Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the issue, however. You do make blanket statements encompassing all gun owners, you aren't being composed or even attempting to be equable.
Your intent is to use vitriol to convey your discontent. This ends up alienating any one from either "side" that might want to discuss or even agree with you.
If you stop assigning "sides" and designing attacks, and instead listen and offer legitimate discussion points, you would have much more success reaching your purported goal.
Assigning sides? Open your eyes dude, look around, grow up, and realize which "side" automatically labels anyone who tries to talk about preventing these massacres from happening as "liberal gun grabbers". I own a number of guns, from shotguns to rifles to a handgun. And yet some fool just a few posts ago insists I am a liberal trying to slowly but completely disarm him because I think we should look harder at dealing with ONE specific type of gun. I don't need lectures on assigning sides,I get assigned a side by the nutters for simply not supporting their right to own a 100 AR15 clones.
Assigning sides? Open your eyes dude, look around, grow up, and realize which "side" automatically labels anyone who tries to talk about preventing these massacres from happening as "liberal gun grabbers". I own a number of guns, from shotguns to rifles to a handgun. And yet some fool just a few posts ago insists I am a liberal trying to slowly but completely disarm him because I think we should look harder at dealing with ONE specific type of gun. I don't need lectures on assigning sides,I get assigned a side by the nutters for simply not supporting their right to own a 100 AR15 clones.
I understand that. Is it a possibility that your position and attitude creates more of the responses you despise, rather than effectively diminishing them to a point where you can actually provide your suggestions and input?
I'm well aware of the difficulty and rewards of biting my tongue/picking battles/etc. Sometimes it is beneficial. Unless the intent is simply to rant and vent, in which case, I understand your position.
Do do realize that most people killed with guns are killed with handguns. Each crime may be in ones and twos, so they don't make the national news, but they happen much more often. In point of fact relative to the total number murdered each year, very few people are killed with long guns. However, when it happens, it makes big news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I assume that if the Vegas killer only had access to handguns and shotguns, the number of people killed/wounded would have been much less. Indeed, he may not have even tried.
I am certainly in favor of banning future sales of 'military grade weapons' to private citizens, save perhaps for special licensing. As with the prior ban, that expired after its ten-year term, there would obviously be a 'grandfather' clause for those that already own such weapons.
Well, since I own guns ( as I have said many times) , your theory goes out the window. And so yes, I think you are stupid if you believe that everyone who backs sensible measures to prevent this stuff is out to completely disarm you. Newsflash, plenty of gun owners don't agree with the NRA and the nutter crowd. Some gun controls methods come in at about a 90% approval across America. But a lot of sensible gun owners understand the needless danger of the AR15 clones that have become the favored toy of so many.
You can say that as many times as you like. But for what it's worth I still don't believe you and never will. Nor do I believe anything else you have to say. Your intentions and motivations are quite clear. Of all the people that I know that own guns, and I know plenty, none have referred to their fellow gun owners as "gun nuts" or belonging to any "nutter crowd". Only liars like you who are trying to convince others that you are one of them. Newsflash, it just doesn't work. We can spot a phony a mile away.
Just reading your posts convinces me that you are no gun owner. If you were, it would be pretty stupid to advocate for policies that would eventually take them away. Along with supporting a political party who has made it no secret as to what their true intentions are with regards to the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law.
You mistake anger at needless deaths with fear. The chances of me being involved in something like this is negligible. I do not fear it anymore than I fear driving or flying or anything else in life. It is disingenuous in the extreme for folks like you to pretend the outrage over things like Vegas or Newton or Orlando stem from some personal fear. Surely even you are capable of understanding that it is anger at the continued mass shootings that some in our society are more than willing to tolerate in order to have their fun.
As to the auto parallel, surely you are smart to grasp that banning auto , trucks, and planes would cripple our society. This line of argument is perhaps the most juvenile and ridiculous one made by the gun crowd.Should these be made as safe as possible, and should we hold the auto manufacturers responsible? Sure. Should those who operate these things while drunk be punished and stripped of the right? All for it. But do you really consider it a logical argument to compare something that has a small element of danger but that has become essential to modern life with a gun that has no essential purpose in modern life past the "wow, how cool" aspect of firing one for fun and pleasure?
Ahh there it is. You've succumbed to emotion you're exact words were
Quote:
You mistake anger at needless deaths with fear.
Then follow it with what I have been arguing
Quote:
The chances of me being involved in something like this is negligible.
So then your point is that you are angry and want a boogey man to take it out on, well, I'm your Huckleberry.
Quote:
Surely even you are capable of understanding that it is anger at the continued mass shootings that some in our society are more than willing to tolerate in order to have their fun.
Surely you are capable of understanding logic that logic > emotion and if you acknowledge your chances of succumbing to these events as slim to none, but spinning it as some widespread major issue, then there is no point in furthering the debate and simply tap out and accept that America is an armed society and contains people who uphold and believe in its constitution and will argue and fight for your rights and their rights to not be trampled on by fearful or angry tyrants.
Want to be mad about school shootings? Be mad teachers aren't carrying to protect life. 15 years ago I asked my teachers the same thing.
Want to mad about mass shootings in clubs? Be mad the bartenders and staff aren't carrying to protect their patrons.
Want to be mad about movie theaters being shot up? Allow carry.
Want to be mad about the Vegas incident? Be mad that nobody was on that floor armed to step up and stop him until what 78 minutes later...
Place your anger where it should be, going around flinging poo like a monkey is weak immature and at best only fun to expose the narrative that you're willing to forfeit the rights of others to fit the opinion that is drilled into society's head that guns are bad mmkay.
Controlling guns is exactly what the goal is for the anti-gun crowd. This isn't about stopping firearms deaths because if it was the focus would be on handguns, which account for the largest portion of firearms crime in America. This whole movement to limit ownership of so-called "assault rifles" is a litmus test to see if it can be done. If it works, we'll be looking at some other type of firearm as the target in a few years or less. And if that works, we'll be arguing over another type of firearm after that.
It seems that the anti-gun crowd can't quite get it through their head that banning or regulating firearms is NOT going to stop the violence. If you could ban all firearms, which is never going to happen, it may stop people from getting shot. But people will still find a way to kill large numbers of other people without firearms. We are seeing it take place right now all across Europe. Instead of using firearms, they're using vehicles, explosives, gases, or anything else they can use to inflict mass numbers of casualties.
The problem isn't the availability of weapons, it is the willingness to use any weapon to attack other people. We have had multiple gun control laws passed in the last 3 decades, and not a single one has actually stopped firearms deaths. We've banned firearms from schools and ended up with more school shootings as a result. We had an "assault weapons" ban that did nothing to stop firearms deaths. We've had New York limiting the number of rounds that you can carry in a firearm, and that didn't work either. It's evident that the anti-gun crowd is going to use any excuse to throw something at the gun laws wall and see if it sticks. Not because they truly care about the number of deaths that result from someone using a certain type of firearm (again, if they did they'd be going after handguns) but because they don't feel that the American people should be trusted with firearms.
Well said and to the point!
Although it's not just that they don't trust us with guns, they don't. For good reason. They know that they can not enslave us to their socialist agenda as long as we remain armed. That's really what it's all about.
I think you are stupid if you believe that everyone who backs sensible measures to prevent this stuff is out to completely disarm you.
Would you like to suggest any other possible agenda the "gun control" advocates might have, keeping in mind that by now even they know that the "gun control" measures they suggest have already been tried, and have completely failed every time?
A couple hundred years ago, the Framers studied past governments, their efforts to disarm their people, the efforts of common criminals to assault, rob, rape, and murder law-abiding citizens, and the programs some govts ran to commit mass murder on their own (disarmed, of course) populations.
And they concluded that a citizenry would be better off, more prosperous, and safer if govt had NO authority to restrict or take away their firearms. Part of that came from stark evidence that if govt were given just a little authority, say to make a few "common sense" regulations, that govt would inevitably reach for more authority, and more, until it assumed the power to disarm the entire populace. It happened over and over in history, both in countries that had guns, and in countries before guns were invented.
After studying the problem from every angle for years, the Framers concluded that far more deaths would happen when govts had the authority to restrict or take away their populations' weapons, than would happen if the govt had NO authority to do that. Even including the occasional madman who would go into a public place and shoot people until the cops arrived.
Fast forward to present-day United States. The gun-rights-haters have tried law after law to restrict ownership of guns, from waiting periods to monthly purchases to registration to so-called "assault weapon" bans to regulations so onerous as to amount to complete bans. And the murder rates, rapes, etc. keep right on climbing. And criminals have kept right on using guns against the population, at levels high enough that liberals still demand more and more gun laws.
It has become clear even to the dimmest gun-rights-hater that these gun laws just don't work, by their own admission. And yet they keep demanding more of the same.
It looks like the Founding Fathers were right - they saw these haters coming a mile away, and wrote a Constitution that flatly bans them from making any such law. And they were equally right in predicting that, once govt was allowed to make "just a few common-sense restrictions", they would go on to make more and more, without end.
Now the haters are demanding law after law, despite of literally centuries of history that shows their anti-gun laws have never worked. The OP is right in announcing that it's too late for gun control... but perhaps in a way he didn't think of. By demonstrating so effectively that their "gun control" does nothing but restrict the law-abiding, they have proven to the world that they are lying when they say they are doing it "to make everyone safer". In fact they are making us LESS safe... and it is impossible that they haven't noticed that.
We can only conclude that the people still demanding more "gun control" laws, are doing it for a more nefarious purpose. After decades of proving their piecemeal laws don't work, they must be trying now to (gradually) eliminate ALL guns... and exposing the populace to uncontrolled assaults, rapes, and even murders by criminals, slaveowners... and by governments, as has happened time and again throughout history.
Sure, they throw up their hands in feigned horror, and protest that "nobody is trying to take away ALL your guns!", usually accompanied by insults and namecalling. But what else could they possibly be intending? They have seen as well as everyone else, that their laws don't work. Yet they keep demanding more. They are running out of plausible reasons for their demands... and that leaves only a few ominous reasons as their real goals.
Controlling guns is exactly what the goal is for the anti-gun crowd. This isn't about stopping firearms deaths because if it was the focus would be on handguns, which account for the largest portion of firearms crime in America. This whole movement to limit ownership of so-called "assault rifles" is a litmus test to see if it can be done. If it works, we'll be looking at some other type of firearm as the target in a few years or less. And if that works, we'll be arguing over another type of firearm after that.
It is about controlling the law abiding public in an absolute way. It makes us even more dependent on government.
Assigning sides? Open your eyes dude, look around, grow up, and realize which "side" automatically labels anyone who tries to talk about preventing these massacres from happening as "liberal gun grabbers". I own a number of guns, from shotguns to rifles to a handgun. And yet some fool just a few posts ago insists I am a liberal trying to slowly but completely disarm him because I think we should look harder at dealing with ONE specific type of gun. I don't need lectures on assigning sides,I get assigned a side by the nutters for simply not supporting their right to own a 100 AR15 clones.
The one "specific type of gun" your referring to is hardly ever used in gun violence, The rare occasion it is used is sensationalized by the media.
Handguns account for the vast majority of gun violence in this country.
One way to curb that violence would be to do away with Plea bargains and have harsh mandatory sentences for all gun crimes, No more bleeding heart liberal judges giving out time served sentences to gang bangers, or fat lazy DA's letting future murders walk away with with a misdemeanor for stealing a law abiding citizens gun.
So what do you say? do you really want to bring down gun violence? or do you only really want to do away with those scary black rifles.
RR
P.S. The fact that you refer to it as a AR15 clone shows that you have no knowledge of the weapon, The AR15 is an AR15, in fact the AR was first built as a civilian weapon and was adopted by the military with the addition of a full auto ability, So I guess technically the military is using an AR15 clone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
