Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That I’ll agree with. The federal bill of rights should not apply to states.
 
This is another straw-man and a red herring. You are avoiding the central core of the argument. It is irrelevant that most crimes have been done with different weapons.
 
Last edited:
No it’s absolutely relevant. You’re wanting to ban the least used murder weapon instead of the most used one. You’re advocating the equivalent of banning steak because there’s an outbreak of salmonella in chicken.
 
Thankfully it’s a moot point. No legislation will be passed. I’d bet money on it.
 
I’d advise only betting lets say $10. You can live with losing that amount.
 
It does? How many kids are involved in drunk driving accident? What proof do you have?
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
I’m an NRA-certified Expert Marksman, and I was very much on the “don’t touch my guns!” side of the fence not too long ago. I changed my mind because I took a long, hard look at my own “side’s” arguments, and found that they really didn’t hold up.
Click to expand...
I used to be for gun control. But after looking at the facts, I realized that gun control is what sets-up mass shootings and high crime.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
That said, this is a good example of where we could probably use more local control.
Click to expand...
Like Chicago and Detriot?
BoomBoomMancini said:
Most Americans aren’t worried about coyotes near cattle pastures,
Click to expand...
Coyotes have been sighted numerous times in urban areas.
BoomBoomMancini said:
What works for states with low population density may not work for more urbanized ones.
Click to expand...
When it comes to human behavior, this is often a moot point.
 
Could you please provide me with an example of something he’s said that is anti-Catholic?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is quote from a Facebook posting. America’s Gun Owner Free For All isn’t working.
 
Last edited:
He’s a member on a gun forum I’m on and have had some pretty pleasant interactions with him. I’ve never taken him to be anti-catholic. Which videos was this in?
 
SuperLuigi said:
Like Chicago and Detriot?
Click to expand...
I mean, the alternative is a broader, fuller ban. Guns that are illegally used in Chicago originate somewhere, presumably where they are legal to manufacture and sell for civilian use. I would think you’d be supportive of more localized rules if you want to preserve more permissive laws in conservative areas. We’re reaching a tipping point, I think, and people are losing interest in making sure the JanSobieskis (i.e the responsible owners who have an arguable and demonstrable need) of the world can access semiautomatic rifles. Cut a deal now or risk a worse backlash in the future.
SuperLuigi said:
Coyotes have been sighted numerous times in urban areas.
Click to expand...
I can’t tell if you’re just being pedantic or if you honestly think that what keeps residents of urban/suburban areas awake at night is the idea that coyotes are going to attack their cattle.
 
Glad I’m not Japanese.

There is not a stack of bodies high enough to justify stripping rights away from free Americans.
 
IWantGod said:
lol. You are living in a dream world. Any weapon that has the same potential for harm as the Ar15 needs to be removed from the general public. That’s the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Then ban knives, because as I keep repeating, 5 people killed 33 and wounded 120 with nothing but knives. And ban box trucks, because someone killed 84 civilians with one of those.
 
Thom18 said:
Then ban knives, because as I keep repeating, 5 people killed 33 and wounded 120 with nothing but knives. And ban box trucks, because someone killed 84 civilians with one of those.
Click to expand...
This is a really tired argument. Knives and trucks both have a primary purpose outside of inflicting harm. We accept that there will be a tradeoff with trucks, for example, because we as a society recognize that we need to move people and goods. We accept that planes will occasionally crash (although we’ll try to make them as safe as we can) because we as a society have determined that the benefits of being able to get from NY to California in 5 hours outweigh the costs of the very occasional plane crash. Guns, on the other hand, are primarily about inflicting harm. Now, yes, sometimes harm needs to be inflicted. But they’re fundamentally different than trucks and planes.

We’re seeing more and more people recognize that the benefits of civilian access to certain types of firearm (and there are some benefits, from enjoyment to protection from animals to this vague idea that we’ll keep the tyrannical government in check) don’t outweigh the downsides. You can disagree with that calculus, but it’s entirely legitimate for societies to make that cost/benefit analysis. Guns aren’t some sacred good that will always outweigh the cost associated with them.
 
Last edited:
Flor said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is quote from a Facebook posting. America’s Gun Owner Free For All isn’t working.
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular belief, the entire US isn’t a war zone. Several US cities are accountable for a disproportionate amount of fatal and non-fatal gun violence.

I’ll give you a few hints:
Chicago has fewer murders in 2017, but 650 killed.
NYC saw historically low number of shootings in 2016. (read the article)
This one’s interesting as well.

I would like to see their citations regardless.
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
This is a really tired argument. Knives and trucks both have a primary purpose outside of inflicting harm. We accept that there will be a tradeoff with trucks, for example, because we as a society recognize that we need to move people and goods. We accept that planes will occasionally crash (although we’ll try to make them as safe as we can) because we as a society have determined that the benefits of being able to get from NY to California in 5 hours outweigh the costs of the very occasional plane crash. Guns, on the other hand, are primarily about inflicting harm. Now, yes, sometimes harm needs to be inflicted. But they’re fundamentally different than trucks and planes.

We’re seeing more and more people recognize that the benefits of civilian access to certain types of firearm (and there are some benefits, from enjoyment to protection from animals to this vague idea that we’ll keep the tyrannical government in check) don’t outweigh the downsides. You can disagree with that calculus, but it’s entirely legitimate for societies to make that cost/benefit analysis. Guns aren’t some sacred good that will always outweigh the cost associated with them.
Click to expand...
A gun’s primary purpose isn’t mass murder. As others in this thread have said, they use their’s for hunting, or target practice, or self defense. I’ve yet to see one person say that they use their firearm in committing felonies.

If you think it’s ludicrous to ban knives and trucks because you can use them to filet a fish or transport furniture, then you need to hold a gun to the same standard.
 
Last edited:
Thom18 said:
Then ban knives, because as I keep repeating, 5 people killed 33 and wounded 120 with nothing but knives.
Click to expand...
This was already responded to earlier in the thread. So i’m not going to respond to it.
Thom18 said:
And ban box trucks, because someone killed 84 civilians with one of those.
Click to expand...
Then the qeustion is, is it practical to ban box trucks or big vehicles? No its not, otherwise i would want to ban those as-well, but there is nothing we can do about that. And as someone else mentioned vehicles are not designed to kill. Had a lunatic drove a giant lorry through the school nobody would seriously argue to ban lorries.

But we can do something about AR15 and similar weaponry. Nobody can seriously argue for the necessity of those types of weapons. So its a qeustion of damage control. Will more people stand a better chance of survival if a 19 year old mentally ill person doesn’t have a legally obtainable weapon like an AR15.

The answers is obviously yes.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
And as someone else mentioned vehicles are not designed to kill. Had a lunatic drove a giant lorry through the school nobody would seriously argue to ban lorries.

But we can do something about AR15 and similar weaponry. Nobody can seriously argue for the necessity of those types of weapons. So its a question is will more people stand a better chance of survival if a 19 year old mentally ill person doesn’t have a legally obtainable weapon like an AR15.
Click to expand...
And if you read my response to them, you would see that I provided the actual primary purposes of firearms- none of which are mass murder- yet you continue to hold guns to a different standard then trucks and knives.

A knife is usually used in the kitchen, to prepare meals. A truck is usually used in transporting things or people. Very rarely are they used to commit mass murder- but they certainly can be used to do so, and as I have shown, they can be far more deadly than two gunmen.

A gun can be used for hunting, for self-defense, for the defense of your property (such as keeping coyotes away from your pets or livestock), and target practice, among other things. Some people also just collect guns (others collect knives, others collect cars). And you reject these as primary purposes for these objects why?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top