Gun control debate (merged)

#7,877
#7,877
37L1 said:
You are definitely assuming the position to be a coward.
Click to expand...
I think that calling him a coward might be a bit harsh. None of us really know if we would run toward the sound of gunfire or away from it until we are actually confronted with the situation. I would hope that if I was carrying and there was an active shooter situation that I would take action, but I don't know. But he would definitely not be in a position to help the situation, I'll give you that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,878
#7,878
hog88 said:
Why not? It would help in the prevention of drunk driving and save lives. If you're all for placing burdens on law abiding citizens in the hope it would reduce homicides by gun why wouldn't you support interlock devices?
Click to expand...
The first DUI should be a month in the can. After that, it should be serious jail time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Vol
#7,879
#7,879
Grand Vol said:
Which has what to do with responding to the one upmanship of his comments? I have him on ignore, but I can imagine his posts are getting even more stupid every time one of you replies.

The last four or five pages had been replies to him. And I'd be willing to bet every time someone made a decent post, he came back with something even more absurd than the last post he made. I thought @Septic was the best at suckering people in. Nope.

Learn to let it go. You aren't going to "school" him or win an argument with a troll.
Click to expand...

I've put in a little effort of late to at least have him put the bumpers up on his bowling lane so he isn't throwing gutter balls with meaningless observation. (What about nukes and sarin gas?) I doubt I'll bother moving forward.
 
#7,880
#7,880
luthervol said:
I'm in no way banning sober drivers. I'm supporting laws that reduce the number of people driving drunk.
What I am supporting will most definitely reduce the number of bad guys with guns. Where do you think bad guys get there guns?
I don't feel that any of my proposals puts an undue burden or restriction on any law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

Oh. so you actually eliminate drunk drivers by banning sober drivers. Just reduce them and it'll be fine. Maybe should close all the liquor stores too. Wait then we'd have a surge in black market alcohol.

I know. We can have AOC introduce a Bill to require shell casing manufacturers to pay reparations for all gun related deaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#7,884
#7,884
hog88 said:
Why not? It would help in the prevention of drunk driving and save lives. If you're all for placing burdens on law abiding citizens in the hope it would reduce homicides by gun why wouldn't you support interlock devices?
Click to expand...
There are endless measures that could be taken that would prevent crime and save lives that pass neither the rational and reasonable test nor the cost/benefit test.
There are many changes to gun regulation that pass both tests with flying colors.
 
#7,886
#7,886
luthervol said:
There are endless measures that could be taken that would prevent crime and save lives that pass neither the rational and reasonable test nor the cost/benefit test.
There are many changes to gun regulation that pass both tests with flying colors.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are just being a hypocrite. Nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, tennvols77, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#7,888
#7,888
Grand Vol said:
Which has what to do with responding to the one upmanship of his comments? I have him on ignore, but I can imagine his posts are getting even more stupid every time one of you replies.

The last four or five pages had been replies to him. And I'd be willing to bet every time someone made a decent post, he came back with something even more absurd than the last post he made. I thought @Septic was the best at suckering people in. Nope.

Learn to let it go. You aren't going to "school" him or win an argument with a troll.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t disagree with you on his method. He’s a troll and a liar nothing more nothing less. But if somebody does reply just meet him head on. The only logical answer is superior firepower. Arm all law abiding citizens with fully automatic weapons. It’s the only reasonable and rational answer 😈
 
#7,890
#7,890
GVF said:
So, what you do with your blow up doll should determine whether or not you can legally own it?!
Click to expand...
I am fine fitting the punishment to the crime. In this case if I do something illegal with Ursula, she has a name thank you very much, I would be fine with that directly impacting my right to own another blow up doll. What I am not fine with is someone else's illegal use of a blow up doll getting between me and my lady.

they effed up, not me. why am I punished?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#7,891
#7,891
Mick said:
Like that is something I would "carry", as a matter of fact, I don't feel like I'm ever going to be in the position to be a hero.
Click to expand...

To be fair it's a position (thankfully) the overwhelming majority of people will never face. Now having said that tell me...how many people that do end up being heroes go out that morning "thinking" they'll be in that position? I've never bought a fire extinguisher because I genuinely planned to have to use it but it could possibly make a big difference.

Here's hoping none of us ever have to find out.
 
#7,892
#7,892
luthervol said:
I have never once argued that people should not be able to legally own a gun. NOT ONCE.
Click to expand...

True, you just want to limit what guns they can have, how many they can buy, where they can have them and make it a PITA to buy one. About sum it up?
 
#7,893
#7,893
hog88 said:
Nope, you are just being a hypocrite. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
I said just in the past day or two that a national maximum speed limit of 20 mph would obviously save countless lives but would be a stupid idea......it doesn't pass either test.
That also in no way means that I'm against speed limits, I just think they should pass both test.
You guys struggle mightily with grey areas, you so desperately wish to live in a black and white world; unfortunately, that world doesn't exist.
There is LOTS of grey area in the gun regulation debate no matter how much you wish to make it black and white.
Rational and reasonable..........cost/benefit.
 
#7,894
#7,894
luthervol said:
I have never once argued that people should not be able to legally own a gun. NOT ONCE.
Click to expand...
no you just want to define "legally" to such an extent that it becomes very very difficult to own a gun. and then you want to reduce the overall numbers of guns available. which at some point means there aren't enough guns to be owned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#7,895
#7,895
hog88 said:
True, you just want to limit what guns they can have, how many they can buy, where they can have them and make it a PITA to buy one. About sum it up?
Click to expand...
Much closer than saying I want to take your guns and have an unarmed society.
 
#7,897
#7,897
LouderVol said:
no you just want to define "legally" to such an extent that it becomes very very difficult to own a gun. and then you want to reduce the overall numbers of guns available. which at some point means there aren't enough guns to be owned.
Click to expand...
Neither claim is true.
 
#7,898
#7,898
LouderVol said:
I am fine fitting the punishment to the crime. In this case if I do something illegal with Ursula, she has a name thank you very much, I would be fine with that directly impacting my right to own another blow up doll. What I am not fine with is someone else's illegal use of a blow up doll getting between me and my lady.

they effed up, not me. why am I punished?
Click to expand...

Many chuckles. Thanks. Tell Ursula I said Hi.
 
#7,900
#7,900
luthervol said:
I said just in the past day or two that a national maximum speed limit of 20 mph would obviously save countless lives but would be a stupid idea......it doesn't pass either test.
That also in no way means that I'm against speed limits, I just think they should pass both test.
Click to expand...
What determines that 20 mph is 'stupid'? I know your answer: "Society". Well, "society" didn't determine the 70 mph speed limit, bureaucrats did. But of course nobody exceeds that limit because 'society' obeys all the laws.

But more interesting is that you said you are FOR speed limits. So... who determines them? Bureaucrats do not meet the definition of 'society'.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top