Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Given that gun control only restricts the actions of the law abiding, you are correct.Gun Control is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people
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.
The only reason you don't like them is because they look scary.
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. 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?
Boom! Great answer!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.
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.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?"
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"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.
You'll have to excuse Circe - she isn't interested in facts that refute her ill-considered, unreasoned preconceptions.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.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"
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.You'll have to excuse Circe - she isn't interested in facts that refute her ill-considered, unreasoned preconceptions.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"
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.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.
Note that nothing here is an insult as it describes her posts and her positions, not her.
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.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.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.Heres the thing, Im with you and think that (in the grand scheme of things), controlling assault rifles shouldnt be our top priority. It shouldnt 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 whats your goal - convince the other side of our argument? Thats certainly my goal. However when you insult Circe, I dont think you get any closer to achieving this goal, so whats the point of doing it? What you're doing is worse than wasting time, because it's actually moving us backwards...
Just my opinion.
Note that nothing here is an insult as it describes her posts and her positions, not her.