Ok lets talk guns.

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Dude, Jul 12, 2016.

  1. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,422
    Likes Received:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    Yeah he can’t just admit that his desire to play with guns is more important than someone else’s child’s Life.

    I can’t believe I’m at this point, but I’m just going to type this, I don’t want anymore children (or adults) to die from these killing machines, but if some have to die for the gun lovers, may it be their loved ones.
     
  2. Folster

    Folster The system doesn't work.

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    7,182
    Likes Received:
    966
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Classy.
     
  3. Chaplin

    Chaplin Better off silent

    Age:
    44
    Posts:
    30,775
    Likes Received:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Not nearly as "classy" as shrugging off the deaths of 6-year-olds. Now THAT's classy.
     
  4. cwamjn

    cwamjn Registered

    Posts:
    348
    Likes Received:
    222
    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    : walls in and out:

    This is not a thread to talk about pistols.
     
    LVG likes this.
  5. Western Font

    Western Font Registered

    Age:
    43
    Posts:
    569
    Likes Received:
    355
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Location:
    via Arizona
    Rhetorical arguments don't convince anyone who doesn't already want the thing for its own sake. A gun is a weapon: its relevant comparisons are intended weapons, most of which are more strictly regulated. The measure is public safety, and there is no data to suggest the public is safer with guns than without.

    The arguments for guns are: 1) individual freedom over public safety, for which people change their tune based on subject and their individual preferences (those rhetorical arguments cut both ways there), and 2) defense against a hostile government, for which the second amendment exists. That's the thing that should be measured: risk to public safety vs. a defense against the government that is less effective than the 3.5% popular civil disobedience rule.
     
    Kel Varnsen likes this.
  6. Folster

    Folster The system doesn't work.

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    7,182
    Likes Received:
    966
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Classic liberal argument. If you don't agree with me you don't care about x. Zero facts just emotional BS.

    Regardless of how anti-gun some of you are. The bottom line is that we have well over 300 million guns in the US. 5-10 million of those are AR style rifles. You can't un-ring that bell. No amount of buybacks, confiscations, or legislation is going to change this reality.

    You'll get less than 10% participation in "mandatory buybacks". We're seeing this in liberal states right now. Even if you could round up every single one, you'd sacrifice far more lives in doing so. All that effort and the sick and demented people who want to shoot up a school will just as easily use pistols.

    I swear some of you must live in some liberal bubble and don't understand half of the country. Do any of you have veteran Marine, Army or current law enforcement friends? None of those people are going to hand over their firearms.
     
  7. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,422
    Likes Received:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    You’re willing to bear the risk. Why shouldn’t you bear the consequence?
     
    ozzfloyd likes this.
  8. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,422
    Likes Received:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    Also, I think it’s the only thing that will change minds like yours. Unfortunately.
     
  9. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,422
    Likes Received:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    I do. And interestingly enough they are the ones MOST supportive of ridding civilian life of these killing machines because they understand the damage they do best.
     
  10. Folster

    Folster The system doesn't work.

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    7,182
    Likes Received:
    966
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    In 2017, rifles accounted for 4% of the 10,982 gun murders and non-negligent homicides in the US. That's 439 people in 2017. Handguns accounted for 7028.

    On average there are about 3500 drownings annually. 40K die in car accidents every year. You are 8 times as likely to die from drowning than you are from a rifle and 91 times more likely to die in car crash.

    Even if you confiscate every rifle, you're not necessarily saving those 439 lives. Most would likely have been killed with another weapon.

    If you really wanted to save lives, you'd support a complete ban on all firearms and demand a mandatory confiscation of every single one. That's what you want, but you won't come out and say it. So you'll just go after the scary AR15, then you'll come for handguns. And after all the guns, you'll try to regulate knives like the UK.
     
  11. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,656
    Likes Received:
    3,276
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    upload_2019-9-21_20-9-49.jpeg
     
    Town Drunk and cwamjn like this.
  12. Chaplin

    Chaplin Better off silent

    Age:
    44
    Posts:
    30,775
    Likes Received:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    This all or nothing argument is beyond idiotic. I personally think seizing arms from private citizens is a virtual impossibility. But your whole argument lies in simply being against that. This is a gray area and you are strictly standing in the black area without even considering the white side.

    Instead, you spit a bunch of statistical nonsense. I’m sure that argument works wonders for Sandy Hook parents.
     
    Ouchie-Z-Clown likes this.
  13. Folster

    Folster The system doesn't work.

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    7,182
    Likes Received:
    966
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    The Sandy Hook shooter had pistols too. That human piece of garbage would have murdered those kids any way he could have.
     
  14. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,422
    Likes Received:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    If it saves innocent kids from psychos trying to kill them, even one, then yes. Sorry you wouldn’t be able to run around shooting at stuff. It’s that simple to me. You can stop throwing numbers around, at least in regards to me. One person being purposefully killed by another is more than is necessary in my world.
     
    ozzfloyd likes this.
  15. Chaplin

    Chaplin Better off silent

    Age:
    44
    Posts:
    30,775
    Likes Received:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    This argument is still old after all these years. Nobody is saying adding stricter background checks is going to eliminate crime. That is a false narrative that right-wingers love to put out there. But like Ouchie says, if stricter regulations saves just one innocent life, JUST ONE, then it's worth it.
     

Share This Page