the ban on semi-automatic assualt rifles was lifted in 2004

You have to have access to GUNS to commit GUN violence.

You don't need one to be violent, no. But you need a gun to committ gun violence.

The reason cars kill more people than guns? More people USE cars. Eveyone I know has a car. I know ONE person that owns a gun. It's simple math.

This obsession is paranoia. Pure and simple. I've been through a house fire, but I don't keep 35 extinguishers on hand in mortal fear of a reoccurance. My wife gets paranoid about the smoke detectors. I tell her, "Jeez, SHADOW will smell the smoke before those things would go off!"

You'd be surprised at the myraid home security functions of your average canine. Even a little one.

And you can't take him to a school and have him bite 20 children to death in 4 minutes. He'd probaly gross some of them out by licking their faces, but ..........................

We could do this all day, if you like. You have your opinion, and I have mine. But you can't PROVE having a gun makes you safer.

Seems like a "feelgood" reaction!

BTW, thank you for presenting your argument in a rational, intelligent, civilized manner. I always appreciate that, and will respond in kind.
 
Last edited:
You have to have access to GUNS to commit GUN violence.

You don't need one to be violent, no. But you need a gun to committ gun violence.

The reason cars kill more people than guns? More people USE cars. Eveyone I know has a car. I know ONE person that owns a gun. It's simple math.


You can't compare the numbers that way. I am smart enough to understand you can't compare raw numbers. You have to figure it per capita. And per capita cars, cigs, alcohol, illegal drugs, cholesterol (not necessarily in that order) all kill more people per capita each each year than guns.


This obsession is paranoia. Pure and simple. I've been through a house fire, but I don't keep 35 extinguishers on hand in mortal fear of a reoccurance. My wife gets paranoid about the smoke detectors. I tell her, "Jeez, SHADOW will smell the smoke before those things would go off!"

As I stated before to believe gun owners are obsessive about guns is willful ignorance about gun owners. As a gun owner I don't spend my waking hours not using my guns thinking about using my guns. Nor do I get some big hard on when I do go use them. It has nothing to do with any machismo factor. Of course I get adamant about them when people tell me I shouldn't be able to have something when there is no logical reason for that position. Just as you would about your guitars.


We could do this all day, if you like. You have your opinion, and I have mine. But you can't PROVE having a gun makes you safer.

Seems like a "feelgood" reaction!

BTW, thank you for presenting your argument in a rational, intelligent, civilized manner. I always appreciate that, and will respond in kind.

Sure we can. We can make reasonable predictions about what would have happened had some had or not had a gun at their disposal to protect themselves. And yes it is a feel good reaction. Not one unreasonably founded. On the admittedly remote chance that my home is invaded I know my chances improve of protecting my property and life when the intruder is informed of the mere possibility they may die in the confrontation.

But honestly that isn't the point. I honestly can't claim I would feel significantly less safe without a gun. I'm not adamant about the issue because of a fear of lack of safety. I'm adamant about it is because I'm a responsible gun owner. That doesn't change with the type of firearm I use and it's wrong to deny the rights of many because of the malicious acts of a very few. Especially when doing so has little chance of stopping it from occuring anyway. We talked before about the difference in different scenarios and the fact is the different variable where guns are used for violence against people vs. not is the people, not the gun. Which is why it makes no sense to prioritize our time focusing on restricting access to guns as opposed to focusing on the people that commit these acts and their commonalities. People like you say guns are the issue. That they are the common denominator in all of these acts. But if that were case and guns are the cause then these events should occur far more frequently. But they don't. They don't because they are inanimate objects. They can't hurt anyone without action on the part of an individual. The true common denominator of nearly all of these events is the mental state of the person who carried the acts out. Addressing that and preventing these types of people from getting firearms is the most efficient form of action that we should focus on as it most directly addressess the issue we have with a scant few without unjustly unfringing upon the rights of the other 90% of gun owners who are otherwise law abiding.
 
Very few people drive drunk, my friend. Should I have the right to do so because I am in the larger majority that doesn't?

Rights? You've already ceded what should be your most precious right - the right to have YOUR voice heard - by voting for anyone in the Gang of 536 that we regularally elect to positions of great power.

Think they really give a patootie about you? Or me? Or even their huge donors?

Why don't they let US decide the issues? Because they'd be out of work.

At one time in this country, you had the RIGHT to own another human being. Should we have left THAT the way it was?

Yea, it IS the same thing. What gives YOU the right to own a weapon specifically designed to kill other human beings that might, no matter HOW remotely, be used to kill ME or my loved ones?

What about MY right to not have to worry about that?

Let's put it to a national referendum and see where it lands. I'm all for it.

If the majority want them, fine. I'll accept that.
 
Last edited:
Very few people drive drunk, my friend. Should I have the right to do so because I am in the larger majority that doesn't?

Rights? You've already ceded what should be your most precious right - the right to have YOUR voice heard - by voting for anyone in the Gang of 536 that we regularally elect to positions of great power.

Think they really give a patootie about you? Or me? Or even their huge donors?

Why don't they let US decide the issues? Because they'd be out of work.

At one time in this country, you had the RIGHT to own another human being. Should we have left THAT the way it was?

Yea, it IS the same thing. What gives YOU the right to own a weapon specifically designed to kill other human beings that might, no matter HOW remotely, be used to kill ME or my loved ones?

What about MY right to not have to worry about that?

Let's put it to a national referendum and see where it lands. I'm all for it.

If the majority want them, fine. I'll accept that.

If you want to repeal the second amendment there are already procedures in place for that and a national referendum isn't one of them.

Good luck.
 
I'll bet the body count decreases on BOTH sides.

Yet, that is not what happened during the last ban. It's not what happened when the UK virtually banned guns...in fact the body count went up. It's not what happened in Australia after their ban. Again, gun crime increased. And it's certainly not what happened in those states and cities with the toughest gun control laws. That's where you find the bodies piling up.

But I'm sure you're right...'cuz you say so...:doubt:
 
Being a lousy composer, it wouldn't matter. But you COULD.

You still can't kill anyone very easily with a guitar, no matter HOW many strings it has.

I'm pretty sure a Les Paul over your head will have you rethinking ^ that very quickly.

I said you could El Kabong someone. Maybe you're too young to get the reference. I'll explain if you like.

You could kill with a hammer. Just not 30 people in a 3 minute span, unless they hold very still..

The body count is important, not the method.

ONE person saved is enough.

40+ million innocent babies killed in the US since 1973 and not a gun used....Thats a fucking body count for you!
 
Very few people drive drunk, my friend. Should I have the right to do so because I am in the larger majority that doesn't?

Rights? You've already ceded what should be your most precious right - the right to have YOUR voice heard - by voting for anyone in the Gang of 536 that we regularally elect to positions of great power.

Think they really give a patootie about you? Or me? Or even their huge donors?

Why don't they let US decide the issues? Because they'd be out of work.

At one time in this country, you had the RIGHT to own another human being. Should we have left THAT the way it was?

Yea, it IS the same thing. What gives YOU the right to own a weapon specifically designed to kill other human beings that might, no matter HOW remotely, be used to kill ME or my loved ones?

What about MY right to not have to worry about that?

Let's put it to a national referendum and see where it lands. I'm all for it.

If the majority want them, fine. I'll accept that.

And if the majority doesn't want them, how do you plan on taking them away? By force? :lol:
 
Very few people drive drunk, my friend. Should I have the right to do so because I am in the larger majority that doesn't?

That's not the argument you're making with guns. What you're essentially arguing where guns are concerned is in restricting access to the object used by the person to commit the act in an attempt to reduce overall deaths should a person attempt to perpetrate a similar act. This same argument translated to cars would be something like restricting access to certain types of automobiles or modifying them so say they can't go over 30 mph so that if a drunk gets behind the wheel of one and if he/she gets in an accident, the damage would minimized

Rights? You've already ceded what should be your most precious right - the right to have YOUR voice heard - by voting for anyone in the Gang of 536 that we regularally elect to positions of great power.

Think they really give a patootie about you? Or me? Or even their huge donors?

They most certainly do, as they are aware that if they piss enough like minded people as me off, they indeed will be out of a job.


At one time in this country, you had the RIGHT to own another human being. Should we have left THAT the way it was?

Yea, it IS the same thing. What gives YOU the right to own a weapon specifically designed to kill other human beings that might, no matter HOW remotely, be used to kill ME or my loved ones?

No it isn't the same. So far our argument of what ought to be regulated and how has been relegated to inanimate objects. A person is not an inanimate object. It has free will and owning one was in direct contradiction with our countries delcaration of independence that ALL men are created equal.

Secondly, you are again wrong in your premise though you aren't the first to make the argument. That argument being the purpose of a gun or certain types of guns is to kill people. That is simply false. Inanaimate objects can not possess a purpose in of themselves. He who acts on the inanimate object is ultimately the one that determines its purpose. Again it comes down to the person, not the object. I am the one who decides what the purpose of my guns are.

What about MY right to not have to worry about that?

The right to not have to worry? You have no such right. Though you hit on a theme that seems to have become more prevalent in our society. This notion that somehow you are entitled to a risk free existence and that it's the job of government to ensure you don't have to worry about anything. That simply isn't the case and is a ridiculous concept on the face of it.

Let's put it to a national referendum and see where it lands. I'm all for it.

If the majority want them, fine. I'll accept that.

Because the right to owns guns is a constitutionally protected right. Ammendments to the constitution can't be repealed through national referendum only. First you need 2/3 of both houses, then you need 3/4 if the states. I'd certainly take my chances under the letter of the law.
 
Last edited:
You don't decide the purpose of your gun if it gets stolen. Someone else does. How did all these guns get into the black market, direct sales to criminals? Many of them were stolen.

This has been said before, but the 2nd amendment actually does NOT give you that right to own anything you want. It provides for a "well-regulated" militia. So "regulations" are NOT out of its realm. Is it legal to own a hand grenade? A cannon? Not unless it's been "demilitarized" (rendered unuseable).

You people simply encourage and perpetuate the culture of violence and gun love in this country. Which is WHY these shootings occur, underneath it all. Someone WRONGS you, hey, grab a gun and get even. Someone makes fun of you at school (Kleibold and Harris), hey, grab a gun and get even. Someone shoves you in a pizza restaraunt, hey, pull your gun and get even. Your mom's thinking about committing you and cares more about her students, hey, grab her guns and get even.

Let's start making GUNS a bit less attractive of an option, by outlawing some of them. You've got to change the culture of guns that permeates the thinking of the unstable and the criminal. You've got to change the culture of violence.

Many moons ago, when I was a youth, drinking and driving was considered almost a prank. Sammy Hagar actually released a song called "Cruisin' and Boozin", which described a group of friends out driving around with "JD in the back seat - we're drinkin' nothin' but the best". This was in the seventies. Much better publicizing of the deadly consequences of DUI has changed the CULTURE that doing this is "cute" or 'harmless".

You can toughen up the penalties for gun usage, but I'm not sure that will have the same effect. We've had tough penalties for gun usage. The carnage continues.

You will still be able to own guns. Just not guns that have only one purpose. To kill as many humans as quickly as possible.

What is WRONG with that?
 
Last edited:
Let's start making GUNS a bit less attractive of an option, by outlawing some of them.

so... we should outlaw the pretty guns and promote only the ugly guns...?

If you're going to act stupid, then forget this conversation.

Is killing 20 small children cute now?

I see that you've gone back and edited your post into something that sounds slightly more intelligent...

you're welcome... :)
 
Let's start making GUNS a bit less attractive of an option, by outlawing some of them.

That tact worked beautifully when we outlawed alcohol...:doubt:

You will still be able to own guns. Just not guns that have only one purpose. To kill as many humans as quickly as possible.

What is WRONG with that?

This question has been answered many times but you keep asking it. One more time...

Because it makes NO DAMN SENSE to ensure only the bad guys have such firearms. We know they've got them. We know no gun ban will stop them from getting them. We have the right to protect ourselves without you handicapping law abiding citizens.
 
We have the right to protect ourselves

Don't you mean, "the right to shoot someone else"?

That IS what this is about, isn't it?

You can protect yourself without a gun. Many, many way to do it. Having a gun won't protect you from being shot by a sniper, or in the back. It didn't protect your property - it was STILL invaded.

You guys want to be able to open fire.

That is scary. And it's the reason these shootings go on unabated.

Violence simply begets MORE violence. The arms race will continue, and escalate. Or do you believe, like the hit squad in Magnum Force, that there is simply, "no other way."?

I'm done. This is pointless.
 
You don't decide the purpose of your gun if it gets stolen. Someone else does. How did all these guns get into the black market, direct sales to criminals? Many of them were stolen.

Pretty sure that's exactly what I said. Purpose is defined by the user, not the object itself, which contradicts to your previous statement "the only purpose of certain guns is to kill lots of people".

This has been said before, but the 2nd amendment actually does NOT give you that right to own anything you want. It provides for a "well-regulated" militia. So "regulations" are NOT out of its realm. Is it legal to own a hand grenade? A cannon? Not unless it's been "demilitarized" (rendered unuseable).

Never said it did. But if you want to get picky the adjective 'well regulated' is modifying the noun 'militia', not arms. One can not infer from the 2nd ammendment the extent to which, if it all, the authors intended firearms to be regulated. Also, incorrect partially about the law. A person is indeed allowed to own and even shoot cannons such as those used in the civil war.

You people simply encourage and perpetuate the culture of violence and gun love in this country. Which is WHY these shootings occur, underneath it all. Someone WRONGS you, hey, grab a gun and get even. Someone makes fun of you at school (Kleibold and Harris), hey, grab a gun and get even. Someone shoves you in a pizza restaraunt, hey, pull your gun and get even. Your mom's thinking about committing you and cares more about her students, hey, grab her guns and get even.

This is the part you're starting to test my patience on. I have REPEATEDLY told you your perception that there is some obsession with guns by gun owners is patently false. Nor have you presented any evidence to the contrary. This postion comes simply from your biased dislike of firearms. You hate them so that means anyone who has them has some sick love affair with them. That is absurd. These shooting dont' occur because of a love affair with guns. I REPEAT. I don't love my guns. Nor do the hundreds of people I know who own them have some obesession with theirs. You thanked me for keeping this conversation free of insults. Now I'm going to think you in advance to not insult me and the many many gun owners I know by calling us obsessed with guns. It is simply false. Take a moment and engage in little objective introspection of yourself and ask yourself of the people you know that own guns, how many of them are obsessed with them? If you don't know that many people take some time to get to know someone who does before making statements you have zero basis for.

Let's start making GUNS a bit less attractive of an option, by outlawing some of them. You've got to change the culture of guns that permeates the thinking of the unstable and the criminal. You've got to change the culture of violence.

Outlawing something doesn't make it a less attractive option. Killing peole with any gun is already outlawed. if that's something a person is considering doing how is the fact that a certain gun is illegal gonna change your mind. The problem with your solution here is how overarching. It the equivalent of trying to kill a fly with a cannon. You end up unjustifiably preventing access to otherwise law abiding people and you in the end you STILL might not prevent it from happening. These unstable criminals make up less than 1% of the people that use them. Forget the issue of guns. Your simple probelm solving in this case is incredibly flawed.

Many moons ago, when I was a youth, drinking and driving was considered almost a prank. Sammy Hagar actually released a song called "Cruisin' and Boozin", which described a group of friends out driving around with "JD in the back seat - we're drinkin' nothin' but the best". This was in the seventies. Much better publicizing of the deadly consequences of DUI has changed the CULTURE that doing this is "cute" or 'harmless".

You can toughen up the penalties for gun usage, but I'm not sure that will have the same effect. We've had tough penalties for gun usage. The carnage continues.

The decisions aren't equal. The decision to drink and drive is a little different than the mental state involved in deciding you want to mow down a bunch of 3rd graders. In the later instance level of punishment isn't something the registers with these people at all.

You will still be able to own guns. Just not guns that have only one purpose. To kill as many humans as quickly as possible.


What is WRONG with that?

Again an inanimate object does can not have a purpose unto itself. If I so choose to own a fully automatic M14 to fire at a target to see how accurate I can be, THAT is its purpose. And if you want to get real technical about it there is no gun made whos purpose is to kill people. What a gun is made to do is fire bullets. Some are more accurate than others. Some are quicker than others. What those bullets are intended to hit is again entirely the decision of the user. Again this guns with the sole purpose of killing people is simply a factually incorrect statement. Thus the argument to ban them fails as the result of said false premise.
 
Last edited:
This is pointless.

I agree.

You've failed to show how any laws will prevent criminals from breaking the law, despite being given several chances to do so.

YOU are free to hope you can protect yourself without a firearm. Good luck.

I choose to remain properly prepared.

Perhaps you'll understand one day that you don't know what's best for everyone else.
 
We have the right to protect ourselves

Don't you mean, "the right to shoot someone else"?

That IS what this is about, isn't it?

You can protect yourself without a gun. Many, many way to do it. Having a gun won't protect you from being shot by a sniper, or in the back. It didn't protect your property - it was STILL invaded.

You guys want to be able to open fire.

That is scary. And it's the reason these shootings go on unabated.

Violence simply begets MORE violence. The arms race will continue, and escalate. Or do you believe, like the hit squad in Magnum Force, that there is simply, "no other way."?

I'm done. This is pointless.

Again your just plain wrong Vegas. If the idea is to defend oneself, family or property in the event of a break in, I need to be able to reasonably counter act the perpretor. The funny thing here is the only person in this conversation so far that seems to have some macho badass complex is YOU. You're the one who seems to think you're a bullet proof ninja and don't need a gun. On the off chance that someone breaks into my residence armed, I on other hand really am not interested in making stopping this individual a challenge for myself. My chances of me gotting shot by the perp, a family member getting shot or raped or whatever grisly scenario you can come up with, without question goes down, if I am armed.

And as a point of detail we aren't talking about how to keep people from breaking in. We're talking about the most effective means of stopping it once it happens.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top