anything with it, but I did hit what I was aiming at. Ergo, killing is not the only purpose for which guns are designed.
To quote Jon Stewart, for some reason, we are for some reason so afraid of some dystopic possible future that we're unwilling to do anything to address our own actual dystopic present. Until we nut up and act, we're going to keep having schools, theaters, malls, colleges, and offices get shot up.
. Yeah, and that's the problem. People like you 'quoting' Jon Stewart. 'Quoting' a focus-grouped, processed, artificial viewpoint that plays to your ego and prejudices and requires no facts, just feelings. Do we actually live in a dystopic present? If it feels like it, it is! We must nut up and deal with these horrible feelings by grandstanding on the graves of children and strutting our manufactured self-righteous indignation around and, naturally and most importantly, telling other people what to do.
We're going to keep having public places shot up until security gets real. The Newtown shooter entered the school through an unsupervised, unlocked, unsecured side door. Why do most mass-shootings happen in "gun-free zones"?
1 - You want to distract from the argument about gun violence by debating semantics? Fine. The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter fired 30 rounds in 27 seconds. That's horrifying. If the Smith & Wesson MP15 Semi-automatic rifle with a 100 Round Drum Magazine he was firing didn't malfunction, imagine how many more people would have died? There's no emotion in the logic that guns that fire less bullets at a lower rate don't kill people as fast as guns that do.
Why are "assault rifles" your bogeyman when a handgun can fire just as quickly as a legal AR-15? One pull, one shot. 1-2 seconds to reload. Size of clip or magazine is totally irrelevant, in the time you can fire 120 bullets from 4 30-round magazines on a legal AR-15 you could have fired 100-110 rounds from a handgun (save revolvers - unless you have a speedloader). It's obvious that you know very little, if anything, about firearms, yet your moral outrage is supposed to give you some kind of expertise and authority on guns in America?
On January 15 2013 02:15 TheFrankOne wrote: Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing. Not a "beautiful" response, just semantics.
Why is it when discussing guns it's common to bring up how guns are 'designed' for killing? What something was originally designed for hundreds of years ago is pretty much irrelevant today. If a secret new document unveiled that bowling balls were originally designed to smash people's heads in rather than for bowling alley recreation/competition, that wouldn't change how we view bowling legislation.
You can discuss how the specific features of something that is being manufactured more recently is designed to optimize deadliness (poisoned bullets for a fictitious example... how do poisoned bullets help people target shoot or defend their home), or the opposite (new type of bumper for a car reduces chances of hit and run being deadly), but what something was originally designed for shouldn't affect the answer to questions like the one in the thread title.
In fact, discussions about these 'features' are very difficult because you need to be an expert in order to understand the issue; how many people in this thread truly get all of the major pros and cons of semi-automatic functionality, for example?
EPT
