Gun control debate (merged)

[NCFisher]

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

Then stop hiding behind 'gun control' and speak like the damned prohibitionist you are.

Well, no, people who actually study this are termed criminologists. I've been reading those studies for three decades; and you? They disagree with your simplistic notion and in a nutshell state that such bans result in a vast pool of illegal guns from non-compliance and black market guns already in circulation. And there's that pesky constitutional convention thing needing 2/3rds of states to ratify. Or you think gestapo should just declare them banned and finish the police state ascension?

Your childishly simplistic recipe would mean alcohol, non-medicinal drugs would have been eliminated, as would rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and a host of lesser crimes. One-quarter- one-third of murders annually don't involve a gun of any type. You do understand that MURDER is banned, don't you?

How many defensive gun uses occur annually and why do you not value those lives?
Because you never considered them, zealot.

 

[jp1]

Then stop hiding behind 'gun control' and speak like the damned prohibitionist you are.

Well, no, people who actually study this are termed criminologists. I've been reading those studies for three decades; and you? They disagree with your simplistic notion and in a nutshell state that such bans result in a vast pool of illegal guns from non-compliance and black market guns already in circulation. And there's that pesky constitutional convention thing needing 2/3rds of states to ratify. Or you think gestapo should just declare them banned and finish the police state ascension?

Your childishly simplistic recipe would mean alcohol, non-medicinal drugs would have been eliminated, as would rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and a host of lesser crimes. One-third of murders annually don't involve a gun of any type. You do understand that MURDER is banned, don't you?

How many defensive gun uses occur annually and why do you not value those lives?
Because you never considered them, zealot.

But.....all pocket knives are banned in Japan! Pocket knife related crime is virtually non-existant in Japan.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Your link doesn’t back up your clownish post.

Typical.

 

[Vol8188]

We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day; we know they are dangerous weapons and they should be banned--as they were banned for a decade, with good results.

There is no end to the excuses that the gun nuts come up with to pretend that guns aren't a problem, when of course they are; when the U.S. has far more guns than any other nationa--and, duh, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more gun violence.

Interesting. If AR 15s (which is just one of many rifles you can purchase) are used to murder multiple people everyday, how many per year do you think are murdered by ARs?

You realize we are well below the world average for homicides right? So your last claim is 100% false. Numerous countries have more gun violence than the US. The country to our southern border being a prime example.

 

[LouderVol]

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

lol. they just had an ex-president shot by a home made gun. Japan can't even keep its politicians safe with no real guns to speak of, you really think their people are safe?

the issue with your hyperbole about safety is there are two types of safety. 1. the absence of danger. there are still plenty of dangers sans guns, so removing the guns doesn't remove the danger. the second type of safety is being prepared for danger when it happens. your entire argument to make us more safe via #1 strategy makes us more vulnerable. so that when the bad stuff happens, we can't/don't stop it. and it ends up worse than if we were prepared.

look at the mall shooting stopped by a civilian armed with a gun. you would argue the people in the mall would have been safer if he hadn't been armed. any thinking rationally knows that more people would have been shot had he not been there. there was also the potential church shooting in texas that was stopped before it began. in both cases people were safer because there were good guys with guns. there are just as many cases of the good guys stopping people, you just don't hear about it because no one reports it. meanwhile the news blows up every story they can so that you think there is a new/worse problem than there is.

lets say guns were banned tomorrow. government somehow magically collects all the law-abiding gun owner's guns, no more sales or anything. How long until the bad guys run out of guns? Especially when our government provides them with the guns that kill us. Fast and Furious gun operation: Last of 7 charged in border agent death 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? What happens during the mean time? more innocent deaths as they can't defend themselves. your "if it saves one life" nonsense falls apart pretty quickly when it becomes a one sided (civilian) loss of life.

If our government can't stop people from crossing our border, how are the going to stop bad guys from crossing the border with guns? If hanging a "Gun Free Zone" sign on a school doesn't stop a shooter, how is doing the same thing for the country going to stop a shooter?

and this doesn't even get into what the government will do to us when we are disarmed. trail of tears, japanese internment, Kent State, Tuskegee. these are just the things we know about. and these are what they are willing to do with a population that can potentially stand up to them. how much worse does it get when we are disarmed? I shudder at what they would do with another bs covid lockdown if we weren't armed.

Everyone argues that the potential damage of an armed civilian population. But no one considers the potential damage of a disarmed civilian population. Probably the most extreme case of be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[VOLS INC.]

lol. they just had an ex-president shot by a home made gun. Japan can't even keep its politicians safe with no real guns to speak of, you really think their people are safe?

the issue with your hyperbole about safety is there are two types of safety. 1. the absence of danger. there are still plenty of dangers sans guns, so removing the guns doesn't remove the danger. the second type of safety is being prepared for danger when it happens. your entire argument to make us more safe via #1 strategy makes us more vulnerable. so that when the bad stuff happens, we can't/don't stop it. and it ends up worse than if we were prepared.

look at the mall shooting stopped by a civilian armed with a gun. you would argue the people in the mall would have been safer if he hadn't been armed. any thinking rationally knows that more people would have been shot had he not been there. there was also the potential church shooting in texas that was stopped before it began. in both cases people were safer because there were good guys with guns. there are just as many cases of the good guys stopping people, you just don't hear about it because no one reports it. meanwhile the news blows up every story they can so that you think there is a new/worse problem than there is.

lets say guns were banned tomorrow. government somehow magically collects all the law-abiding gun owner's guns, no more sales or anything. How long until the bad guys run out of guns? Especially when our government provides them with the guns that kill us. Fast and Furious gun operation: Last of 7 charged in border agent death 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? What happens during the mean time? more innocent deaths as they can't defend themselves. your "if it saves one life" nonsense falls apart pretty quickly when it becomes a one sided (civilian) loss of life.

If our government can't stop people from crossing our border, how are the going to stop bad guys from crossing the border with guns? If hanging a "Gun Free Zone" sign on a school doesn't stop a shooter, how is doing the same thing for the country going to stop a shooter?

and this doesn't even get into what the government will do to us when we are disarmed. trail of tears, japanese internment, Kent State, Tuskegee. these are just the things we know about. and these are what they are willing to do with a population that can potentially stand up to them. how much worse does it get when we are disarmed? I shudder at what they would do with another bs covid lockdown if we weren't armed.

Everyone argues that the potential damage of an armed civilian population. But no one considers the potential damage of a disarmed civilian population. Probably the most extreme case of be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

Yep. The formula for a safe society is ensuring only the Govt has access to firearms. Everyone knows that.

 

[GroverCleveland]

First, every time you say 'gun nut' your argument loses credibility. Second, what do you mean by 'illegal resell'? I can sell any gun to a private citizen here in Florida and there is no paperwork and no one has to be informed. So how could I make that 'illegal'?

Don’t know about Florida, but most states do have laws about private sales. For example, pretty Ga and Tn it is illegal to sell a gun to someone you know is disqualified from owning one for some reason. Not arguing the efficacy of such laws, but there are some…

 

[jp1]

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

Japan also has lower non-medicinal drug use as compared to the US. Maybe we can ban illegal drugs here too and get the same results they do.

 

[Vol8188]

The best part of gun control debates is the left’s inability to understand the English language. For example:

Because public debate is of great importance, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.

No one could actually read that as “you should only get to speak freely when engaging in public debate”.

 

[85SugarVol]

. We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[C-south]

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

You seem like the type of person who would commit a mass shooting.

 

[C-south]

But.....all pocket knives are banned in Japan! Pocket knife related crime is virtually non-existant in Japan.

Swords are less concealable therefore less dangerous.

 

[LouderVol]

Delay on the trigger mechanism? So you are suggesting a firearm that doesn't necessarily fire when you pull the trigger?

yeah, this is why the people who know nothing about guns really shouldn't be making any rules or regulations.

Apparently the Alex Baldwin shooting is something they want more of with this suggestion.

and for our new gun grabber buddy, you don't have to be an expert. You just nee a basic functioning understanding of guns and how they actually work. And that means a better understanding than the very hypocritical media and politicians will give you.

 

[jp1]

yeah, this is why the people who know nothing about guns really shouldn't be making any rules or regulations.

Apparently the Alex Baldwin shooting is something they want more of with this suggestion.

and for our new gun grabber buddy, you don't have to be an expert. You just nee a basic functioning understanding of guns and how they actually work. And that means a better understanding than the very hypocritical media and politicians will give you.

We all have dumb ideas at times I guess, but that one might be an award winner.

 

[luthervol]

Lmfao thus your absurd claim last month that they can shoot 800 rounds per minute.

So you’ve been arguing about something without understanding it for 5 years now minimum?

Again, you're a little slow on the uptake.
I did not believe ARs were the same as automatics when I posted the 800 rounds per minute.
I believe it was during that debate 5 and a half years ago that I learned that most AR's were not fully automatic.
So, you are way off the mark once again. But at least you got to temporarily Lyfao because of your misunderstanding.

You're not big on context clues.

 

[C-south]

Again, you're a little slow on the uptake.
I did not believe ARs were the same as automatics when I posted the 800 rounds per minute.
I believe it was during that debate 5 and a half years ago that I learned that most AR's were not fully automatic.
So, you are way off the mark once again. But at least you got to temporarily Lyfao because of your misunderstanding.


You was ignorant then and you are now.
You're not big on context clues.

 

[luthervol]

The gun crowd always wants to test the gun knowledge of people who want much tighter gun control. We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day; we know they are dangerous weapons and they should be banned--as they were banned for a decade, with good results. Period. We have a country in which it is disgracefully easy to buy guns of all types, and we have a country full of unstable people--and thus we have a country with a disgraceful gun-violence problem--a problem that's become so bad that we are all at risk of being shot and killed while in school or at a super market or mall, or at the office, or at home by your angry ex-spouse, to name a few examples. We don't need to hear any more claptrap about "responsible gun owners," as that is nonsense. Everyone is responsible until they're not--and it doesn't take much to cross over the line. There is no end to the excuses that the gun nuts come up with to pretend that guns aren't a problem, when of course they are; when the U.S. has far more guns than any other nationa--and, duh, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more gun violence. The upshot is that we've got a lot of people who value their gun fetishes more than they do the safety of the American public.

They've proven over and over that there is no correlation between knowledge and wisdom.
Many actually show a negative correlation.

 

[luthervol]

Delay on the trigger mechanism? So you are suggesting a firearm that doesn't necessarily fire when you pull the trigger?

Maybe triggers that can only be pulled once every 5 seconds. Or maybe once every 3 seconds - negotiable - room for compromise.

 

[hog88]

Maybe a triggers that can only be pulled once every 5 seconds. Or maybe once every 3 seconds - negotiable - room for compromise.

No, there is no room for compromise or negotiation. You don't negotiate with children or fools.

 

[C-south]

They've proven over and over that there is no correlation between knowledge and wisdom.
Many actually show a negative correlation.

You wouldn’t know about either.

 

[luthervol]

First, every time you say 'gun nut' your argument loses credibility. Second, what do you mean by 'illegal resell'? I can sell any gun to a private citizen here in Florida and there is no paperwork and no one has to be informed. So how could I make that 'illegal'?

So if I didn't use the term "gun nut" my arguments would be viewed as credible?

Sure, I believe that. Gun nuts aren't going to give my arguments any consideration rather I call them gun nuts or not.

And using the term gun nuts is one of the only enjoyable parts of posting in this thread.

 

[luthervol]

No, there is no room for compromise or negotiation. You don't negotiate with children or fools.

The gun control crowd is still willing to negotiate with children and fools.
You have it a little backwards..........It's the children and fools that are refusing to negotiate.

 

[jp1]

Maybe triggers that can only be pulled once every 5 seconds. Or maybe once every 3 seconds - negotiable - room for compromise.

I think we should make it random. That way it's a surprise when it fires.

Can you really not see the problem with this? You can't be serious.

 

[luthervol]

You wouldn’t know about either.

.........Speaking of negative correlation..........

 

[luthervol]

I think we should make it random. That way it's a surprise when it fires.

Can you really not see the problem with this? You can't be serious.

I don't see a problem at all. I see a solution.
Again there is plenty of room for compromise and negotiation. (Once the children and fools are ready)