Skip to main content

I bet is was for hunting!  You know, those early guns that were so fucking inaccurate the only thing they would be good for is to fire into a large crowd whereas aiming wouldn't be as big an issue.  We all know something that would take minutes to load and fire if they fired at all was without a doubt the most effective way to hunt.   

That's it, hunting. 

@Music City posted:

Then there’s the crime deterrent aspect of legal firearms.

https://fee.org/articles/guns-...y-day-research-show/

I find sites that have headlines like the following to not be particularly, what's the word, correct.  Maybe it was moral?  No, lucid. 

Why the Push Is on to Make Pandemic Life 'Permanent

and

Biden Is Covering Up True Price Tag of Infrastructure Plan, Experts Warn

and

Free People Require Free Movement

β€˜Vaccine passports’ are the latest in a long line of unusual terms we’ve all become familiar with over the past year. Here’s why they’re problematic.
Last edited by Henry
@Music City posted:

On the first point- yes they do when it is politically expedient. There are folks in this country- inside and outside our government- desirous of a disarmed citizenry. Why do you think that would be?

And the β€œassault weapon” (whatever assault weapons are πŸ€”) being responsible for the ease of mass shooting? FBI numbers below:

9974B2BD-D717-48B7-91F9-414ADD86CA2D

The handgun is the most deadly tool in the country when it comes to murder. Of the 13,000 plus murders in 2019, over 6300 were committed by handguns. Interestingly enough, over 1400 were committed by knives or cutting instruments. But handguns account for half of all murders. Rifles not even 10%.

You want to have a political discussion about the control of firearms, but you want to ignore the logical fallacy of attributing gun violence to the guns themselves and not their users? And also ignore that many (even most) of the mass shootings that have occurred in the recent past are attributable to failures in law enforcement. But even then... if someone is hell bent on killing, be it for purpose, pleasure, politics, or all of the above, murderers will kill with what they have.

I didn’t identify or define β€œassault weapons”. I didn’t say I wanted to have a political discussion about gun control. We didn’t even get to the political discussion because we don’t even agree that mass murders are a problem in this country. I speculated on two possible causes for the problem, but ultimately we didn’t even get past the step 1.

Unfortunately I’m not getting the impression you care about mass murder, you just want to lecture about guns. You don’t have to, I’m not saying you do, but you’re very concerned about β€œgun control” and the discussion about guns won’t go away until everyone cares that mass murder is happening with alarming frequency.

Last edited by Grave Digger

Yup, if we can’t get rid of guns, and we can’t and shouldn’t, we need to keep guns away from those who will use them for violence.  This will require families, work mates, neighbors, cops, courts and others. As Biden said the other day, if for no other reason shootings are costing us way, way too much.  Law enforcement, hospitals and prisons are, for lack of another word, killing us.

You point out one incident - wait here’s another one - how about France (different country and no hot rod involved) where a larger vehicle mowed people down.  Or that nut job that stole a tank from the armory in San Diego like 30 years ago and hit the freeway but I don’t think anyone died there.

Nice try.

Yes tens of thousands die each year from auto accidents.  But they are driving! Not trying to kill people.  Like trying to get from point A to point B.

That’s your fucking straw man?

I might as well ante up and go stage 3 mod on the GTI and hit almost 500HP because shit I’ll just start mowing crowds of people down left and right.

I’ve been here 20 years.  Full disclosure I’ve posted a lot of stupid shit.  Read even more stupid shit.  This false equivalency nonsense might take the cake.  

As a nation we love our guns and our freedums. I get it.  But damn this is our of control.  

Last edited by Tschmack

Unfortunately I’m not getting the impression you care about mass murder, you just want to lecture about guns. You don’t have to, I’m not saying you do, but you’re very concerned about β€œgun control” and the discussion about guns won’t go away until everyone cares that mass murder is happening with alarming frequency.

Another logical fallacy. I care about 2nd Amendment rights, therefore I must not care about mass murder. You’re trying to convince a person who will not agree to give up 2nd Amendment rights to do so on an emotional appeal to a tragedy. That’s not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. I’m being honest with you- I don’t think you’re being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and that’s kinda where I draw a fucking line. And like so many times in the past, the intentions are good, but the consequences are fucking horrific.

@Tschmack posted:

You point out one incident - wait here’s another one - how about France (different country and no hot rod involved) where a larger vehicle mowed people down.  Or that nut job that stole a tank from the armory in San Diego like 30 years ago and hit the freeway but I don’t think anyone died there.

Nice try.Yes tens of thousands die each year from auto accidents.  But they are driving! Not trying to kill people.  Like trying to get from point A to point B.

That’s your fucking straw man? I might as well ante up and go stage 3 mod on the GTI and hit almost 500HP because shit I’ll just start mowing crowds of people down left and right.

I’ve been here 20 years.  Full disclosure I’ve posted a lot of stupid shit.  Read even more stupid shit.  This false equivalency nonsense might take the cake.  

As a nation we love our guns and our freedums. I get it.  But damn this is our of control.  

Look dummy... the point I’m making is that murderers will murder. If they don’t have a gun, they’ll use something else. Why? They’re evil. If we scream β€œRegulate! Legislate!” every time a fucking evil asshole does something evil, eventually you’ll need a background check to use a fucking chopstick.

@Music City posted:

Another logical fallacy. I care about 2nd Amendment rights, therefore I must not care about mass murder. You’re trying to convince a person who will not agree to give up 2nd Amendment rights to do so on an emotional appeal to a tragedy. That’s not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. I’m being honest with you- I don’t think you’re being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and that’s kinda where I draw a fucking line. And like so many times in the past, the intentions are good, but the consequences are fucking horrific.

This is what you get Grave Digger for thinking you’re having a logical conversation with a zealot.  β€œEmotional appeal”.  There are so many mass shootings it’s common place.  It’s simply a fact of life becoming quite devoid of emotion.  It’s like not wanting lead in your water or donkey meat in your burgers.  You expect better of American society but you know you won’t get it from greedy, idiot zealots who have zero concept of the fundamentals of liberalism. (Wait for it).

Hey Grave Digger, he draws the fucking line at β€œdisarming law abiding citizen” by repeatedly abusing the word β€œfallacy”.  

You get to own that zealot shit sandwich.

Last edited by Henry
@Music City posted:

Another logical fallacy. I care about 2nd Amendment rights, therefore I must not care about mass murder. You’re trying to convince a person who will not agree to give up 2nd Amendment rights to do so on an emotional appeal to a tragedy. That’s not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. I’m being honest with you- I don’t think you’re being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and that’s kinda where I draw a fucking line. And like so many times in the past, the intentions are good, but the consequences are fucking horrific.

No I think you don’t care about mass murder because I said you don’t care about mass murder and you didn’t disagree. I didn’t even mention my feelings on a solution, you just assume you know them and jump right into gaslighting. If we’re being honest, I think the honest truth is that you know you know guns that can carry our mass murders are a big part of the problem and that’s why you panic scream about the 2A every time something like this happens. I guess you are acknowledging it in a way, just taking a pro-mass murder stance.

I will let everyone have a final word and then shut this McDonald’s playground ball pit of a thread down.

Last edited by Grave Digger

Yes I’m the dummy.  I’m not the one using a hot rod as a metaphor for a WMD.

The people that acquire and carry out these mass shootings are are basically domestic terrorists.   Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt?   I’m sorry, it’s not unreasonable to require a thorough background check for someone that wants to buy an assault rifle.  Including a fitness for duty mental evaluation.   As I said earlier, there’s a good chance some won’t pass the test but if it means they can’t fuel their paranoid or break from reality delusions and shoot up another school or church that’s a good thing.

Your so called right to own a weapon like that doesn’t supersede the public and our right to safety.  It’s why there’s a no fly list for some folks.   Some people are not stable and should not have the opportunity to harm themselves or others.  

Finally, it’s not a matter of being β€œlaw abiding” or not.   Clearly, those that take up these weapons and kill innocent people are not thinking or acting in a logical or rational manner.  They need help.  But hey, let’s make it really fucking easy to acquire weapon that can allow them to carry out their fucked up desires.

I think not.  And most people agree with me.  The majority of Americans think sensible gun control measures are needed.  Yet it’s the vocal minority and the gun lobbies that pull the strings.  

Last edited by Tschmack

Why is gun control any different than driving intoxicated?   You can have 1 beer and drive and not be over the legal limit.  You have 5 beers and drive you are probably over .08 and legally drunk.   You can have a weapon that holds five bullets and use it for hunting.  You shouldn't be allowed to use a weapon that holds 30 or more bullets for hunting or anything else.   Do you get that Music City?   Just like I'm not advocating for not driving after a beer I'm not advocating for taking all guns away.   The ability to kill or hurt many people after having multiple beers or drinks is the same as the ability to kill or hurt many people if you have a high capacity gun magazine.   Any idot should be able to understand this.

Last edited by ammo

Just remember Fedyaya, the government is of the people for the people by the people.  If the majority want social media shut down it should  happen.  If the majority of people want some type of stricker gun control it should happen.  So don't use that all encompassing government.  It will be the will of the people, not any one politician or party.

The constitution was meant to evolve with the times.  That's why they created an avenue to amend the constitution.  The founders didn't allow women to vote.  The original constitution allowed slavery.  Later on, lawmakers banned alcohol.  Realizing it was a mistake, they struck that amendment down.  Things change and the constitution should change with it. 

@Tschmack posted:

Finally, it’s not a matter of being β€œlaw abiding” or not.   Clearly, those that take up these weapons and kill innocent people are not thinking or acting in a logical or rational manner.  They need help.  But hey, let’s make it really fucking easy to acquire weapon that can allow them to carry out their fucked up desires.

I think not.  And most people agree with me.  The majority of Americans think sensible gun control measures are needed.  Yet it’s the vocal minority and the gun lobbies that pull the strings.  

262AF8FE-AD44-49CC-BF74-FF053141C62C

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 262AF8FE-AD44-49CC-BF74-FF053141C62C

No I think you don’t care about mass murder because I said you don’t care about mass murder and you didn’t disagree. I didn’t even mention my feelings on a solution, you just assume you know them and jump right into gaslighting. If we’re being honest, I think the honest truth is that you know you know guns that can carry our mass murders are a big part of the problem and that’s why you panic scream about the 2A every time something like this happens. I guess you are acknowledging it in a way, just taking a pro-mass murder stance.

I will let everyone have a final word and then shut this McDonald’s playground ball pit of a thread down.

I also know that firearms defend life, liberty, and property from people who would take it from me by violence or force, and that the Second Amendment protects my right to defend my life, liberty, and property. And since the use of that firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a threat to society at large, I should be able to retain my right to own as many as I see fit.

If we want to increase law enforcement’s ability to detect and stop criminals from committing mass shootings and murders, let’s definitely do that- so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen. I think we can totally agree on that.

Last edited by Music City
@Music City posted:

You’re trying to convince a person who will not agree to give up 2nd Amendment rights to do so on an emotional appeal to a tragedy. That’s not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. I’m being honest with you- I don’t think you’re being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and that’s kinda where I draw a fucking line. And like so many times in the past, the intentions are good, but the consequences are fucking horrific.

Why is it so often an all or nothing?  I don't want to remove guns from law abiding citizens, but I do want guns regulated at least as much as cars and some cars are not street legal. 

Very few are arguing to take all the guns away, so why can't we talk about how some guns just don't belong in private citizens hands or at the least, should not be easily accessible. 

@Music City posted:

murderers will murder. If they don’t have a gun, they’ll use something else. Why? They’re evil. I

But what if we didn't make it so easy?  I think we can all agree the killing potential of some weapons is different than others. 

Again, i don't want to take away all guns, I do want to take away access to some guns.  I also believe that is manageable.  My late father could easily distinguish a hunting rifle from "military dress up" as he called it.  The same weapons that really would not be the right tool for home defense either. 

But what if we didn't make it so easy?  I think we can all agree the killing potential of some weapons is different than others.

Again, i don't want to take away all guns, I do want to take away access to some guns.  I also believe that is manageable.  My late father could easily distinguish a hunting rifle from "military dress up" as he called it.  The same weapons that really would not be the right tool for home defense either.

This.

I think military-style weapons and mods need to be treated more like automatic weapons: You need more layers of scrutiny before you're cleared to have possession of them. That means further testing and a psychological profile. I can't drive a big rig without a CDL either. 

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×