|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the congressman had been running the bases with an M-16, a Colt 1911 and an RPG, he would still have been shot because he never saw his assailant. So yes, vacuous it is. It's dumb to equate "defending yourself with a gun" with "never getting shot".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm saying that if you get shot, you get shot. Having a gun won't prevent that. Sure, but being shot doesn't mean that you cannot defend yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Which doesn't mean that you cannot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Trying to make absolute statements to the contrary just makes you an extremist. Well, he is a Canadian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The congressman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you get shot, it's just dumb luck if you survive. Over 100 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend but only 15 of them died.Chicago police express frustration after more than 100 shot in violent Fourth of July weekend — Chicago Tribune What are you basing your odds on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"I'm not talking about odds, I'm talking about luck"
Still, a >85% chance isn't all that lucky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Democrats in the US tend to cite law situations where enforcement cannot effectively find and track a shooting criminals because of the suppressor which lowers noise levels and the muzzle flash. Secondary arguments are that the suppressors are just one more gimmick to help gun manufacturers sell military weapons to the public. In other places, the primary objection seems to be that they are the tools of poachers. I would love to be able to legally use a suppressor at the range - but I don't because its illegal. If you're poaching, then breaking another law may not bother you, I dunno. But I recalled an anecdote when I read your post: I friend of mine from Texas had problems with wild hogs on his property. He was telling me about how suppressors were legal and they needed them to get rid of the hogs - they come in packs and it helps to get more than just one of them when they don't scatter as bad because the noise of the gunshots is a little quieter. I can see how it'd help with hunting. There's legitimate uses for suppressors and I think it sucks that I can't have one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That is just a plain silly argument. You are saying why have laws, people will just break them. You misunderstood. That was in response to the statement of them being tools of poachers. I get why that's the case and I'm not saying why have laws.
That is not hunting. That is pest control. Sure, there's an unstated "also" in front of that last sentence. It is a separate statement not to imply that pest control is defined as hunting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why would you want to use one at the shooting range when you can use perfectly good headphones? WHAT!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then consider "common sense measures" to be US "code words" for doing background checks on all gun sales, not giving guns to folks who have mental illnesses that dispose them towards violence or who have already committed acts of domestic abuse. With the exception of private gun sales, aren't those laws already on the books?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
With the exception of private gun sales, aren't those laws already on the books? 1. That is a pretty huge exception. Really? How huge is it?
2. No, those laws are not all on the books at the federal level. Oh, yeah fuck that.
3. Those are just examples. Are the "common sense" gun control measures only at the federal level? What are they, explicitly? What would the legislation look like? What are the top five common sense gun control measures that will have the biggest impact on the goals that are trying to be achieved?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's further complicated in the United States in that the 2nd Amendment provides the right to own firearms. I gotta pick this nit: the 2nd does NOT provide the right. It prevents the right from being infringed.
there are some very simple common sense measures that most Americans support, such as closing the gun show loophole How many of these mass murderers got their guns through a gun show "loophole"? How many of the guns used in homicides were got at a gun show? I don't think its much, and I don't see how that's gonna help much. And if I have to do a background check on my brother before I give him a shotgun for Christmas, then count me out.
In my opinion, the biggest issue in the USA is the mindset. It's the gun culture. Meh, I'm not so sure. I don't think the "gun culture" is causing these mass murders - there are a lot fucked up men with serious issues that aren't being addressed. The gun culture, in my opinion, is what is causing the bulk of the (non-suicide) gun deaths - its mostly young men killing acquaintances in the inner cities. Young men are going to fight each other, and it's the glorification of guns that is causing them to shoot each other.
But the big difference in my opinion is how people view their guns. In the USA, people seem to have an almost bizarre fixation on their gun. I mean, they are entertaining \_(ツ)_/
The other facet is the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mindset. That sounds like a lack of training. Everyone who owns a gun should take a concealed carry class.
And finally, the USA also has this notion that it needs an armed populace in order to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over. This to me is the most nonsensical, anachronistic nonsense I can fathom. The guns available to the general population, even when accounting for assault weapons, are absolutely nothing compared to the firepower available to the US Military. Sure, but I look at it differently. It's not that the civilians would win an all out firefight. It's that the prevalence of guns in the civilians hands prevents the initiation of the firefight. It would be too costly. Remove the guns, remove the cost, and then it is an option on the table.
But when the tanks roll in and the Apache gunship has you in its sight, adios. The government has a vested interest in the citizens being alive. They only "win" if we can't defend ourselves. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You say this despite having expressed the opinion that there are no natural rights and that your actual rights are not inalienable. So we know that this particular nitpicking is just an argument of convenience for you. Piss off, there are natural rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Try any Supreme Court decision that interprets "a well regulated milita" as "every hillbilly with a trigger-finger". But the 2nd doesn't say that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024