Gun Control

WarDamn

Rookie
Mar 11, 2013
5
0
1
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people. The reason there is a second amendment is to keep the government from getting tyrannical. It is our right to have guns. And it shall not be infringed.
 
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people. The reason there is a second amendment is to keep the government from getting tyrannical. It is our right to have guns. And it shall not be infringed.

Well, I guess that settles that question, huh?

So there's no problem about all the psychos shooting up schools and movies and so on, right?
 
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people. The reason there is a second amendment is to keep the government from getting tyrannical. It is our right to have guns. And it shall not be infringed.

Well, I guess that settles that question, huh?

So there's no problem about all the psychos shooting up schools and movies and so on, right?
No, its definitely a problem. The fix would be to change our culture and how we feel about guns, and weapons in general. In Britain, with their insanely harsh gun control laws, their violent crime rate is four times as high as ours.
 
No, its definitely a problem. The fix would be to change our culture and how we feel about guns, and weapons in general.

That would be nice, but the change is going in the opposite direction: glamourization of superguns via first-person shooter games like Halo and Gears of War, with their huge superguns and grenades that you use to rack up large hit counts throughout the game.

Also the huge collections of guns so many men have now, far more weapons than they could ever use, including weapons intended for military-type assaults of dozens of people at once. And that's exactly how all the psychos use them, too, to assault dozens of people at once.

None of this is plausible home defense. It's for fighting Civil War II. Okay, but the schizo sons and neighbors of these collectors steal these assault weapons and semi-automatics with large magazines to shoot up the mall. They know what these guns are for and that's how they use them. I'd like to see all that dialed way, way back. But so far it's going radically in the wrong direction.
 
That would be nice, but the change is going in the opposite direction: glamourization of superguns via first-person shooter games like Halo and Gears of War, with their huge superguns and grenades that you use to rack up large hit counts throughout the game.
First, those games are partly to blame, but the government has no right to do anything about it. What should be done, in my opinion, is to change things at school. Also reintroduce the social factor that enforces better than any laws.

Also the huge collections of guns so many men have now, far more weapons than they could ever use, including weapons intended for military-type assaults of dozens of people at once. And that's exactly how all the psychos use them, too, to assault dozens of people at once.
In my house I have twenty guns, and at my farm i have more. You saying i could never use them all is naive. I shoot each of them throughout the year, and many are heirlooms. These so called "assault weapons" are about as powerful as the gun I got when I was six. Every single gun i have is semi-auto, and many of them are a hundred years old. The only reason you don't like them is because they look scary.

None of this is plausible home defense. It's for fighting Civil War II. Okay, but the schizo sons and neighbors of these collectors steal these assault weapons and semi-automatics with large magazines to shoot up the mall. They know what these guns are for and that's how they use them. I'd like to see all that dialed way, way back. But so far it's going radically in the wrong direction.
First, high-capacity magazines have no effect on gun death. The Virginia Tech murderer had a backpack full of magazines, and he killed a lot of people with them. Second, the reason we have so many guns is so that if the government becomes more powerful, we can secede. Americans have 75 time the amount of guns as police officers and the military combined. Thats a pretty effective force.
 
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people
Given that gun control only restricts the actions of the law abiding, you are correct.

There are exactly zero examples of gun control laws that will stop someone from comitting a crime witha gun, and there never will be any such law, becaue such a thing is impossible.

The anti-gun left believes that the state should have a monopoly on force. This cannot happen so long as there is an armed citizenry.
 
Last edited:
First, those games are partly to blame, but the government has no right to do anything about it. What should be done, in my opinion, is to change things at school. Also reintroduce the social factor that enforces better than any laws.

What are you thinking here, the bullying problem that some blame, including some of the shooters? Or the social acceptability of guns issue? May I ask what you mean by the "social factor that enforces better than any laws?"

The only reason you don't like them is because they look scary.

All guns look scary, WarDamn. The reason I don't like the assault rifles is that they are being used frequently by schizophrenics and demented older men to assault and kill large numbers of children and civilians like me and mine.

I am impressed that a lot of gun collectors try to minimize the school and mall shootings by saying we don't like assault weapons because they "look scary." Actually, we wouldn't care anything about them or even know about them except that crazies are shooting them into many six-year-olds' heads, and some of us think that's a problem. I question minimizing that concern, as it is exactly why we are having this dialogue. Some of you don't think all the crazy-shootings with assault rifles are a problem, but many of us do think it's a problem that is in grave need of a solution.


First, high-capacity magazines have no effect on gun death. The Virginia Tech murderer had a backpack full of magazines, and he killed a lot of people with them.

It's the glamour factor from the video games, I suppose. Several of the 2012-2013 shooter crop did use the high-capacity magazines. They jammed in at least two cases, the Colorado mall shooter and the Batman movie shooter. This has directed attention to the fact that these high-capacity magazines are FOR killing lots of people at once --- and why is that good, we ask? Assault weapons are obviously not for defense, they're for assaulting. And one can't help but wonder, why do you want to assault and kill lots of people? Are you safe to have out walking around if you are collecting guns meant to assault lots of people? And then a schizophrenic steals your weapons and uses them in the grocery store, and no, they at least are clearly not safe to be walking around with your guns.


Second, the reason we have so many guns is so that if the government becomes more powerful, we can secede. Americans have 75 time the amount of guns as police officers and the military combined. Thats a pretty effective force.

Yes, I'm aware the country is on the edge of revolution, or at least a lot of men think it is. And that this idea is driving the huge round of gun collecting.

In the meantime, however, there is the problem of Adam Lanza and all his ilkies who run around with these weapons and kill lots of bystanders and kids in school. A lot of men say this isn't a problem, but many people, especially women, including me, think it's a terrible problem that needs fixing quickly. It is mainly women and children who get killed by these crazies, of course. We aren't the ones with the guns, but we are the people getting shot by the crazies. I'd like to see a big change here. If the crazies were going after the gun collectors, fine, let them all shoot it out. But they aren't: they are going after women and children so they can get a high hit count. This does not work for me.

Men getting more and more huge collections of guns that some of them use to kill women and children en masse --- there's no upside here for women and children, you know? If men want to stockpile weapons to fantasize taking on the U.S. government, I think they should find a way to keep women and children from being massacred with these guns in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
All the while, Circe is oblivous to the fact that people are more than twice as likely to be murderd by someome using only their hands'feet than an 'assault weapon', and orders of magnitude more likely to be murdered with an 'assault weapon' than with a legally owned assault rifle.
 
Last edited:
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people. The reason there is a second amendment is to keep the government from getting tyrannical. It is our right to have guns. And it shall not be infringed.

Well, I guess that settles that question, huh?

So there's no problem about all the psychos shooting up schools and movies and so on, right?

There is a problem. But it's not guns.
 
Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people. The reason there is a second amendment is to keep the government from getting tyrannical. It is our right to have guns. And it shall not be infringed.

Well, I guess that settles that question, huh?

So there's no problem about all the psychos shooting up schools and movies and so on, right?

There is a problem. But it's not guns.
Boom! Great answer!
What are you thinking here, the bullying problem that some blame, including some of the shooters? Or the social acceptability of guns issue? May I ask what you mean by the "social factor that enforces better than any laws?"
The social factor is when the society is as it was tr Theaditionally. When parents taught their kids what would be needed for life, and especially morality. Those days are long since past though.
All guns look scary, WarDamn. The reason I don't like the assault rifles is that they are being used frequently by schizophrenics and demented older men to assault and kill large numbers of children and civilians like me and mine.
Did you know there were only 350 rifle death last year? That also includes hunting rifles. You are more likely to be killed by a hammer than an "assault rifle"
 
I suspected this was going to be one of those "no problem" threads.

"Lots of crazies run around shooting into schools and crowds? Oh, no problem! That doesn't matter."

Okay, I give up.
 
Did you know there were only 350 rifle death last year? That also includes hunting rifles. You are more likely to be killed by a hammer than an "assault rifle"
You'll have to excuse Circe - she isn't interested in facts that refute her ill-considered, unreasoned preconceptions.

Here’s the thing, I’m with you and think that (in the grand scheme of things), controlling ‘assault rifles’ shouldn’t be our top priority. It shouldn’t even be our 1,000th priority (in the grand scheme of things). The high powered “assault rifles” account for maybe less than 30 deaths annually, with in a country of 315,000,000 that comes out to less than 0.00001%. We have bigger fish to fry – I agree.

But what’s your goal - convince the other side of our argument? That’s certainly my goal. However when you insult Circe, I don’t think you get any closer to achieving this goal, so what’s the point of doing it? What you're doing is worse than wasting time, because it's actually moving us backwards...

Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Did you know there were only 350 rifle death last year? That also includes hunting rifles. You are more likely to be killed by a hammer than an "assault rifle"
You'll have to excuse Circe - she isn't interested in facts that refute her ill-considered, unreasoned preconceptions.

Here’s the thing, I’m with you and think that (in the grand scheme of things), controlling ‘assault rifles’ shouldn’t be our top priority. It shouldn’t even be our 1,000th priority (in the grand scheme of things). The high powered “assault rifles” account for maybe less than 30 deaths annually, with in a country of 315,000,000 that comes out to less than 0.00001%. We have bigger fish to fry – I agree.

But what’s your goal - convince the other side of our argument? That’s certainly my goal. However when you insult Circe, I don’t think you get any closer to achieving this goal, so what’s the point of doing it? What you're doing is worse than wasting time, because it's actually moving us backwards...
Just my opinion.
Normally, I'd have Cicre on ignore, as almost all of her posts are willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions. As such, it is impossible to reson with her; all that -can- be done is bring up the fact that her posts are, well, willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions, in the hopes that those who might be inclined to agree with her take some pause in doing so.

Note that nothing here is an insult as it describes her posts and her positions, not her.
 
You'll have to excuse Circe - she isn't interested in facts that refute her ill-considered, unreasoned preconceptions.

Here’s the thing, I’m with you and think that (in the grand scheme of things), controlling ‘assault rifles’ shouldn’t be our top priority. It shouldn’t even be our 1,000th priority (in the grand scheme of things). The high powered “assault rifles” account for maybe less than 30 deaths annually, with in a country of 315,000,000 that comes out to less than 0.00001%. We have bigger fish to fry – I agree.

But what’s your goal - convince the other side of our argument? That’s certainly my goal. However when you insult Circe, I don’t think you get any closer to achieving this goal, so what’s the point of doing it? What you're doing is worse than wasting time, because it's actually moving us backwards...
Just my opinion.
Normally, I'd have Cicre on ignore, as almost all of her posts are willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions. As such, it is impossible to reson with her; all that -can- be done is bring up the fact that her posts are, well, willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions, in the hopes that those who might be inclined to agree with her take some pause in doing so.

Note that nothing here is an insult as it describes her posts and her positions, not her.

Wasn't necessarily accusing you of a personal insult or anything (I guess this is the "Clean Zone" or whatever), just was making a note of the debate style. Most of us are so busy disliking one another that we completely pass up any and all opportunities to make amends or truly convince another individual of our beliefs - myself included sometimes.

One thing that baffles me is the left's hatred of the tea party and vise versa. Many of those 'left' occupy folks and 'right' teaparty folks both want to bring down the unfathomable control the banking system has over our government, yet they waste their time insulting each other (on the nitpicky stuff) instead of teaming up and kicking ass towards a common goal.

it's silly.

.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the thing, I’m with you and think that (in the grand scheme of things), controlling ‘assault rifles’ shouldn’t be our top priority. It shouldn’t even be our 1,000th priority (in the grand scheme of things). The high powered “assault rifles” account for maybe less than 30 deaths annually, with in a country of 315,000,000 that comes out to less than 0.00001%. We have bigger fish to fry – I agree.

But what’s your goal - convince the other side of our argument? That’s certainly my goal. However when you insult Circe, I don’t think you get any closer to achieving this goal, so what’s the point of doing it? What you're doing is worse than wasting time, because it's actually moving us backwards...
Just my opinion.
Normally, I'd have Cicre on ignore, as almost all of her posts are willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions. As such, it is impossible to reson with her; all that -can- be done is bring up the fact that her posts are, well, willfully ill-considered, unreasoned and based on nothing but her preconceptions, in the hopes that those who might be inclined to agree with her take some pause in doing so.

Note that nothing here is an insult as it describes her posts and her positions, not her.
Wasn't necessarily accusing you of a personal insult or anything (I guess this is the "Clean Zone" or whatever), just was making a note of the debate style. Most of us are so busy disliking one another that we completely pass up any and all opportunities to make amends or truly convince another individual of your beliefs.
My point is that her positions are willfully ill-considered and unreasoned, and so there's no chance of reasoning with her -- thus, trying to 'convince' her is, in and of itself, a waste of time.

I'm -more- than happy to try to convince anyone that shows any ability to argue from facts and reason.
 
Lets not get bogged down in here on how a member chooses to participate in the CDZ. The point has been made, there's no reason to keep dwelling on it. Let's move on...thank you.
 
yep! listen and learn.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B5ELyG9V1SY]Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen! - YouTube[/ame]

The only thing missed is that even if the second amendment were to be discarded it would not remove our right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselve or the constitution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top