Another school shooting

[Paul Moscow]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

Never the intent of the second amendment, dumbf*ck

Kind of is actually.  In fact the original intent of the second amendment wasn't only that citizens, individually or collectively, should have the right to be armed, but that their level of armament should allow them a defense equal to that of the government. 

Keep in mind that I do not now, and have never owned a gun.

A) The second amendment was not about the citizenry protecting itself from its own government. Why would the framers of the constitution want to arm insurrectionists? "Here's the right to liquidate us if we are ever bad"
B) The individuals right to gun ownership was dependent upon their involvement in a well-regulated (see: state) militia. There is no individual right to gun ownership by itself, unless you're Scalia.
C) Where does it say that citizens should have arms equal to the government? Like, anywhere in the history of time.

[doom]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

This.

If you guys still care a month from today, I will listen to you. 

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion.  Is your number 50,000,000?

Chicago has some strict gun laws too.

[Cartierfor3]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion.  Is your number 50,000,000?

If I believed a new law banning guns would end violence I would support it 100%. 

I will continue to lurk this thread, but I think I am not going to jump in the convo anymore.

As I said yesterday, I appreciate the desire you all have to prevent violence. 

[MakeItRain]

we need to ban fertilizer too. Remember that one physco that killed people with a fertilizer bomb? People just can't handle fertilizer any more. Only policemen and the army should have fertilizer

The problem with this conversation are many are too stupid to have it intelligently.  Not only has this exact talking point been used about 5 times in this thread but it is a talking point completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

There isn't a conversation to be had to outlaw every single way to kill someone, we are talking about gun violence only.  If you can't discuss that shut the eff up.

But see, he thinks you're the stupid one for not thinking it's relevant. You need to consider others views and not simply dismiss them with insults. Remember, it's possible that you're wrong.

I'm wrong in stating that fertilizer doesn't have crap to do with guns? 

I'd like you to at least consider the possibility.

No its a straw man and a non starter.

Saying we should ban fertilizer because it can also be used to kill people is exactly like me saying we should ban guns because in some places they have banned pit bulls because they have killed people.  Both are ridiculous arguments neither have anything to do with gun violence and have no place in a real conversation about guns.

[kim carnes]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

[_33]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.

Actually in 2008 67% of murderers had a prior felony conviction.

Hope this isn't a strawman.   

[MakeItRain]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion.  Is your number 50,000,000?

If I believed a new law banning guns would end violence I would support it 100%. 

I will continue to lurk this thread, but I think I am not going to jump in the convo anymore.

As I said yesterday, I appreciate the desire you all have to prevent violence.

you don't understand the conversation here or you're intentionally derailing it like the other gun nuts. 

1. No one is attempting to outlaw violence, it is human nature, it is the nature of most living beings.  The conversation is simply about making it more difficult to take the lives of others.  No one believes violence is going to be stopped.

2.  There are other things used to perpetuate violence that are highly illegal, they weren't made illegal with the guise of ending all violence.

[steve dave]

lol at the fertilizer talking point being rolled out into the thread again.

[kim carnes]

if anything, gun laws are too strict.

[MakeItRain]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.

Actually in 2008 67% of murderers had a prior felony conviction.

Hope this isn't a strawman.   

Now tell me what percent of those murders were random murders perpetrated on the unsuspecting victim that fits the profile of the average NRA member?  The people shouting the loudest have the least to worry about and would be the last ones to have their guns taken if a ban on non-sporting weapons were enacted.

stats are fun, let's keep playing with them

[michigancat]

lol at the fertilizer talking point being rolled out into the thread again.

It's really astounding.

[DQ12]

Are those against the further restriction of guns/ammunition of the belief that there is no problem with gun violence in America?  And if you are not, what solutions (aside from vague suggestions of "it starts with parenting") do you offer to remedy the problem?

[kim carnes]

Are those against the further restriction of guns/ammunition of the belief that there is no problem with gun violence in America?  And if you are not, what solutions (aside from vague suggestions of "it starts with parenting") do you offer to remedy the problem?

i don't care about gun violence so i don't feel a need to remedy the problem.  i think i speak for almost everyone.

[MakeItRain]

Are those against the further restriction of guns/ammunition of the belief that there is no problem with gun violence in America?  And if you are not, what solutions (aside from vague suggestions of "it starts with parenting") do you offer to remedy the problem?

i don't care about gun violence so i don't feel a need to remedy the problem.  i think i speak for almost everyone.

clearly gun owners care about gun violence, which is hilarious on many levels

[Dugout DickStone]

Are those against the further restriction of guns/ammunition of the belief that there is no problem with gun violence in America?  And if you are not, what solutions (aside from vague suggestions of "it starts with parenting") do you offer to remedy the problem?

i don't care about gun violence so i don't feel a need to remedy the problem.  i think i speak for almost everyone.

So this thread really isn't for you then.  Thanks for stopping by.

[_33]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.

Actually in 2008 67% of murderers had a prior felony conviction.

Hope this isn't a strawman.   

Now tell me what percent of those murders were random murders perpetrated on the unsuspecting victim that fits the profile of the average NRA member?  The people shouting the loudest have the least to worry about and would be the last ones to have their guns taken if a ban on non-sporting weapons were enacted.

stats are fun, let's keep playing with them

You keep talking about "taking" guns. How on earth is the government going to do that? Ask? Search people's homes? Check the records and arrest people if they don't give it up? I mean get real. That is never ever going to happen. Ever. So why even talk about it? It's not going to happen. Never.*

The only relevant discussion would be how to make it harder to buy guns in the future.


*There is a very small chance I'm wrong.

[DQ12]

You keep talking about "taking" guns. How on earth is the government going to do that? Ask? Search people's homes? Check the records and arrest people if they don't give it up? I mean get real. That is never ever going to happen. Ever. So why even talk about it? It's not going to happen. Never.*




*There is a very small chance I'm wrong.

I agree with this

The only relevant discussion would be how to make it harder to buy guns in the future.

But not with this.  Ammunition could (in theory) be highly regulated to make existing guns safer.

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL at anyone who thinks banning guns will significantly reduce gun violence in the United States. 

Also, the point of having a gun to protect oneself in case of a meltdown of the government structure in the United States is absolutely valid and significant.   Nearly every, if not all countries in the world have had cycles of significant civil unrest/wars.   As the United States have proven elsewhere many times, it literally takes very, very little to turn a nation on itself.   

[MakeItRain]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.

Actually in 2008 67% of murderers had a prior felony conviction.

Hope this isn't a strawman.   

Now tell me what percent of those murders were random murders perpetrated on the unsuspecting victim that fits the profile of the average NRA member?  The people shouting the loudest have the least to worry about and would be the last ones to have their guns taken if a ban on non-sporting weapons were enacted.

stats are fun, let's keep playing with them

You keep talking about "taking" guns. How on earth is the government going to do that? Ask? Search people's homes? Check the records and arrest people if they don't give it up? I mean get real. That is never ever going to happen. Ever. So why even talk about it? It's not going to happen. Never.*

The only relevant discussion would be how to make it harder to buy guns in the future.


*There is a very small chance I'm wrong.

I'd start by asking the UK and Australia how they did it.

I'd assume it would work the same way a war on drugs would.  There's lots and lots of drugs in the country.  If I decided to smoke crack in a community center in Sedgwick County I would go to prison, but I can legally carry a gun into the same community center, its weird.

Instead of a war on drugs we should have a war on guns.  The effect would be the same.  The jails would be filled with black people and the privileged class can feel free to have their guns without little threat of retribution.  And at the same time regular people wouldn't feel so free to sling their guns around like their life is an episode of GTA.

As stupid as a war on drugs is if we treated drugs like we did guns, we wouldn't be able to do anything anywhere without dealing with some shermed out loser.

[Dugout DickStone]

LOL at anyone who thinks banning guns will significantly reduce gun violence in the United States. 

Also, the point of having a gun to protect oneself in case of a meltdown of the government structure in the United States is absolutely valid and significant.   Nearly every, if not all countries in the world have had cycles of significant civil unrest/wars.   As the United States have proven elsewhere many times, it literally takes very, very little to turn a nation on itself.

You really believe its going Mad Max in this country during your lifetime, don't you?

[puniraptor]

Of course banning guns will reduce GUN VIOLENCE. I am willing to listen to arguments that banning guns will cause an increase in TOTAL VIOLENCE.

[EMAWmeister]

There have been "gun amnesty" events here in America before

[_33]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

When will gun people stop being afraid of a n-word coming into their window at night and realize a bigger threat to safety are the people who fit the profile of legal gun owners.

Actually in 2008 67% of murderers had a prior felony conviction.

Hope this isn't a strawman.   

Now tell me what percent of those murders were random murders perpetrated on the unsuspecting victim that fits the profile of the average NRA member?  The people shouting the loudest have the least to worry about and would be the last ones to have their guns taken if a ban on non-sporting weapons were enacted.

stats are fun, let's keep playing with them

You keep talking about "taking" guns. How on earth is the government going to do that? Ask? Search people's homes? Check the records and arrest people if they don't give it up? I mean get real. That is never ever going to happen. Ever. So why even talk about it? It's not going to happen. Never.*

The only relevant discussion would be how to make it harder to buy guns in the future.


*There is a very small chance I'm wrong.

I'd start by asking the UK and Australia how they did it.

I'd assume it would work the same way a war on drugs would.  There's lots and lots of drugs in the country.  If I decided to smoke crack in a community center in Sedgwick County I would go to prison, but I can legally carry a gun into the same community center, its weird.

Instead of a war on drugs we should have a war on guns.  The effect would be the same.  The jails would be filled with black people and the privileged class can feel free to have their guns without little threat of retribution.  And at the same time regular people wouldn't feel so free to sling their guns around like their life is an episode of GTA.

As stupid as a war on drugs is if we treated drugs like we did guns, we wouldn't be able to do anything anywhere without dealing with some shermed out loser.

It wouldn't be at all like a war on drugs.  But you know that already.

[Barry McCockner]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

[EMAWmeister]

Of course banning guns will reduce GUN VIOLENCE. I am willing to listen to arguments that banning guns will cause an increase in TOTAL VIOLENCE.

Perhaps that would be better suited for another thread.