Even Lynyrd Skynyrd, never known to be great philosophers , said "hand guns are made for killing....they ain't no good for nothing else"
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.
Wait! The Chinese were trying to put on a fireworks show to make the enemy happy so no one would want to fight! Instead everybody would have picnics!
Rocket powered rickshaws!
@Music City posted:Then thereβs the crime deterrent aspect of legal firearms.
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
Alternate facts
Fun fact. Way back in yesteryear alternative facts used to be called lies.
And for recreation
@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 βassault weaponβ (whatever assault weapons are π€) being responsible for the ease of mass shooting? FBI numbers below:
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 didnβt identify or define βassault weaponsβ. I didnβt say I wanted to have a political discussion about gun control. We didnβt even get to the political discussion because we donβt even agree that mass murders are a problem in this country. I speculated on two possible causes for the problem, but ultimately we didnβt even get past the step 1.
Unfortunately Iβm not getting the impression you care about mass murder, you just want to lecture about guns. You donβt have to, Iβm not saying you do, but youβre very concerned about βgun controlβ and the discussion about guns wonβt go away until everyone cares that mass murder is happening with alarming frequency.
Yup, if we canβt get rid of guns, and we canβt and shouldnβt, 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.
Mass murders are just group naps.
You point out one incident - wait hereβs 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 donβt 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.
Thatβs your fucking straw man?
I might as well ante up and go stage 3 mod on the GTI and hit almost 500HP because shit Iβll just start mowing crowds of people down left and right.
Iβve been here 20 years. Full disclosure Iβve 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.
So Music City you give a roll eyes but never refuted one thing I posted. Must mean I'm 100% correct.
On the bright side, the NRA has been so poorly run for years that they're both under indictment and declaring bankruptcy. Depending on how the judge rules in the bankruptcy proceedings, the NRA may cease to exist in its current form. Or at the least, it'll lose a whole lot of the power that it used to have.
@Grave Digger posted:Unfortunately Iβm not getting the impression you care about mass murder, you just want to lecture about guns. You donβt have to, Iβm not saying you do, but youβre very concerned about βgun controlβ and the discussion about guns wonβt 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. Youβre 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. Thatβs not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. Iβm being honest with you- I donβt think youβre being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and thatβs 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 hereβs 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 donβt 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.
Thatβs your fucking straw man? I might as well ante up and go stage 3 mod on the GTI and hit almost 500HP because shit Iβll just start mowing crowds of people down left and right.
Iβve been here 20 years. Full disclosure Iβve 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 Iβm making is that murderers will murder. If they donβt have a gun, theyβll use something else. Why? Theyβre evil. If we scream βRegulate! Legislate!β every time a fucking evil asshole does something evil, eventually youβll need a background check to use a fucking chopstick.
@ammo posted:So Music City you give a roll eyes
but never refuted one thing I posted. Must mean I'm 100% correct.
Awww...
@Music City posted:Look dummy... the point Iβm making is that murderers will murder. If they donβt have a gun, theyβll use something else. Why? Theyβre evil.
This is not true at all.
@Music City posted:Another logical fallacy. I care about 2nd Amendment rights, therefore I must not care about mass murder. Youβre 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. Thatβs not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. Iβm being honest with you- I donβt think youβre being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and thatβs 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 youβre having a logical conversation with a zealot. βEmotional appealβ. There are so many mass shootings itβs common place. Itβs simply a fact of life becoming quite devoid of emotion. Itβs like not wanting lead in your water or donkey meat in your burgers. You expect better of American society but you know you wonβt 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 βdisarming law abiding citizenβ by repeatedly abusing the word βfallacyβ.
You get to own that zealot shit sandwich.
Hey GD, heβs being βhonestβ with you just like how heβs being βhonestβ about why guns were created and what theyβre specifically meant for.
Can someone honest tell me why guns were invented?
@Music City posted:Another logical fallacy. I care about 2nd Amendment rights, therefore I must not care about mass murder. Youβre 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. Thatβs not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. Iβm being honest with you- I donβt think youβre being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and thatβs 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 donβt care about mass murder because I said you donβt care about mass murder and you didnβt disagree. I didnβt even mention my feelings on a solution, you just assume you know them and jump right into gaslighting. If weβre 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 thatβs 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 McDonaldβs playground ball pit of a thread down.
Ball pit! That reminds me. With the warmer weather coming on, I need to get some medicated anti-fungal spray!
Yes Iβm the dummy. Iβm 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? Iβm sorry, itβs 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, thereβs a good chance some wonβt pass the test but if it means they canβt fuel their paranoid or break from reality delusions and shoot up another school or church thatβs a good thing.
Your so called right to own a weapon like that doesnβt supersede the public and our right to safety. Itβs why thereβs a no fly list for some folks. Some people are not stable and should not have the opportunity to harm themselves or others.
Finally, itβs not a matter of being βlaw abidingβ 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, letβs 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 itβs the vocal minority and the gun lobbies that pull the strings.
Funny argument. Constitution is 200 plus years old and it is used to define guns that were never imagined at the time. Maybe the 2A should refer to ownership of the weapons of the era.
Have all the muskets and cannons you want.
By that logic the government can shut down any broadcaster or internet site it doesn't like because at the time of the 1A, nobody could ever imagine radio, TV, or blogs and discussion groups like x4.
Funny how this sort of muddle-headed thinking is only ever used to try to emasculate the 2A.
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.
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 will of the people has been on the side of some sort of new regulations for years. Most polls Iβve seen come in that way even on the R side and even lean a bit that way from NRA types. Whats happened....nada, nothing even brought to the floor much less voted on.
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.
We all love the Constitution, especially the things we like.
@ammo posted:Why is gun control any different than driving intoxicated?
Oh, I dunno... maybe because drinking a few beers is a little different that defending yourself from a violent criminal?
βHold on Mr. Rapist/Murderer... I need to re-load my Government-mandated 4 round max clip to defend myself.β
Good fucking grief...
@Tschmack posted:Finally, itβs not a matter of being βlaw abidingβ 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, letβs 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 itβs the vocal minority and the gun lobbies that pull the strings.
Attachments
@Grave Digger posted:No I think you donβt care about mass murder because I said you donβt care about mass murder and you didnβt disagree. I didnβt even mention my feelings on a solution, you just assume you know them and jump right into gaslighting. If weβre 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 thatβs 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 McDonaldβs 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 enforcementβs ability to detect and stop criminals from committing mass shootings and murders, letβs definitely do that- so long as it doesnβt infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen. I think we can totally agree on that.
@Music City posted:Youβre 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. Thatβs not how this shit works. This is why the discussion goes sideways. Iβm being honest with you- I donβt think youβre being honest with me. I believe you, like many, want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, and thatβs 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 donβt have a gun, theyβll use something else. Why? Theyβre 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.
@Music City posted:Firearms are designed to shoot projectile at a target. Do not conflate use with design.
So how's you bath salts stash?
@"We"-Ka-Bong posted: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.