Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Using a current example to support one's position is not exploiting an issue.

And I suppose we should condemn Muslims whom defend their faith so quickly after 9/11 or any bombing?
Or we should belittle video gamers after a tragedy occurs and the media blames games?

They defend their case because the media misrepresents them and is swift to blame a tragedy on something, rather than do the right thing and condemn the person that committed the tragedy as a unique case.

I agree. We should use swords, axes, knives, spears, poison and fire instead.

ruveyn

I've really busted my ass trying to reason with those types, but I'm done with that. They obviously think they're too good to hear anything some primitive knuckle dragging pro-gun radical says while they enlighten us on how to be civilized and sophisticated with their trashy conduct. They provoke violence with it, no wonder they're so scared of guns!

It always infuriates me how people use tragedies like this to push their political agendas......Notably gun control(or a ban on "assault weapons"). A few years ago there was a gun massacre in England with at least 12 victims using an illegally obtained firearm to which British law prohibits civilian ownership!

People like that shouldnt be around guns that is just my opinion on it though, if your so afraid of guns then dont use them plain and simple, no need to blame a small amount of peoples irresponsible acts on all gun users.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsB1qRBVAlI[/youtube]

So you've formed an opinion on an entire group based on the limited experience of interacting with people you've never met in real life. What a great way to come to a conclusion.

I still can't believe someone actually used the term "assault weapons" or called an AR-15 an AR-17. If you hardly have any knowledge of guns, stay in your lane. I don't care how intellectual you think you are with your lofty ideals, if you lack the most rudimentary knowledge of guns while you already have your mind made up on the issue, you are ignorant period. But I guess people are so self-absorbed that they'd rather keep their axes nice and sharp than actually have some respect for the tragedy.

You know what an "assault weapon" is? A BS term the left-wing media (or some politician that made it catch on?) made up so that they can define it however they fit. That's right, it's not a technical term for firearms at all. This is a convenient way to distort statistics and manipulate language with a broad and inclusive term. It generally means a rifle with scary looking features like a pistol grip or a barrel shroud (God forbid that no one wants to get their hands burnt from firing a gun ) but I've also seen some hardcore conflations.

It pretty much goes without saying that psychos shouldn't have guns. I wish it was just as obvious that owning a gun doesn't make you inherently psycho or primitive. It would also be great if being "civilized" or "sophisticated" were defined by the things you actually do to earn the label rather than by the things you think you're too good for.

That's like saying that people shouldn't be allowed to talk about how to fix a machine just after it catches on fire.

Last edited by Declension on 23 Jul 2012, 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's more like fighting fire with fire as the machine is burning. That's when it gets to the point where it's no longer about the machine itself anymore.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 23 Jul 2012, 10:27 am, edited 3 times in total.

Are you Scottish by chance? Its where scientist go to compare to medieval wounds.

I think there is close to zero chance that anything will change as a result of this. It will require a different political climate or series of events.

They'll look at:
Magazine size restrictions
Body armor regulations of some sort.
Ammunition regulation of some sort.

And none of it will pass anywhere. Maybe one item in one state somewhere. Body armor regulation is the most likely as it seems intended to counter-law enforcement. Which is why armor piercing rounds have various state and federal regulations against them. Long term, I think extended magazines will be restricted again at some point.

And why should it? Has gun control ever been enacted in response to rising crime rates? Nope, it's always because of rare tragic events like these. Small sample sizes and anecdotal evidence trump critical thinking. Ignorance trumps and fear chumps. Not that I'm perfect when it comes to anecdotes influencing me since I'm just another flawed human being, but this fact is exactly why it's a bad idea to base policies on outliers.

The automatic weapons regulation of the 1930s came as a result of gangster's using tommy guns. Obviously there was a rise in violent crime associated with Prohibition and it was a response to the tactics that had developed. Even though it didnt pass until a year after repeal I'm glad that we don't have mass shootings with machine guns today.

Crime was also rising in the 1960s when the 1968 act passed but it was primarly passed due to high profile assassinations. Presumably you agree that it was a good idea to deter felons and the insane from aquiring guns, which is one of the things the act did. Sounds good to me. It took more regulation to make the checks mandatory not not just based what someone claimed as their status. So in 1993 we got that. Also good.

Are you pro crazy people running around with machine guns? I doubt it.

Balance would be to allow only certain firearms for purchase or recreational use. If that is permitted, then fine.
But what if they do what they did after Hurricane Katrina?

We don't? Where have you been?

And gangsters using tommy guns sounds a lot like a crime trend rather than a rare occurrence like a random shooting in a theatre.

What does any of this have to do with my point?