9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 08:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But by all means, why did Piers Morgan have him on his show? I can only assume there is another conspiracy here to let lose upon the world?

I mean, all he did was let him spout off his babble on his show instead of how he normally spews it forth. And he used some of the same attempts at an argument that have been used here!
Morgan had Jones on because he is a paranoid tin foiler who is always rambling about the buildaburgs,chem trails, iluminati and pre-set demolition charges etc etc. He's a paranoid nut so most idiots out there who are ignorant to firearms just assume thats what gun owners are.

Quote:It only takes about one second (literally) to change a mag in a rifle


Thats a huge negative. From last shot to 1st shot, the fastest I've ever done a bolt lock reload was 2.10. Get a shot timer, have someone else load 2 mags with 10 rounds between then so you cant game it. Now run 10 rounds with the reload as fast as you can and you'll be humbled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Because the conspiracy of a government trying to systematically disarm its population (although some seem to argue that knives can be just as dangerous so why care if they "take yer guns?") so that it can remove the rest of their rights from them (despite the fact that this could be done through perfectly legal legislation) while still having most of its members in support of not changing gun laws (presumably as a diversion tactic) is that much more insane than an illuminati conspiracy?

This guy advocates all the batshit crazy and your opinion is this is the one he has correct?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 10:37 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  We as a people do not have a good enough reason to prevent lawful, non-violent citizens from owning a firearm.

So, we as people who (I can't tell yet) want to live in a society without violence, assault, death, etc., "don't have a good enough reason" to limit the availability and ownership of tools specifically designed for doing the very things we don't want to see happening?

Regardless of the practically of it, though it is there, in my opinion, not being in support of the violence and death is enough of a reason, in principle only, to limit access to things designed for violence and death.

Everyone is a "lawful, non-violent citizen" until they are in the act of being unlawful and violent. Plus, we aren't talking about plastic forks. We are talking about tools specifically designed with their main purpose being intended as a negative one. So, it's kind of weird when people talk about it like we are talking about restricting food because someone choked. That's annoying, it's completely different.

It's okay to hear and see arguments for guns from people who accept the killing, because sometimes I'm at that point where I could care less about the people dying. If people take the 'death just comes along with my ability to have a freedom I want' stance, I'm kind of okay with that stance, even if I disagree. But, otherwise, it's just like someone handing a person gasoline and a pack of matches and telling them not to set anything on fire. If you don't want something, you kind of have to support the position opposite of that. If you keep accepting the position that supports, or is in line with, what you don't want to see happen, at least be less annoying in bitching about when things go wrong. I'm not saying that's what you are doing (or anyone on here), but you do see a good amount of people who do seem upset when people use a gun for what it's absolutely, amazingly designed to conveniently and specifically do.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
18-01-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because the conspiracy of a government trying to systematically disarm its population (although some seem to argue that knives can be just as dangerous so why care if they "take yer guns?") so that it can remove the rest of their rights from them (despite the fact that this could be done through perfectly legal legislation) while still having most of its members in support of not changing gun laws (presumably as a diversion tactic) is that much more insane than an illuminati conspiracy?

This guy advocates all the batshit crazy and your opinion is this is the one he has correct?
My problem with conspiracy theorists is they assume that everything is a made up fairy tale, and that the truth is actually always worse then the given story. There are some stories that while seeming nutty have been found true.

Your statement does a lot of assuming tho.


(18-01-2013 12:36 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Regardless of the practically of it, though it is there, in my opinion, not being in support of the violence and death is enough of a reason, in principle only, to limit access to things designed for violence and death.

Everyone is a "lawful, non-violent citizen" until they are in the act of being unlawful and violent. Plus, we aren't talking about plastic forks. We are talking about tools specifically designed with their main purpose being intended as a negative one. So, it's kind of weird when people talk about it like we are talking about restricting food because someone choked. That's annoying, it's completely different.
You need a new mindset. Violence and death are not always negative, immoral or illegal. Firearms are not built with negative intent, ie not inherently "evil" like most people with a irrational aversion to them seem to think. Funny people mentioned food, because the very same people from NY who are restricting gun rights right now are the same people who are banning big gulps and trans-fats.

Quote:Everyone is a "lawful, non-violent citizen" until they are in the act of being unlawful and violent.
Is completly true, and is how our nation operates. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise and will continue to be treated as such.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:24 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
I've decided that this is all moot anyway. No bill that contains anything other than universal background checks is going to make it through the House. And since the House won't pass it the Senate won't even vote on it. No Democrat in a red state is going to vote for this if they want to be reelected.

Thank God!

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 08:24 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I've decided that this is all moot anyway. No bill that contains anything other than universal background checks is going to make it through the House. And since the House won't pass it the Senate won't even vote on it. No Democrat in a red state is going to vote for this if they want to be reelected.

Thank God!


You seem to be under the assumption that they read the bills they are voting on or that they even care what it says. They are rich and therefore the laws don't really apply to them. They could sign a bill into law tomorrow that requires that every U.S. citizen must be implanted with a microchip that tracks every move, you know that these pricks that signed it into law without a care in the world won't get one and sure as shit won't let their kids get one. The excuse will be security concerns as to why their kids don't have one, but in reality they just think they are better than we are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 12:36 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 10:37 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  We as a people do not have a good enough reason to prevent lawful, non-violent citizens from owning a firearm.

So, we as people who (I can't tell yet) want to live in a society without violence, assault, death, etc., "don't have a good enough reason" to limit the availability and ownership of tools specifically designed for doing the very things we don't want to see happening?

Regardless of the practically of it, though it is there, in my opinion, not being in support of the violence and death is enough of a reason, in principle only, to limit access to things designed for violence and death.

Everyone is a "lawful, non-violent citizen" until they are in the act of being unlawful and violent. Plus, we aren't talking about plastic forks. We are talking about tools specifically designed with their main purpose being intended as a negative one. So, it's kind of weird when people talk about it like we are talking about restricting food because someone choked. That's annoying, it's completely different.

It's okay to hear and see arguments for guns from people who accept the killing, because sometimes I'm at that point where I could care less about the people dying. If people take the 'death just comes along with my ability to have a freedom I want' stance, I'm kind of okay with that stance, even if I disagree. But, otherwise, it's just like someone handing a person gasoline and a pack of matches and telling them not to set anything on fire. If you don't want something, you kind of have to support the position opposite of that. If you keep accepting the position that supports, or is in line with, what you don't want to see happen, at least be less annoying in bitching about when things go wrong. I'm not saying that's what you are doing (or anyone on here), but you do see a good amount of people who do seem upset when people use a gun for what it's absolutely, amazingly designed to conveniently and specifically do.
I can sometimes get angry and argue back before I've have time to cool off and read everything, which I almost did, but I didn't. Here is my calm rebuttal.

Well, many of the problems you have I've addressed in your post, I also addressed in the post you pulled that one-line from. If you are going to ignore it the first time-round I'm not retyping it. I will jump straight to to the issues I may not have spoke on.

You say "Regardless of the practicality of it..." Well, you cannot just disregard the practicality of the laws you are making. I'd be more likely to come around to your side of the arguement if we had a magic genie that could permanently banish firearms nationally. The idea of something is not a good enough reason, besides this idea fails to take into account the fact that people rely on their firearms to feed their families. Hunting is still very important in the poor areas of the country, this includes some of my extended family. If they couldn't hunt there would be a lot less food on the table, I'm not saying they would die of starvation, but they would go hungry on a regular basis, this includes children. Some of them probably hunt with something that the politicians consider an "assault rifle" as well, as a lot of poor folks use old military surplus rifles. They are cheap, and they are designed to take down relatively large game. Of course I am talking about a minority of Americans, and many hunters could still go to bed with full stomachs every night should the not be allowed to hunt, but there are other problems as well. If you didn't have hunters killing the game, the game would be killing more people. One of the big 'killers' of people where I live is deer. They dart out in front of cars last second, and although the usually don't kill the person inside that is sometimes the case. People usually wind up with some injury, and millions and millions in damage are done in auto damage. Based on your logic, I could say "fuck the practicality of it" and advocate everyone be mandated to be a hunter with a big scary gun to kill all the deer until they are eradicated, but that isn't a good solution. There is just some risk involved, and like I said, you cannot nerf the world, no matter how great it would be if we could just forgo all of the risk.


I want to type much more and respond to everything, but time constraints dictate that I leave the computer...
To Be Continued...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(19-01-2013 01:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Hunting is still very important in the poor areas of the country, this includes some of my extended family. If they couldn't hunt there would be a lot less food on the table, I'm not saying they would die of starvation, but they would go hungry on a regular basis, this includes children. Some of them probably hunt with something that the politicians consider an "assault rifle" as well, as a lot of poor folks use old military surplus rifles. They are cheap, and they are designed to take down relatively large game. Of course I am talking about a minority of Americans, and many hunters could still go to bed with full stomachs every night should the not be allowed to hunt, but there are other problems as well. If you didn't have hunters killing the game, the game would be killing more people. One of the big 'killers' of people where I live is deer. They dart out in front of cars last second, and although the usually don't kill the person inside that is sometimes the case. People usually wind up with some injury, and millions and millions in damage are done in auto damage. Based on your logic, I could say "fuck the practicality of it" and advocate everyone be mandated to be a hunter with a big scary gun to kill all the deer until they are eradicated, but that isn't a good solution. There is just some risk involved, and like I said, you cannot nerf the world, no matter how great it would be if we could just forgo all of the risk.

Nothing mentioned there would be a problem with a decent looking, serious, comprehensive gun bill.

A lot of money already goes into rural areas for food assistance, financial assistance, farming aid, etc.; those are problems almost completely separate to hunting and guns. The only way hunting would even come in is if you hunt for a living, but at that point, in the hardest restrictions, the worst case scenario would be joining the large crowd of people needing a new job. As far as the deer: I see deer in my backyard, neighbors yard, in the park, etc. I still haven't hit one with a car, and I'm still not getting a gun out to shoot them when I see them. I definitely could see how the deer population could be handled (animal control in general really) even with strict gun laws, so I guess I don't see the same problem.

Also, I wasn't implying going as far as taking gun ownership away from people in rural areas, or people who hunt for a living-- that would be my starting out point (to completely ban guns, likely for any individual not associated with the executive branch of government), and I wouldn't see the same problems as you; but I could likely be persuaded to compromise, if the decision was up to me.

(19-01-2013 01:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You say "Regardless of the practicality of it..." Well, you cannot just disregard the practicality of the laws you are making.

Yes you can, because laws aren't geared toward practicality, as much as they are principle and justice. Societies didn't make laws against murder, rape, assault, battery, robbery, etc., depending on how much the people thought those things would decrease, once the laws were established (not mentioning properly upheld, as a law can be enacted, without being carried through properly in the justice system). I also said that I think the practically is there.

(19-01-2013 01:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I want to type much more and respond to everything, but time constraints dictate that I leave the computer...
To Be Continued...

There really isn't any more you have to add. I'm really not the person to convince, because it's more like you're convincing me that you're not crazy. I personally don't care much about the gun laws (as far as new ones needing to be added): I'm sort of apathetic to the whole situation. I'd kind of like to see the gun law debate skipped for more important issues, but given that the gun debate (one I see as easy) can't be solved, we seem screwed.

It's probably just me being the crazy one, but personally it feels like I'm a part of a society where washing your clothing is illegal, yet everyone needs to own a washing machine, like maybe Whirlpool rules the world.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
You could say the same thing about any topic that's ever been discussed, ever. You jumped in the debate, said you would like to ban all guns, then turn around and say you wouldn't ban all guns and you don't care. No debate on the TTA is "needed", no one on here has a "need" to convince anyone else on here of anything, but we do it for various reasons. If you're not interested so be it, though I certainly could add plenty to the debate. I won't, however, waste my time if you are apathetic. Good day.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
It isn't likely that firearms will be banned in the U.S.A. anytime soon. There are about 300,000,000 of them in civilian possession, the House of Representatives has a Republican majority, the Second Amendment right to individual possession of firearms was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, the NRA is a strong presence, and so on.

Many states have strong firearms laws, some don't, but at least 33 states have what are termed "shall issue" licensing laws. The state has to provide a valid legal reason to deny the citizen a license to possess a firearm, otherwise it must issue the license.

There are rational and reasonable uses for firearms, including self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, and collecting.

These are all also legal reasons.

If you are not a hunter or shooter, or are simply not familiar with firearms, then your debating what are proper or reasonable firearms that people may possess does not strike those of us who are knowledgeable as very productive.

Do you believe you know enough to suggest to me what is a reasonable firearm for self-defense? Or for hunting? Or for any of the shooting sports?

I see the real problem as a violent society that is violent due to many factors, the greatest of which are wealth and income disparity, coupled with poor social services - especially mental health care. I believe we need to work on those.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: