The ridiculousness of "gun control"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Duesenberg said:
“Stupid”? Your rude retort shows me that you know you’re in the wrong. Nice projection.
Click to expand...
I do not think you know what projection is. I really know of no other term to describe developing an argument based on definition of a term. And no, a retort does not show anything about being in the wrong, whatever that term means.
Duesenberg said:
Yet the anti-gun camp continues to LIE by misusing the definition. Talk about a group that’s sans all morals.
Click to expand...
FYI - The term was used by the USCCB. It is neither a lie, another term you do no use correctly, nor is the Catholic Church “sans all morals.”

If you want to make your argument against what others will consider common sense gun control based on terminology, then I thank you. We need to limit the number of the more dangerous firearms circulating and it is my opinion such arguments serve that purpose through the shallowness of the thinking behind it.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I do not think you know what projection is. I really know of no other term to describe developing an argument based on definition of a term. And not, a retort does not show anything about being in the wrong, whatever that term means.
Click to expand...
Your crude use of “stupid” said a great deal about you – including your frustration at not being able to sell your views on this matter.
pnewton said:
FYI - The term was used by the USCCB. It is neither a lie, another term you do no use correctly, nor is the Catholic Church “sans all morals.”
Click to expand...
Then it’s ignorance in the case of the USCCB.
 
Remember that we’re pretty much all brothers/sisters in Christ here regardless of differing political beliefs
 
A civilian friend of mine owns what is considered an “assault rifle” under the NY SAFE Act (a law which almost all law enforcement in the state opposes, which should tell you something), which he had modified to make it NY legal. The result, it is now infinitely more comfortable to hold and fire, allowing him to fire more rounds and change magazines more quickly than before. As a cop I support some gun control measures (background/mental health checks, permit processes, etc…), but the problem is that the only people who follow gun laws are the ones who have no intention of harm to begin with.
 
Fuerza said:
but the problem is that the only people who follow gun laws are the ones who have no intention of harm to begin with.
Click to expand...
Herein is part of the problem. While this seems to make good sense, it must be remembered that not everyone who has acted out in violence intended to act out in violence at the time they purchase their firearms, ammunition, etc. A person with no intent to commit a crime might like the feeling and power that comes with the ability to put out a high volume of fire. Then, when the wife or girlfriend moves on, he acts based on the power he now possesses, against her, her mother, or her mother’s church.

It simply makes no sense to let anyone with a history of violence to own a gun.
 
Last edited:
Fuerza said:
A civilian friend of mine owns what is considered an “assault rifle” under the NY SAFE Act (a law which almost all law enforcement in the state opposes, which should tell you something), which he had modified to make it NY legal.
Click to expand...
What was required?
Fuerza said:
The result, it is now infinitely more comfortable to hold and fire, allowing him to fire more rounds and change magazines more quickly than before.
Click to expand...
Really? Changes made to comply with the ridiculous NY SAFE law made the rifles “infinitely more comfortable to hold and fire”? That sounds reversed.
Fuerza said:
As a cop I support some gun control measures (background/mental health checks, permit processes, etc…), but the problem is that the only people who follow gun laws are the ones who have no intention of harm to begin with.
Click to expand...
You got that right.
 
pnewton said:
It simply makes no sense to let anyone with a history of violence to own a gun.
Click to expand...
Those convicted of violent crime or dometic violence (felony or misdemeanor) have long been precluded from owning firearms. Your comment is a non-starter.
 
Fuerza said:
but the problem is that the only people who follow gun laws are the ones who have no intention of harm to begin with.
Click to expand...
One of the purposes of guns is to harm the person who is attacking you. It’s not disobeying gun laws to protect yourself. So if I own a gun for protection, my intention is to harm, if necessary.
 
ILoveYeshua said:
A difference of less than 1 per 100,000 between averages hardly seems worth mentioning
Click to expand...
I think with Washington, the referenced background check wasn’t even on the books when they took their data. Washington should have been on the right hand side.

This is called lying with statistics.
 
Lemuel said:
40.png
Fuerza:
but the problem is that the only people who follow gun laws are the ones who have no intention of harm to begin with.
Click to expand...
One of the purposes of guns is to harm the person who is attacking you. It’s not disobeying gun laws to protect yourself. So if I own a gun for protection, my intention is to harm, if necessary.
Click to expand...
But it is not an intention to harm to begin with. A criminal with a gun can be assumed to have criminal intent, even violent intent in mind.
 
Great! You realize that is part of the gun control you make the blanket condemnation of?
 
pnewton said:
Great! You realize that is part of the gun control you make the blanket condemnation of?
Click to expand...
That’s not “gun control” – that’s people control. The fact that a convicted felon is not allowed to own a firearm has absolutely no impact on me.
 
Last edited:
Uh, no. Who can get what gun is part of gun control.

This is why your arguments and thread lack substance. You keep insisting on terms meaning what you want them to mean and arguing terminology. It works better for bumper stickers that public policy.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
You make a very good point. No one here can provide any statistics that actually prove that increased gun control actually decreased gun-related violent crime. People have long tried and they have long failed.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading that all the gun deaths in the US, which are so much higher than almost every other civilised nation, could be attributed not to the number of guns but to the fact that drugs, gangs, violence in the media, alcohol and many more social evils were the cause.

Why do you think that the US cannot solve these problems as well as other nations?
 
pnewton said:
Uh, no. Who can get what gun is part of gun control.
Click to expand...
Naw. You’re simply wrong. In this matter you’re controlling a specific population of people.
pnewton said:
This is why your arguments and thread lack substance. You keep insisting on terms meaning what you want them to mean and arguing terminology. It works better for bumper stickers that public policy.
Click to expand...
Keep misusing the term “assault rifle”, I really don’t care. It really is a red flag that someone doesn’t know much about firearms though, and many will treat you differently given that knowledge about you.
 
pnewton said:
Uh, no. Who can get what gun is part of gun control.
Click to expand...
And it should be the most significant aspect of it, coming from the foundational premise that ownership of a firearm is a constitutionally protected inherent individual right. From there, limits on that right should be kept basically two groups:
  1. those who are too immature (minors), and those adjudicated mentally incapable.
  2. criminals who have been convicted
“Need” is never a reason to restrict ownership. This is a right, and need is irrelevant.
Living in a city is not a reason.
Being poor is not.
Being female is not.

If one is a majority age law abiding citizen, there is no further restriction on gun ownership.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top