Wolpertinger
Rookie
- Jul 2, 2010
- 12
- 1
- 1
I wont' deny that it has happened and probably still does happen, and many, many liberals can spout as much hateful vitriol as the conservatives in question, I almost never see liberals giving broad death-threats to the entire conservative population.
Even people who would really want this to happen would probably not say it, as the main liberal goal for banning guns, stopping the death penalty, and being anti-war is to stop violence in the first place, and it would conflict with their other stances as such. Conservatives have never been one for the nonviolence movement.
I don't actually agree with banning guns , merely keeping them regulated (don't remove the laws preventing felons/the clinically insane/etc from going into a gun store and buying a shotgun).
However, it seems that a lot of conservatives here and everywhere immediately go out and assume malice for the anti-gun people. Lots of liberals don't know about, or aren't aware of the validity(95% of statistics are made up on the spot
) of the statistics involving the banning of guns and its effects on crime. It's a misplaced desire to do good and prevent crime, not an attempt to turn you into a government slave or deliberately leave you defenseless in the hopes that you'll get mugged. Most people who don't live in dangerous areas, never encounter a mugger or robber face to face, and realize how much your life is at risk - from there, people wonder "Why would you want to kill someone who's not going to even hurt you? A death sentence for a mugging seems extremely harsh" - plus, the fact that many criminals use guns in the first place to mug you or whatnot adds to that opinion.
However, whenever anyone brings the topic up in many places, it seems often a pile of death threats immediately come up. Usually involving how if the person/the cops/the government tries to touch their guns, they'll shoot them (i.e. a death threat).
I know this really isn't 'serious' either (I'd hope that you wouldn't value your guns over human life that isn't even doing anything but their legal job), but it is still extreme, and you can easily see how people are turned off by the fact that any time they express this view, they immediately get people either threatening to kill them or acting as if they're so stupid they might as well not be considered human any more. You can probably naturally assume that from there, they only have the belief that guns = violence reinforced, I mean, they did just threaten to kill them.
As far as trying to clean up the streets, there, the main mentality seems to be (I could be wrong) that if guns are regulated and meticulously kept track of, you can nail a criminal for merely possessing an illegal weapon, since why would you possess an illegally acquired weapon except for criminal purposes?. If a gangster is nailed for.. drunk driving or some (relatively) minor offense, and is carrying a gun on his person or in his car, and that gun is an illegally acquired weapon (serial filed off, etc), and a cop checks up then bam, you just prevented a crime, perhaps even a murder. The main (very justified) chafing point here is how much is too much, and how much is too little? Total deregulation is not the answer, and neither is total banning.
Even people who would really want this to happen would probably not say it, as the main liberal goal for banning guns, stopping the death penalty, and being anti-war is to stop violence in the first place, and it would conflict with their other stances as such. Conservatives have never been one for the nonviolence movement.
I don't actually agree with banning guns , merely keeping them regulated (don't remove the laws preventing felons/the clinically insane/etc from going into a gun store and buying a shotgun).
However, it seems that a lot of conservatives here and everywhere immediately go out and assume malice for the anti-gun people. Lots of liberals don't know about, or aren't aware of the validity(95% of statistics are made up on the spot
) of the statistics involving the banning of guns and its effects on crime. It's a misplaced desire to do good and prevent crime, not an attempt to turn you into a government slave or deliberately leave you defenseless in the hopes that you'll get mugged. Most people who don't live in dangerous areas, never encounter a mugger or robber face to face, and realize how much your life is at risk - from there, people wonder "Why would you want to kill someone who's not going to even hurt you? A death sentence for a mugging seems extremely harsh" - plus, the fact that many criminals use guns in the first place to mug you or whatnot adds to that opinion.However, whenever anyone brings the topic up in many places, it seems often a pile of death threats immediately come up. Usually involving how if the person/the cops/the government tries to touch their guns, they'll shoot them (i.e. a death threat).
I know this really isn't 'serious' either (I'd hope that you wouldn't value your guns over human life that isn't even doing anything but their legal job), but it is still extreme, and you can easily see how people are turned off by the fact that any time they express this view, they immediately get people either threatening to kill them or acting as if they're so stupid they might as well not be considered human any more. You can probably naturally assume that from there, they only have the belief that guns = violence reinforced, I mean, they did just threaten to kill them.
As far as trying to clean up the streets, there, the main mentality seems to be (I could be wrong) that if guns are regulated and meticulously kept track of, you can nail a criminal for merely possessing an illegal weapon, since why would you possess an illegally acquired weapon except for criminal purposes?. If a gangster is nailed for.. drunk driving or some (relatively) minor offense, and is carrying a gun on his person or in his car, and that gun is an illegally acquired weapon (serial filed off, etc), and a cop checks up then bam, you just prevented a crime, perhaps even a murder. The main (very justified) chafing point here is how much is too much, and how much is too little? Total deregulation is not the answer, and neither is total banning.
Last edited:
