CDZ Guns, Culture & Politics

[JoeB131]

So, your logic is obviously that cars, trucks, alcohol, bathtubs, pools, butter knives require bans?

nope. those aren't designed to kill people.

 

[Pop23]

So, your logic is obviously that cars, trucks, alcohol, bathtubs, pools, butter knives require bans?

nope. those aren't designed to kill people.

Neither are guns. Obviously because a few guns have the same must be true of cars.

 

[Darkwind]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

Here is the problem.

There are no reasonable regulations with regard to guns.

Here is something that you, and no one else seems to get with regard to culture and guns.

Consider the fact that when we put someone on trial for murder, do we first have to explain to the Jurors that murder is wrong?

Ever ask yourself why not?

Now ask yourself, how do we keep those miscreants who think that murder is okay from killing people?

The answer is pretty obvious. We don't.

What we do is punish them after the fact for violating accepted social norms of not killing.

Now ask yourself, what is it we do as a people/society, that makes murder so universally reviled?

Then ask yourself, why isn't it we are not teaching children to believe that killing with a gun is as equally repulsive?

You then need to realize that even if we do that, there is going to a percentage that will think it is okay to kill with a gun. We will never be able to stop them all. Just like we can't stop all of the sociopaths from murdering, regardless of how many 'reasonable' regulations we place on them.

The world will never be 100% safe, and it will always be a dangerous world.

Penalizing the jurors for the crimes of the murderers will never be the answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I find amusing is that JoeyB wants to hold gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for what their customers do with what they sell, despite having no control over it or way to tell their intent. But medical professionals who have the training to be able to tell, plus the legal and moral obligation to put their patients name in the database should not be held responsible? That is a stunning use of ridiculous logic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, you are tired of it?? Well then, by all means, we should force 100k people to hand in their guns right away. lmao

I don't think you understand how little it matters to me what YOU are tired of.

Well, except the majority agrees with me and we are all tired of watching kids get dragged out of schools in body bags.

The require background checks to purchase them and have age restrictions. That is enough.

We still have 33,000 gun deaths, so, um, no, it isn't.

And since you are blaming the guns for the murders, there are an estimated 300,000,000 guns owned by private citizens. I haven't seen the numbers for 2017, so I will agree to use 11,000 as the number of gun related murders. That means 0.004% of the firearms owned by private citizens have been used in a murder. The FBI estimates that privately owned firearms are used +100,000 times per year tol stop or prevent a crime.

99.994% of airline passengers didn't hijack an airplane and fly it into a building in 2001.

99.994% of lawn darts didn't impale anyone through the head.

99.994% of customers in drug stores didn't poison the tylanol.

Um... guess what, we put restrictions on all these things to eliminate the risks involved.

This really isn't complicated.

Suicide is a choice not a crime but you really get pissed when people have choices

 

[Skull Pilot]

But like I said you don't care because those murders that make up 70% of all murders are young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities

You are right. We only care when WHITE kids are being shot in schools.

Shame on us.

But guess what, we ban guns, nobody gets killed. It's a win-win for everyone.

Really? No one gets killed if we ban guns?

Are you that fucking stupid?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If someone truly wants to die they use a gun. If someone truly wants to die, not having a gun isn't going to stop them. There have been over 30,000 suicides in Japan for the 12th straight year. Somehow, even without guns they manage to commit far more suicides than Americans.

Their culture considers suicide to be honorable... ours doesn't.

The DGU numbers I use are the estimates by the FBI. Far from being a myth, they are based on numbers gathered from the entire nation by the biggest law enforcement organization in the country. The number I use is also far smaller than estimates by other reputable organizations.

Actually, the FBI number I saw was 46,000. But even that number is dubious. YOu know why? Because the SAME FBI claims that only 200 homicides were guns used by civilians in acts of self defense. So you'd have to believe that with all their talk about how bad they want to shoot them a bad guy, you've had 46,000 or 100,000 or a million gun nuts with a darkie... er bad guy in their sites, and they only shoot him one out of 1000 times.

It's just doesn't pass the laugh test.

As for the idea that jerks without guns cannot commit murders, that is laughable. Between 2010 and 2015 there were 23,898 murders in which a weapon other than a gun was used. That is 31% of the murders in which a weapon was used. (FBI Stats). Add to that people use guns to stop or prevent crimes and there is ample proof you are talking out your ass.

Again, the rest of the world doesn't have these problems. Also, most murders involve a weapon, a lot more than 31%.

You don't realize yet that I don't give a flying or any other kind of fuck about the rest of the world do you?

If you like it better elsewhere then get your ass gone

 

[BlackSand]

so what are you going to do when they pass real gun control, and you don't qualify?

I have always qualified for firearms possession.
To disqualify me by some reason, would disqualify most military and law enforcement (unless their immediate position is the only requirement that remains).

The question really is ... How do you want your desires to be reconciled with my refusal to submit to your misguided measures?
Do you want to insist we fight it out at a cost to society I don't think you are actually willing to bear?

.

 

[Pop23]

What I find amusing is that JoeyB wants to hold gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for what their customers do with what they sell, despite having no control over it or way to tell their intent. But medical professionals who have the training to be able to tell, plus the legal and moral obligation to put their patients name in the database should not be held responsible? That is a stunning use of ridiculous logic.

You are right, and anyone with the slightest sense knows this.

And, why is it we don’t hold those equally responsible for prescribing the mood altering drugs, linked to many, if not most of these shootings?

 

[JoeB131]

Neither are guns. Obviously because a few guns have the same must be true of cars.

Okay, guns are designed to kill people. I'm sorry you don't understand this basic concept.

Cars are designed to get people from point A to Point B.

Tomorrow we will cover colors and shapes.

 

[JoeB131]

I have always qualified for firearms possession.
To disqualify me by some reason, would disqualify most military and law enforcement (unless their immediate position is the only requirement that remains).

That sounds like a pretty good qualifier... actually NEEDING a gun to do your job.

Sold.

The question really is ... How do you want your desires to be reconciled with my refusal to submit to your misguided measures?
Do you want to insist we fight it out at a cost to society I don't think you are actually willing to bear?

FIrst, I have no problem with the ATF putting gun nutters down like mad dogs if they don't comply with the law. I really and truly don't. Kind of like I'm good when animal control takes a rabid possum out of my neighborhood.

Thing is, you guys didn't have to get it to this point. You kept arming crazier people with more dangerous weapons.

 

[JoeB131]

What I find amusing is that JoeyB wants to hold gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for what their customers do with what they sell, despite having no control over it or way to tell their intent.

You think the gun industry doesn't KNOW they are selling to these guys when they oppose background checks and waiting periods?

But here's the thing. I'm all for due process of law.

IF they really didn't do anything wrong, let a jury decide. You can show the paperwork all filled out, we can show the crime scene photos. Works for me.

But medical professionals who have the training to be able to tell, plus the legal and moral obligation to put their patients name in the database should not be held responsible? That is a stunning use of ridiculous logic.

If nobody saw a doctor, that would be bad.

If nobody sold another gun, that would be good.

The doctor didn't give the guy the ability to kill lots of people. The guy who sold him an AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine did.

 

[BlackSand]

I have always qualified for firearms possession.
To disqualify me by some reason, would disqualify most military and law enforcement (unless their immediate position is the only requirement that remains).

That sounds like a pretty good qualifier... actually NEEDING a gun to do your job.

Sold.

The question really is ... How do you want your desires to be reconciled with my refusal to submit to your misguided measures?
Do you want to insist we fight it out at a cost to society I don't think you are actually willing to bear?

FIrst, I have no problem with the ATF putting gun nutters down like mad dogs if they don't comply with the law. I really and truly don't. Kind of like I'm good when animal control takes a rabid possum out of my neighborhood.

Thing is, you guys didn't have to get it to this point. You kept arming crazier people with more dangerous weapons.

I have no problem with you being obnoxious and obtuse either ... So what?

I haven't armed anyone other than myself.
I am not a member of any group you would like to refer to as you guys.

I am simply exercising my Constitutionally protected rights.
If you want to fight about my Constitutionally protected rights versus your senseless desires ...
Arm yourself first ... That would come closer to making it a fair fight.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I find amusing is that JoeyB wants to hold gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for what their customers do with what they sell, despite having no control over it or way to tell their intent.

You think the gun industry doesn't KNOW they are selling to these guys when they oppose background checks and waiting periods?

View attachment 185849

But here's the thing. I'm all for due process of law.

IF they really didn't do anything wrong, let a jury decide. You can show the paperwork all filled out, we can show the crime scene photos. Works for me.

But medical professionals who have the training to be able to tell, plus the legal and moral obligation to put their patients name in the database should not be held responsible? That is a stunning use of ridiculous logic.

If nobody saw a doctor, that would be bad.

If nobody sold another gun, that would be good.

The doctor didn't give the guy the ability to kill lots of people. The guy who sold him an AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine did.

The doctor certainly did give him the ability. AND the doctor sent him out into an unsuspecting public when he KNEW the guy was unhinged and dangerous. The guy who sold him the gun got the expressed permission of the federal gov't. Because the gov't assumed doctors would follow the rules.

 

[Pop23]

Neither are guns. Obviously because a few guns have the same must be true of cars.

Okay, guns are designed to kill people. I'm sorry you don't understand this basic concept.

Cars are designed to get people from point A to Point B.

Tomorrow we will cover colors and shapes.

Then more than 99% if guns ever made have failed their purpose? Is that what your selling? Seems that I’d be more concerned over something NOT designed to kill people being highly effective at doing so, then something that (cough cough) is supposedly designed to kill people, failing to meet its purpose.

Or are you just paranoid?

 

[JoeB131]

I have no problem with you being obnoxious and obtuse either ... So what?

I haven't armed anyone other than myself.
I am not a member of any group you would like to refer to as you guys.

I am simply exercising my Constitutionally protected rights.
If you want to fight about my Constitutionally protected rights versus your senseless desires ...
Arm yourself first ... That would come closer to making it a fair fight.

uh, you guys created the gun culture with stupid statements like "gun ownership is a right"...

You completely own Lanza and Cruz and Holmes and every other nutter who shoots up a school or a theater.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no problem with you being obnoxious and obtuse either ... So what?

I haven't armed anyone other than myself.
I am not a member of any group you would like to refer to as you guys.

I am simply exercising my Constitutionally protected rights.
If you want to fight about my Constitutionally protected rights versus your senseless desires ...
Arm yourself first ... That would come closer to making it a fair fight.

uh, you guys created the gun culture with stupid statements like "gun ownership is a right"...

You completely own Lanza and Cruz and Holmes and every other nutter who shoots up a school or a theater.

So then you completely own every child rapist

 

[JoeB131]

So then you completely own every child rapist

not sure where you are going with this, but never mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Then more than 99% if guns ever made have failed their purpose? Is that what your selling? Seems that I’d be more concerned over something NOT designed to kill people being highly effective at doing so, then something that (cough cough) is supposedly designed to kill people, failing to meet its purpose.

Or are you just paranoid?

33,000 times a year, they work just fine.. and that's too many.

 

[Crixus]

If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.

Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.

If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.

Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.

Thing is, gun owners have always given in, or been steamrolled. No law, not any of the common sense gun laws that have been passed or have been reccomended have had anything to do with the event that spurred them. For instance, many laws we have no were put into place when Kennedy was shot. Name one law that prevented Reagen from being shot . And after Reagen was shot we got more laws including the Brady Bill, and mass shootings happened. We had the 94 crime bill and Columbine ( among other mass shootings happened) and still more laws get passed. Answer honestly, banning bump stocks after the parkland shooting addresses what exactly?