|
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 November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'.
My father was a marine corp drill sergeant and trained in multiple home defense/police defense/ concealed carry courses, as well as many years of military training. He never recommended an assault rifle for home defense. Try turning around in a narrow hallway with an AR at your shoulder.
He had always recommended a shotgun and a colt 45. with hollow points. Also consider the possibility you miss... you have to think about who is behind your target.
|
United States24690 Posts
Typically in a home defense situation, the intruder comes to you, and you shoot only if needed. If you are running around your house chasing after a robber to shoot him you are doing something wrong.
Also, superstartran already addressed penetration... .223 is actually pretty favorable in that regard for home defense.
You are making this too easy for him. Again.
|
On November 09 2018 09:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. My father was a marine corp drill sergeant and trained in multiple home defense/police defense/ concealed carry courses, as well as many years of military training. He never recommended an assault rifle for home defense. Try turning around in a narrow hallway with an AR at your shoulder. He had always recommended a shotgun and a colt 45. with hollow points. Also consider the possibility you miss... you have to think about who is behind your target.
Why would you be turning the hallway with a rifle? Proper training dictates that you should NEVER confront the intruder unless you NEED to. The ONLY time you should ever pursue an intruder inside your home is if your family members are in imminent danger. That's it. You should get your family inside of whatever room you can get into, barricade the door, and be ready to fire if the intruder tries to break in.
And possibility of missing means that you should 100% be using a low recoil semi-automatic rifle versus a shotgun, especially as a civilian who is not properly trained to handle recoil in a combat situation. Not to mention that you can also have a SBR .223 rifle which would more than suffice in a CQB situation if you absolutely needed to move within narrow hallways.
The only REAL argument against a .223 semi-automatic weapon is that shit is loud as fuck. Depending on how your home is built, it could echo and be so loud it is possible that shit could disorient the hell out of you.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 09:31 micronesia wrote:
Typically in a home defense situation, the intruder comes to you, and you shoot only if needed. If you are running around your house chasing after a robber to shoot him you are doing something wrong.
Also, superstartran already addressed penetration... .223 is actually pretty favorable in that regard for home defense.
You are making this too easy for him. Again.
On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
The only reason you speak the same apathetic bullshit is because you or your family weren't at the bar that night.
Sorry, suggesting he's saying apathetic bullshit because he wasn't shot at in this instance didn't make it too easy for him, but the assault weapons ban did? I really misjudged you, micronesia. Supposing I suggest ShambhalaWar only is passionate about gun bans because he's never been an unarmed victim of home invasion or brutal beating ... is that too a credit to my case?
|
I'm a bit busy still and I apologize for this but if I had the time and access to my computer I'd retort with listing the major provisions of the Washington gun control initiative. If someone else is willing to do the legwork for me I'd be grateful.
|
On November 09 2018 09:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. In regards to the last point, there are many countries who have high levels of gun violence and have very strict gun laws. Most of those have huge issues with socioeconomic problems i.e. Mexico and Russia. The vast majority of the U.S. gun related violence occurs within these areas also. If we were comparing similar geographic areas then you'd probably see that parts of the U.S. match up quite well with other parts of Europe (i.e. comparing NYC to London). The real problem is that most posters here love to compare Apples to Oranges and then say that our country is shitty, because hating on Murica is the in thing to do right now. On November 09 2018 09:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law. OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit. You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby. The NRA's influence comes from the fact that they also have the support of the vast majority of center right conservatives, not from the NRA's minuscule 2 million members or the amount of money they donate. They donate absolute pennies compared to pharmaceutical companies, medical insurance companies, tobacco, and tech companies. It's populism; aka how democracy is supposed to work. I'm not a gun expert, so what is the most effective gun to kill an intruder is not my area of expertise. I wouldn't get into an argument about because it is irrelevant. My argument is the number of situations you will encounter in your life time where you require a gun to protect yourself are insignificant. What are the chances that your home will be invaded by an assailant, then what are the chances that your home are invaded by an assailant and you have time to get your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself? Now compare that to likely hood of just accidental gun violence? I bet the second is larger. As to the whole regulation only makes it harder for the "good ones" to get guns. It is untrue it is harder for everyone because there is less of them. Will some bad guys have guns? Yes. There are countries where guns are so rare that even the police don't carry them. What do you think the number of bad police shootings are in those countries?
1) Home defense is not always discharging your firearm; merely the threat of you acting in self-defense is more than enough. Most assailants will flee the first sign they encounter someone, however due to the nature of America and some poverty stricken areas, some assailants are unwilling to leave witnesses (which is a whole different conversation). In such scenarios, self defense is a real thing.
2) Your argument about home defense being statistically insignificant isn't going to hold alot of weight, considering you're more likely to die by a bicycle accident then to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States. I wouldn't go down this road if I were you because you aren't going to come out looking good here.
3) In countries where guns are rare, guns were never a part of their culture. I'm not saying this as an excuse, I'm saying this as a fact. Even if you were to enact super strict federal laws tomorrow that either severely limited firearms, or even outright banned firearms as a whole, you'd still have far too many firearms in circulation and they would just end up illegally in the hands of criminals instead of legitimate gun owners. That's essentially what has happened in other countries that have tried this such as Mexico. Gun control can only be a small part of the solution, you need other things to occur too. People love to cite the UK and Australia as beacons of how gun control should work, yet forget gun culture was never a thing there.
4) The fact that you are referring to 'bad police shootings' really is just showing what kind of agenda you actually have. Bad police shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. contrary to popular opinion and what the liberal media loves to portray.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 10:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:58 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 09:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. In regards to the last point, there are many countries who have high levels of gun violence and have very strict gun laws. Most of those have huge issues with socioeconomic problems i.e. Mexico and Russia. The vast majority of the U.S. gun related violence occurs within these areas also. If we were comparing similar geographic areas then you'd probably see that parts of the U.S. match up quite well with other parts of Europe (i.e. comparing NYC to London). The real problem is that most posters here love to compare Apples to Oranges and then say that our country is shitty, because hating on Murica is the in thing to do right now. On November 09 2018 09:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law. OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit. You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby. The NRA's influence comes from the fact that they also have the support of the vast majority of center right conservatives, not from the NRA's minuscule 2 million members or the amount of money they donate. They donate absolute pennies compared to pharmaceutical companies, medical insurance companies, tobacco, and tech companies. It's populism; aka how democracy is supposed to work. I'm not a gun expert, so what is the most effective gun to kill an intruder is not my area of expertise. I wouldn't get into an argument about because it is irrelevant. My argument is the number of situations you will encounter in your life time where you require a gun to protect yourself are insignificant. What are the chances that your home will be invaded by an assailant, then what are the chances that your home are invaded by an assailant and you have time to get your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself? Now compare that to likely hood of just accidental gun violence? I bet the second is larger. As to the whole regulation only makes it harder for the "good ones" to get guns. It is untrue it is harder for everyone because there is less of them. Will some bad guys have guns? Yes. There are countries where guns are so rare that even the police don't carry them. What do you think the number of bad police shootings are in those countries? 1) Home defense is not always discharging your firearm; merely the threat of you acting in self-defense is more than enough. Most assailants will flee the first sign they encounter someone, however due to the nature of America and some poverty stricken areas, some assailants are unwilling to leave witnesses (which is a whole different conversation). In such scenarios, self defense is a real thing. 2) Your argument about home defense being statistically insignificant isn't going to hold alot of weight, considering you're more likely to die by a bicycle accident then to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States. I wouldn't go down this road if I were you because you aren't going to come out looking good here. 3) In countries where guns are rare, guns were never a part of their culture. I'm not saying this as an excuse, I'm saying this as a fact. Even if you were to enact super strict federal laws tomorrow that either severely limited firearms, or even outright banned firearms as a whole, you'd still have far too many firearms in circulation and they would just end up illegally in the hands of criminals instead of legitimate gun owners. That's essentially what has happened in other countries that have tried this such as Mexico. Gun control can only be a small part of the solution, you need other things to occur too. 4) The fact that you are referring to 'bad police shootings' really is just showing what kind of agenda you actually have. Bad police shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. contrary to popular opinion and what the liberal media loves to portray. 1)How real? Please provide numbers. 2)Many countries have bicycle helmet laws to help curtail this, biking provides many positives to ones Health guns do not, there is also many more hours of use on a bike then with a gun, so you can change that stat quickly, there many reasonable ways to argue this. I agree they are fairly insignificant when you look at totals, now look comparitivily to other nations. Feel free to use a few that are similar, Can, Australia, Germany, UK, France, Anything nordic. . 3) Look up Australia and what happened there, it might blow you mind. 4) My agenda is to stop gun violence, and it includes mass shootings, gang shootings, suicides, police shootings. The reason we have a presumption of innocence is we believe that putting away people for a crime they didn't commit is not as bad as letting someone go who did. So when the police kill someone, especially in an justified way it extremely bad. I'm confuses me that a party that claims they are so big in "law and order" doesn't understand this.
1) Already did it in the past, not bothering to do it for the 10th time.
2) Home defense is a legitimate argument even recognized by many gun control advocates. Protecting one's family is more than a legitimate argument as to why a firearm's presence exists, especially when you're talking about smaller people vs bigger people.
3) The fact that you are failing to recognize that Australia never had a large wide spread gun culture is quite hilarious. The results are minimal at best; Australia was already low on firearm violence and violence in general, and Australia's violence was already trending downwards. To say that gun control was solely responsible for that continuous drop is silly at best.
4) Your agenda is not to stop gun violence. You clearly are motivated by mass shootings alone, and made no mention of urban gang shootings until I even made reference to it. Your agenda is to stop mass shootings. There is a difference between mass shootings and gun violence in general too, although similar, they both require different types of solutions.
Like I said, policing in America is very different versus other parts of the world. Please remember that the average criminal in America is far more desperate, violent, and less respective of authority than many other parts of the world. I'd bet my life savings on that.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 10:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 10:09 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 09:58 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 09:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future.
Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. In regards to the last point, there are many countries who have high levels of gun violence and have very strict gun laws. Most of those have huge issues with socioeconomic problems i.e. Mexico and Russia. The vast majority of the U.S. gun related violence occurs within these areas also. If we were comparing similar geographic areas then you'd probably see that parts of the U.S. match up quite well with other parts of Europe (i.e. comparing NYC to London). The real problem is that most posters here love to compare Apples to Oranges and then say that our country is shitty, because hating on Murica is the in thing to do right now. On November 09 2018 09:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:On November 09 2018 08:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:
assault weapons ban (come up with a reasonable fucking definition, though I know everyone in this thread loves to get hung up on "definitions"), I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law. OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit. You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby. The NRA's influence comes from the fact that they also have the support of the vast majority of center right conservatives, not from the NRA's minuscule 2 million members or the amount of money they donate. They donate absolute pennies compared to pharmaceutical companies, medical insurance companies, tobacco, and tech companies. It's populism; aka how democracy is supposed to work. I'm not a gun expert, so what is the most effective gun to kill an intruder is not my area of expertise. I wouldn't get into an argument about because it is irrelevant. My argument is the number of situations you will encounter in your life time where you require a gun to protect yourself are insignificant. What are the chances that your home will be invaded by an assailant, then what are the chances that your home are invaded by an assailant and you have time to get your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself? Now compare that to likely hood of just accidental gun violence? I bet the second is larger. As to the whole regulation only makes it harder for the "good ones" to get guns. It is untrue it is harder for everyone because there is less of them. Will some bad guys have guns? Yes. There are countries where guns are so rare that even the police don't carry them. What do you think the number of bad police shootings are in those countries? 1) Home defense is not always discharging your firearm; merely the threat of you acting in self-defense is more than enough. Most assailants will flee the first sign they encounter someone, however due to the nature of America and some poverty stricken areas, some assailants are unwilling to leave witnesses (which is a whole different conversation). In such scenarios, self defense is a real thing. 2) Your argument about home defense being statistically insignificant isn't going to hold alot of weight, considering you're more likely to die by a bicycle accident then to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States. I wouldn't go down this road if I were you because you aren't going to come out looking good here. 3) In countries where guns are rare, guns were never a part of their culture. I'm not saying this as an excuse, I'm saying this as a fact. Even if you were to enact super strict federal laws tomorrow that either severely limited firearms, or even outright banned firearms as a whole, you'd still have far too many firearms in circulation and they would just end up illegally in the hands of criminals instead of legitimate gun owners. That's essentially what has happened in other countries that have tried this such as Mexico. Gun control can only be a small part of the solution, you need other things to occur too. 4) The fact that you are referring to 'bad police shootings' really is just showing what kind of agenda you actually have. Bad police shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. contrary to popular opinion and what the liberal media loves to portray. 1)How real? Please provide numbers. 2)Many countries have bicycle helmet laws to help curtail this, biking provides many positives to ones Health guns do not, there is also many more hours of use on a bike then with a gun, so you can change that stat quickly, there many reasonable ways to argue this. I agree they are fairly insignificant when you look at totals, now look comparitivily to other nations. Feel free to use a few that are similar, Can, Australia, Germany, UK, France, Anything nordic. . 3) Look up Australia and what happened there, it might blow you mind. 4) My agenda is to stop gun violence, and it includes mass shootings, gang shootings, suicides, police shootings. The reason we have a presumption of innocence is we believe that putting away people for a crime they didn't commit is not as bad as letting someone go who did. So when the police kill someone, especially in an justified way it extremely bad. I'm confuses me that a party that claims they are so big in "law and order" doesn't understand this. 1) Already did it in the past, not bothering to do it for the 10th time. 2) Home defense is a legitimate argument even recognized by many gun control advocates. Protecting one's family is more than a legitimate argument as to why a firearm's presence exists, especially when you're talking about smaller people vs bigger people. 3) The fact that you are failing to recognize that Australia never had a large wide spread gun culture is quite hilarious. The results are minimal at best; Australia was already low on firearm violence and violence in general, and Australia's violence was already trending downwards. To say that gun control was solely responsible for that continuous drop is silly at best. 4) Your agenda is not to stop gun violence. You clearly are motivated by mass shootings alone, and made no mention of urban gang shootings until I even made reference to it. Your agenda is to stop mass shootings. There is a difference between mass shootings and gun violence in general too, although similar, they both require different types of solutions. Like I said, policing in America is very different versus other parts of the world. Please remember that the average criminal in America is far more desperate, violent, and less respective of authority than many other parts of the world. I'd bet my life savings on that. 1) I have never seen numbers on how frequent home invasions are. I guess I can try to look them up, you make it seem easy at 10 posts of it. 2) Yes they do, they are trying to meet at some middle ground. They also grew up among the gun propaganda so they think it is reasonable. 3) see my answer above 4) The thread is all about mass shootings, that is why I brought it up and discussed it. It is not because I am unaware of other gun violence or don't think it is bad. It's all shit! I'm up for solutions that help with either and all! Your last paragraph is bonkers, I wish there was some way to actually make that bet. You really think that American criminals are somehow born worse than criminals from other countries? If not you are basically proving my point that there is a factor (hello marketing, which by the way is a lot more than advertisements) and that regulations and rules around guns and the way they are marketing would fix problems. So that is much appreciated!
Criminals are much worse in America versus other Criminals in other countries. Police officers are murdered at a disproportionate rate here versus other 'similar' countries. If you're looking at the worst cities such as New Orleans, you'll find criminals doing far worse things than you would find in Australia, the U.K., and other countries people love to tout as beacons of how gun control should work. Part of this is due to the fact that we have higher rates of poverty, higher drug abuse, our wacky criminal justice system (mostly the court system) etc. but the truth is the truth.
That's not really comparing Apples to Apples, but considering the liberal left here in this very thread doesn't even do that, I guess I'm allowed to. I'd wager if you compare the worst violent cities of U.K. and put them up against the U.S., the U.S. crime rates are just flat out worse.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 11:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 11:19 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 10:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 10:09 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 09:58 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 09:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda.
Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. In regards to the last point, there are many countries who have high levels of gun violence and have very strict gun laws. Most of those have huge issues with socioeconomic problems i.e. Mexico and Russia. The vast majority of the U.S. gun related violence occurs within these areas also. If we were comparing similar geographic areas then you'd probably see that parts of the U.S. match up quite well with other parts of Europe (i.e. comparing NYC to London). The real problem is that most posters here love to compare Apples to Oranges and then say that our country is shitty, because hating on Murica is the in thing to do right now. On November 09 2018 09:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I think I agree with all of your other suggestions, but why throw your credibility out with this? Poorly defining what gets banned is just about the easiest way to make a terrible law. OK. I think I get your point, but to say my credibly goes out the window... is laughable and bullshit. You shouldn't be worrying about the technicalities of a law that can't even be a consideration yet, because of the gun lobby. The NRA's influence comes from the fact that they also have the support of the vast majority of center right conservatives, not from the NRA's minuscule 2 million members or the amount of money they donate. They donate absolute pennies compared to pharmaceutical companies, medical insurance companies, tobacco, and tech companies. It's populism; aka how democracy is supposed to work. I'm not a gun expert, so what is the most effective gun to kill an intruder is not my area of expertise. I wouldn't get into an argument about because it is irrelevant. My argument is the number of situations you will encounter in your life time where you require a gun to protect yourself are insignificant. What are the chances that your home will be invaded by an assailant, then what are the chances that your home are invaded by an assailant and you have time to get your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself? Now compare that to likely hood of just accidental gun violence? I bet the second is larger. As to the whole regulation only makes it harder for the "good ones" to get guns. It is untrue it is harder for everyone because there is less of them. Will some bad guys have guns? Yes. There are countries where guns are so rare that even the police don't carry them. What do you think the number of bad police shootings are in those countries? 1) Home defense is not always discharging your firearm; merely the threat of you acting in self-defense is more than enough. Most assailants will flee the first sign they encounter someone, however due to the nature of America and some poverty stricken areas, some assailants are unwilling to leave witnesses (which is a whole different conversation). In such scenarios, self defense is a real thing. 2) Your argument about home defense being statistically insignificant isn't going to hold alot of weight, considering you're more likely to die by a bicycle accident then to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States. I wouldn't go down this road if I were you because you aren't going to come out looking good here. 3) In countries where guns are rare, guns were never a part of their culture. I'm not saying this as an excuse, I'm saying this as a fact. Even if you were to enact super strict federal laws tomorrow that either severely limited firearms, or even outright banned firearms as a whole, you'd still have far too many firearms in circulation and they would just end up illegally in the hands of criminals instead of legitimate gun owners. That's essentially what has happened in other countries that have tried this such as Mexico. Gun control can only be a small part of the solution, you need other things to occur too. 4) The fact that you are referring to 'bad police shootings' really is just showing what kind of agenda you actually have. Bad police shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. contrary to popular opinion and what the liberal media loves to portray. 1)How real? Please provide numbers. 2)Many countries have bicycle helmet laws to help curtail this, biking provides many positives to ones Health guns do not, there is also many more hours of use on a bike then with a gun, so you can change that stat quickly, there many reasonable ways to argue this. I agree they are fairly insignificant when you look at totals, now look comparitivily to other nations. Feel free to use a few that are similar, Can, Australia, Germany, UK, France, Anything nordic. . 3) Look up Australia and what happened there, it might blow you mind. 4) My agenda is to stop gun violence, and it includes mass shootings, gang shootings, suicides, police shootings. The reason we have a presumption of innocence is we believe that putting away people for a crime they didn't commit is not as bad as letting someone go who did. So when the police kill someone, especially in an justified way it extremely bad. I'm confuses me that a party that claims they are so big in "law and order" doesn't understand this. 1) Already did it in the past, not bothering to do it for the 10th time. 2) Home defense is a legitimate argument even recognized by many gun control advocates. Protecting one's family is more than a legitimate argument as to why a firearm's presence exists, especially when you're talking about smaller people vs bigger people. 3) The fact that you are failing to recognize that Australia never had a large wide spread gun culture is quite hilarious. The results are minimal at best; Australia was already low on firearm violence and violence in general, and Australia's violence was already trending downwards. To say that gun control was solely responsible for that continuous drop is silly at best. 4) Your agenda is not to stop gun violence. You clearly are motivated by mass shootings alone, and made no mention of urban gang shootings until I even made reference to it. Your agenda is to stop mass shootings. There is a difference between mass shootings and gun violence in general too, although similar, they both require different types of solutions. Like I said, policing in America is very different versus other parts of the world. Please remember that the average criminal in America is far more desperate, violent, and less respective of authority than many other parts of the world. I'd bet my life savings on that. 1) I have never seen numbers on how frequent home invasions are. I guess I can try to look them up, you make it seem easy at 10 posts of it. 2) Yes they do, they are trying to meet at some middle ground. They also grew up among the gun propaganda so they think it is reasonable. 3) see my answer above 4) The thread is all about mass shootings, that is why I brought it up and discussed it. It is not because I am unaware of other gun violence or don't think it is bad. It's all shit! I'm up for solutions that help with either and all! Your last paragraph is bonkers, I wish there was some way to actually make that bet. You really think that American criminals are somehow born worse than criminals from other countries? If not you are basically proving my point that there is a factor (hello marketing, which by the way is a lot more than advertisements) and that regulations and rules around guns and the way they are marketing would fix problems. So that is much appreciated! Criminals are much worse in America versus other Criminals in other countries. Police officers are murdered at a disproportionate rate here versus other 'similar' countries. If you're looking at the worst cities such as New Orleans, you'll find criminals doing far worse things than you would find in Australia, the U.K., and other countries people love to tout as beacons of how gun control should work. Part of this is due to the fact that we have higher rates of poverty, higher drug abuse, our wacky criminal justice system (mostly the court system) etc. but the truth is the truth. That's not really comparing Apples to Apples, but considering the liberal left here in this very thread doesn't even do that, I guess I'm allowed to. Yes they are killing more cops, they have more guns. Im not sure why you think the most logical reason is they are worse somehow just because. And not because of the mass presence of guns and the marketing machine behind it.
Criminals on average in America are far more dangerous, this is played out statistically when you look at the U.S. vs U.K. even if you subtract firearms from the equations. You are far more likely to be assaulted, raped, knifed, kidnapped, etc. in the U.S. versus the U.K., Australia, and various other 1st World Countries. These are statistical facts, and cannot be denied. The fact that you're trying to make it out as though all crime is related to firearms is asinine.
Because the average U.S. criminal is abit more dangerous for various reasons (we have much worse organized crime issues than most other 1st world countries), policing is inevitably going to be different. Just like how Northern Ireland police officers are armed, versus the rest of the U.K. police force.
And unlike the rest of the world, generally, the police force in the U.S. is not viewed with the same respect or authority as other police forces in the rest of the world. This inevitably leads to far more conflict, which thus yes, ends in more people getting shot.
|
America has super criminals now? When did this happen?
|
On November 09 2018 09:31 micronesia wrote:
Typically in a home defense situation, the intruder comes to you, and you shoot only if needed. If you are running around your house chasing after a robber to shoot him you are doing something wrong.
Also, superstartran already addressed penetration... .223 is actually pretty favorable in that regard for home defense.
You are making this too easy for him. Again.
I love how you dump your other bullshit argument to hop on with another person's.
|
On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen?
Nice straw man.
I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals.
My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia.
|
On November 09 2018 12:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:31 micronesia wrote:
Typically in a home defense situation, the intruder comes to you, and you shoot only if needed. If you are running around your house chasing after a robber to shoot him you are doing something wrong.
Also, superstartran already addressed penetration... .223 is actually pretty favorable in that regard for home defense.
You are making this too easy for him. Again. I love how you dump your other bullshit argument to hop on with another person's.
I really wish you would stop posting in this thread because your overly aggressive, hyperbolic tone is actively harmful to anyone making a reasonable discussion about gun control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
