kevbone Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. Which part dont you agree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 But it's the 'random violence' fear, mostly a myth, that keeps the paranoids packin'. Isn't that the same reason all you hoplophobes claim we need to restrict guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. Which part dont you agree with? If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. Do you really think people will just hand over all of their firearms? Really? It will come to a fight. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. See above There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. BINGO So which part don’t you agree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) WHICH PART???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Edited January 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 But it's the 'random violence' fear, mostly a myth, that keeps the paranoids packin'. Isn't that the same reason all you hoplophobes claim we need to restrict guns? Yes, it's true. More emphasis should be placed on the effort to keep handguns out of the hands of the "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. Thanks Yellowlabia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I didn't think that gangbangers were considered "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. Or are you talking about the suicides? I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One policy reduces the shocking level of violence we have - whether inflicted on strangers, those familiar, or oneself, and one increases it. Hmmmm. Same Same. So...I'm gonna take a stab at understanding this. The actual problem shrinks because fear is lopsidedly misapplied to the less likely scenario. What, all the domestic violence, suicides, accidents, so incredibly much higger than most other first world countries, suddenly is no longer a problem that can be mitigate? That's some fucked up logic right there, boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 WHICH PART???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Thats right. Which part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I didn't think that gangbangers were considered "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. Or are you talking about the suicides? I'm confused. Suicides, accidents, domestic violence, first time violent offenders, etc. Everyone is a "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding American" until they decide to or accidentally bust a cap in somebody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One policy reduces the shocking level of violence we have - whether inflicted on strangers, those familiar, or oneself, and one increases it. Hmmmm. Same Same. So...I'm gonna take a stab at understanding this. The actual problem shrinks because fear is lopsidedly misapplied to the less likely scenario. What, all the domestic violence, suicides, accidents, so incredibly much higger than most other first world countries, suddenly is no longer a problem that can be mitigate? That's some fucked up logic right there, boy. Well, seems that since the AWB sunsetted in 2004 crime has been going down... Not to mention that most states have relaxed gun laws, switched to Shall Issue for CCW, and the Supreme court has struck down a few draconian gun laws (DC's ban on hand guns). The FACTS point towards you guys as being wrong. I can post the FBI crime FACTS again if you would like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I didn't think that gangbangers were considered "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. Or are you talking about the suicides? I'm confused. Suicides, accidents, domestic violence, first time violent offenders, etc. Everyone is a "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding American" until they decide to or accidentally bust a cap in somebody. Yes, because people won't do any of that shit if guns are banned and magicaly whisked off the planet. Are you serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 They'll do them less, not never, and it will be less lethal. It's called harm mitigation, not complete elimination. Just because you can't extinguish a harmful behavior doesn't mean you have to accept ultra high levels of it compared to other similar societies. Banning semi automatic weapons (I include pistols in my proposal - they are the chief culprit) would reduce the lethality of mass shooters and gang bangers. Eventually existing stocks would age out. It would also vastly reduce the overall number of weapons out there, which would proportionately reduce the amount they're used against other people, accidental or not. Better backround checks and weapons data tracking, similar to what we already to on cars (and there don't seem to be too many civil liberties concerns there save license plate cams that track people in and out of gated communities) would also do a fair bit. Requiring licensed dealers to actually have real stores that can't dissappear overnight would help. Public education - situation awareness, gun safety, educating the public about the real statistical dangers of gun ownership so they can make more informed decisions about bringing such lethality into the home - and therefore choose non-lethal, more effective home protection, like a dog, would be good. None of those policy areas are addressed as seriously as they should be. I mean, if 20 dead kindergartners doesn't do it for ya... Comprehensive policy for a comprehensive problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One policy reduces the shocking level of violence we have - whether inflicted on strangers, those familiar, or oneself, and one increases it. Hmmmm. Same Same. So...I'm gonna take a stab at understanding this. The actual problem shrinks because fear is lopsidedly misapplied to the less likely scenario. What, all the domestic violence, suicides, accidents, so incredibly much higger than most other first world countries, suddenly is no longer a problem that can be mitigate? That's some fucked up logic right there, boy. Well, seems that since the AWB sunsetted in 2004 crime has been going down... Not to mention that most states have relaxed gun laws, switched to Shall Issue for CCW, and the Supreme court has struck down a few draconian gun laws (DC's ban on hand guns). The FACTS point towards you guys as being wrong. I can post the FBI crime FACTS again if you would like? Already countered that bullshit causality argument. It hasn't gotten any more valid since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I didn't think that gangbangers were considered "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. Or are you talking about the suicides? I'm confused. Suicides, accidents, domestic violence, first time violent offenders, etc. Everyone is a "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding American" until they decide to or accidentally bust a cap in somebody. Yes, because people won't do any of that shit if guns are banned and magicaly whisked off the planet. Are you serious? Be sure not to compare US gun/gun death statistics to any other civilized country with outright gun bans, I know how it pains you. But hey, let's keep selling ourselves short, saying "hey, but this is America", keep lowering our expectations on every single social indicator out there, and keep turning ourselves into the national equivalent of the the token retard. "Whhaaa, we can't!!!" Gotta love a conservative philosophy that emphasizes a pull yourself up approach out of one side of its mouth and a cringing infantile paralysis out of the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Holy shit you guys take your spin classes from O'Reilly? Dude I posted up the fucking FBI crime stats, not some op-ed piece from the Brady campaign. The hard data is there and it doesn't support any of the shit you guys are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The hole is getting deeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yes, it's true. More emphasis should be placed on the effort to keep handguns out of the hands of the "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. I don't doubt this to be true, but I have to admit I'd be pissed if I was a "responsible, law-abiding" gun enthusiast and the government outlawed guns I owned. It would be like the government taking my skis or telling me I couldn't ski in a certain area because of all of the recent avalanche deaths. That said, I see no downside to a policy, similar to the one Tvash outlined, that makes guns harder to get and easier to track and regulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 That said, I see no downside to a policy, similar to the one Tvash outlined, that makes guns harder to get and easier to track and regulate. BUT I HAVE FBI DATA!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The hole is getting deeper. Your Mom's? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yes, it's true. More emphasis should be placed on the effort to keep handguns out of the hands of the "responsible, ordinary, law-abiding Americans" among whom most of the deaths from gun violence are taking place. I don't doubt this to be true, but I have to admit I'd be pissed if I was a "responsible, law-abiding" gun enthusiast and the government outlawed guns I owned. It would be like the government taking my skis or telling me I couldn't ski in a certain area because of all of the recent avalanche deaths. That said, I see no downside to a policy, similar to the one Tvash outlined, that makes guns harder to get and easier to track and regulate. I'm not sure what your freedom to fall into a heuristic trap while recreating has to do with your right to walk out of a Walmart and into a Wendy's to kill a dozen or so people have to do with each other, but it sure sounded good. The fact that you'd be pissed is a real bummer, but it may be that America is waking up to the fact that living in a civilized society means you can't always "have it your way". Just because a person can put their pants on in the morning and not commit any crimes doesn't mean they should have the right to own a gun. Statistics on gun deaths involving "responsible, ordinary Americans" bears this out. The right to own a gun doesn't trump my right NOT to have to live in a more militant, surveilled, securitized, restricted world with more government intervention in my life in order to accomodate a heavily armed society. It doesn't trump my right to NOT own a gun because I have to defend myself against other gun owners. But yes, harder to get, regulate, and track for everyone, for every gun. Limits on stockpiling. Tax the livelihood out of gun dealers. Gun registry, annual renewal, etc., etc. etc... Basically, until it isn't any more fun to have one or profitable to legally sell one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Once again, when only outlaws have guns, they're much easier to track down and disarm. You know who has guns in Japan? The Yakuza. You know who has to fear gun violence there? Other Yakuza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Its comical how you dehumanize and villafy anyone on the other side of your extreme position; then attempt to discredit the moderates who seek to find common ground. Like a sad liberal internet version of Karl Rove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 That said, I see no downside to a policy, similar to the one Tvash outlined, that makes guns harder to get and easier to track and regulate. BUT I HAVE FBI DATA!!!! Do you have better more accurate data? Other than, "But dey is soooo scaryz!!" "It works in Franz and Denmarks!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.