Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 298 of 312 FirstFirst ... 198248288296297298299300308 ... LastLast
Results 4,456 to 4,470 of 4675
  1. #4456
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    How did I derail it?

    I guess I replied to Special ... but I certainly wasn't the first or most frequent to do so.

  2. #4457
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    30,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    See posts 4441 and 4449. Guns are guns.

    America has a gun problem.
    show me one mass shooting were the gun went off itself to kill the people.


    it's not a gun problem, it's a people with a gun problem.

    America has an idiot problem (in many cases). banning a specific gun isn't going to stop idiots from getting another gun, or another tool if they are intent on killing people.

    America also doesn't really want to talk about gun violence when there are more shootings in places like Chicago related to gang violence.


    https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/stat...47736535891972
    I tweeted about #Chicago the other day, reminding us that some communities there are besieged by gun violence every day. @GKMC18
    wants to know why their trauma doesnít make national news. So do I. But I think we know part of the reason...
    https://twitter.com/emzanotti/status...17839937003526
    In Chicago, that person is Kim Foxx, whose office regularly allows gun offenders to stake without bail. But thatís a hard answer that goes against progressive anti-cash bail, prison abolition so it will never be addressed despite being a significant contributor to gun violence.


    Į\_(ツ)_/Į

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  3. #4458
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    30,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I'm not trying to define it for you. But for something to be a definition it literally needs to be definitive. There needs to be clear rules for the difference between assault and not assault. It's an argument you are making, so back it up with what it is. I'm not talking to "some" I'm talking to you.
    I'm personally not involved, I have no say in what America does whether it's an assault rile, assault weapon, or any gun. I'm telling you what I have seen as the argument from people in America.

    some against guns look at the AR-15 and only see it as some military style gun, and have no interest in hearing an argument from people in favor of this gun.


    Į\_(ツ)_/Į

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  4. #4459
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I too don't own a gun and have no reason to consider owning one, shooting makes me nervous and I don't enjoy it. I also live around a lot of gun owners (Texas) who hunt and certainly many who don't. However I also have a few ex-military/current military friends who go to the range every weekend to shoot to relax and have fun. It ain't my thing, but "need" doesn't really enter into it. Nobody "needs" a car with much over 100whp yet you can legally buy and operate a car with over 1500bhp. If we are going to limit our ability to own things to things we "need" then we have completely moved out of discussing guns.

    The most ardent supporters of the public being allowed to own guns that I know are black, and to them they are absolutely about defense and the threat them owning a gun poses to anyone who wants to go after them or their family.

    thats a good argument I may borrow it from you.

    However most people don't like it when you try to compare guns with other things, I had a disagreement with a gentleman the other night over gun control. they were talking abut there are 38k gun deaths in the US every year so we need to have more gun control and I said yes and 61% of those are suicides with only 31% being homicide so maybe we need better mental health options, I also said there are almost 40k car deaths a year but, we don't seem to be coming up with new car regulations and he got pissy and came back and said that the car argument makes no sense and you can't use that as an argument against gun control.

  5. #4460
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,621
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    thats a good argument I may borrow it from you.

    However most people don't like it when you try to compare guns with other things, I had a disagreement with a gentleman the other night over gun control. they were talking abut there are 38k gun deaths in the US every year so we need to have more gun control and I said yes and 61% of those are suicides with only 31% being homicide so maybe we need better mental health options, I also said there are almost 40k car deaths a year but, we don't seem to be coming up with new car regulations and he got pissy and came back and said that the car argument makes no sense and you can't use that as an argument against gun control.
    While we do need better mental health options, the part you're leaving out is that guns increase the rate and effectiveness of suicide attempts. So taking away guns wouldn't mean people would simply find another way to commit suicide, there would quite literally be less suicides. The reason for that is that the majority of suicides are a momentary intense feeling and the ease of the ability to commit suicide increases the risks someone will act.

  6. #4461
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    While we do need better mental health options, the part you're leaving out is that guns increase the rate and effectiveness of suicide attempts. So taking away guns wouldn't mean people would simply find another way to commit suicide, there would quite literally be less suicides. The reason for that is that the majority of suicides are a momentary intense feeling and the ease of the ability to commit suicide increases the risks someone will act.
    well yeah it would mean people would find another way to commit suicide. If a person has their mind set on doing it its more than likely going to happen. while it may prevent some of the cases its not going to stop every single one. just like homicides by gun, take away the gun and yes you may stop some cases of homicide but, you aren't going to stop them all.

    All the gun laws that would be enacted are going to do is make it harder for the more law abiding citizens to get and keep guns than it is for criminals. Just look at California, New York and Illinois. they all have very strict gun laws but, still have higher gun crimes.

  7. #4462
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,621
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    well yeah it would mean people would find another way to commit suicide. If a person has their mind set on doing it its more than likely going to happen. while it may prevent some of the cases its not going to stop every single one. just like homicides by gun, take away the gun and yes you may stop some cases of homicide but, you aren't going to stop them all.

    All the gun laws that would be enacted are going to do is make it harder for the more law abiding citizens to get and keep guns than it is for criminals. Just look at California, New York and Illinois. they all have very strict gun laws but, still have higher gun crimes.
    That is factually inaccurate. Studies have literally proved that wrong.

    It's ironic you bring up Illinois because Chicago was for the longest time held up as the defacto example of the failure of gun laws, however a few years back the Illinois Supreme Court struck down some of the Chicago's gun measures and immediately after gun deaths rose in the city.

    But the biggest problem is what you stated "while it may prevent some of the cases its not going to stop every single one". The logical fallacy there being if it won't stop 100% of the behavior it's not worth doing. Even reducing by 50% or even 25% would be well worthwhile. I'd like to see 25% less suicides in this country, and I certainly wouldn't say "because we can't stop 100% of suicides, there's no point in trying to stop any at all".

  8. #4463
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,360
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post

    it's not a gun problem, it's a people with a gun problem.
    Ding ding ding

    Sounds like we should do a better job restricting people getting linked up with many of these guns then since thatís when we start having problems. [emoji2371]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  9. #4464
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,099
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    You're feeding the beast, oh wise one.
    I am weak.

  10. #4465
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That is factually inaccurate. Studies have literally proved that wrong.

    It's ironic you bring up Illinois because Chicago was for the longest time held up as the defacto example of the failure of gun laws, however a few years back the Illinois Supreme Court struck down some of the Chicago's gun measures and immediately after gun deaths rose in the city.

    But the biggest problem is what you stated "while it may prevent some of the cases its not going to stop every single one". The logical fallacy there being if it won't stop 100% of the behavior it's not worth doing. Even reducing by 50% or even 25% would be well worthwhile. I'd like to see 25% less suicides in this country, and I certainly wouldn't say "because we can't stop 100% of suicides, there's no point in trying to stop any at all".
    The suicide thing goes back to my original point, why not go after and put forth more help with mental health instead of banning something and taking it out of everyone's hands?

    but what they are wanting to do is a ban period on certain types of guns. so in that case you are taking the guns away from not only a supposed criminal but you are taking it away from a person who is a law abiding citizen. so how do you toe the line? you can't leave it up to judgement because you will have people who will abuse it.


    here in the state of Iowa for years in order to get your concealed weapons permit you had to go through the course pay the money and it was up to the discretion of the Sheriff on if you would get your permit or not. in one of the counties near me there was a sheriff who gave out 3 permits in a 20 year span.

    I am a gun collector, I like to go out and shoot targets, I have been shooting guns since I was about 4 years old. I was well taught about guns my whole life and how to show them respect because of the damage they can do. I understand there are people who do bad things with guns and can do more damage because of guns. The problem I have is if you continue to do damage to the 2nd amendment it makes it easier to do damage to the rest of the constitution.

  11. #4466
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    25,139
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    Ding ding ding

    Sounds like we should do a better job restricting people getting linked up with many of these guns then since thatís when we start having problems. [emoji2371]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    But that would be unconstitutional!!!!!1!!11!!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  12. #4467
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,099
    More guns equals more violence, I just don't see a way to win the take guns away argument.

    More possible is registration, licensing, training, storage requirements. Maybe get that stuff passed by making it more possible for hobbyists to have full auto weapons or something.

    Any discussion of gun control that takes guns away that doesn't focus on hand guns is just theater that doesn't really mean anything to reducing gun violence in the US.

  13. #4468
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,621
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    The suicide thing goes back to my original point, why not go after and put forth more help with mental health instead of banning something and taking it out of everyone's hands?

    but what they are wanting to do is a ban period on certain types of guns. [B]so in that case you are taking the guns away from not only a supposed criminal but you are taking it away from a person who is a law abiding citizen. so how do you toe the line? you can't leave it up to judgement because you will have people who will abuse it.


    here in the state of Iowa for years in order to get your concealed weapons permit you had to go through the course pay the money and it was up to the discretion of the Sheriff on if you would get your permit or not. in one of the counties near me there was a sheriff who gave out 3 permits in a 20 year span.

    I am a gun collector, I like to go out and shoot targets, I have been shooting guns since I was about 4 years old. I was well taught about guns my whole life and how to show them respect because of the damage they can do. I understand there are people who do bad things with guns and can do more damage because of guns. The problem I have is if you continue to do damage to the 2nd amendment it makes it easier to do damage to the rest of the constitution.
    I agree with your concerns, Iím one of those whose gun would likely be confiscated seeing as how I own an M4.

  14. #4469
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    More guns equals more violence, I just don't see a way to win the take guns away argument.

    More possible is registration, licensing, training, storage requirements. Maybe get that stuff passed by making it more possible for hobbyists to have full auto weapons or something.

    Any discussion of gun control that takes guns away that doesn't focus on hand guns is just theater that doesn't really mean anything to reducing gun violence in the US.
    The problem is the most effective solution (a national gun registry) is the one gun advocates are most against.

  15. #4470
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I agree with your concerns, Iím one of those whose gun would likely be confiscated seeing as how I own an M4.
    Had an AR10 for awhile, didn't like it and it didn't like my reloaded ammo so I got rid of it. made quite the profit on it.

    It wouldn't just be the ARs that get banned, one of the things that the gentleman I was having the disagreement with brought up was a ban on "Military style weapons" if you use that terminology that attacks a lot of different guns. My Sig Sauer P320 and P226 could be considered military style weapons because both of them are the same gun the military uses. I also own a couple of Military surplus rifles. those are military style weapons. Also, look at the mag capacities they want. the general rule is a 10 rd mag, that just eliminated a majority of the mags that come with hand guns.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •