Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[Rolyo85]

The Supreme Court has said quite clearly that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual -- that means they don't have a responsibility to protect actual persons.

If the "law enforcers" aren't doing their jobs properly, your solution is plainly to just accept being a victim. That fits quite well with the "disarm them all" view that individual humans have no worth.

They are not responsible if anything happens to you but that doesn't mean it's not their job to do everything they can to prevent you from being hurt. Your interpretation of the police' role is just as free and loose as your second amendment interpretation...

 

[Kulindahr]

That argument borders with the idiotic. The purpose of a gun IS to shoot at people (or animals, but that's rifles really). Doesn't matter what fantasy world lofty idealistic purpose YOU bought it for, that's what it is used for, that's its purpose.

"That's what it's used for, that's it's purpose".

Then the purpose of most firearms is to sit untouched in gun cabinets or display cases.

 

[Kulindahr]

That, or make sure the statistic changes and that criminals aren't armed with guns. As is the case in - wait for it - countries with strict gun control.

You fantasize of the impossible. And your means to do it is to make non-criminals easy victims.

It's no accident that mass shootings don't take place in locations where it's known that people are armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

They are not responsible if anything happens to you but that doesn't mean it's not their job to do everything they can to prevent you from being hurt. Your interpretation of the police' role is just as free and loose as your second amendment interpretation...

My explanation of the Second Amendment is quite rigid: it means what the words say, which can be found by the use of those terms in the time when they were written.

 

[Rolyo85]

"That's what it's used for, that's it's purpose".

Then the purpose of most firearms is to sit untouched in gun cabinets or display cases.

False. I don't know which logical fallacy this falls under but I'm sure you do, so lets just move on.

A shovel is a tool for digging, regardless of how much it's used. Same with a gun. Stop flailing.

 

[Rolyo85]

You fantasize of the impossible. And your means to do it is to make non-criminals easy victims.

It's no accident that mass shootings don't take place in locations where it's known that people are armed.

Mass shootings take place AT ALL because of the easy access to guns. They aren't some inescapable act of nature that we just have to be prepared for. They're a unique social aberration that doesn't really happen in the first world outside the US, thus YET AGAIN debunking your claim that I'm fantasizing. Obviously if they've achieved it almost EVERYWHERE in the civilized countries, it's doable.

And while no life is just statistic, I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have thousands of times fewer gun deaths even if the cost is that the VERY FEW that occur couldn't defend themselves. You can spin it any way you wish but numbers don't lie. Your false sense of security costs your country tens of thousands of life each year.

 

[Rolyo85]

My explanation of the Second Amendment is quite rigid: it means what the words say, which can be found by the use of those terms in the time when they were written.

That is a lie and I refuse to argue with it.

 

[andysayshi]

Democrats have never shown much interest in keeping criminals from getting guns.

I've never suggested that Democrats aren't complicit in the US's failure to address gun crime. Both parties are as bad as each other. Republicans are just more vocal about it.

BTW, the NRA-backed measures to allow private sellers access to the NICS was hardly toothless, since it would have, well, allowed private sellers access to the NICS.

The NRA backed NICS checks in 1998, when the technology to make it worthwhile was not available for most sellers, and they only backed it as an ALTERNATIVE to waiting periods, refusing to back any legislation that support any form of waiting period, despite the fact that there is enormous evidence that background checks help reduce suicides and some crimes.

Today, the NRA do not support NICS checks for private sales, claiming it will lead to a gun registration system (oh, the horror!). From the NRA website:

the NRA does not support these proposals and is not working to implement this type of legislation. The NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, private sales bans and registration schemes.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/f...-sales-restrictions-and-gun-registration.aspx

 

[Kulindahr]

False. I don't know which logical fallacy this falls under but I'm sure you do, so lets just move on.

A shovel is a tool for digging, regardless of how much it's used. Same with a gun. Stop flailing.

So now you don't like your own reasoning.

A gun is for delivering a ballistic projectile. If you want to claim it's for killing, that's no different than claiming that a shovel is for making piles of sand -- a possible use, but not the only one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mass shootings take place AT ALL because of the easy access to guns. They aren't some inescapable act of nature that we just have to be prepared for. They're a unique social aberration that doesn't really happen in the first world outside the US, thus YET AGAIN debunking your claim that I'm fantasizing. Obviously if they've achieved it almost EVERYWHERE in the civilized countries, it's doable.

Figures showing that mass shootings take place elsewhere have already been posted in this forum -- along with ones I added showing that had it not been for Reagan's dismantling of public mental health care, the US rate would be on par with Europe's.

And while no life is just statistic, I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have thousands of times fewer gun deaths even if the cost is that the VERY FEW that occur couldn't defend themselves. You can spin it any way you wish but numbers don't lie. Your false sense of security costs your country tens of thousands of life each year.

It's a false sense of security that having a gun saved my life? that it kept kids from being molested? that it kept the gal I knew from being raped?

No, there's nothing false about those. What's false is your blithe assumption that it would be okay if I were dead, those kids had been molested, and that gal had been raped (not to mention thousands of other crimes), just so you could have the number of total guns around smaller.

Restrictive gun laws have killed people and caused other personal harm. Give me laws that won't do that and we'll have something to talk about.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is a lie and I refuse to argue with it.

LOL

Call facts you don't like a lie... yeah, that's rational.

 

[Kulindahr]

Today, the NRA do not support NICS checks for private sales, claiming it will lead to a gun registration system (oh, the horror!). From the NRA website:


http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/f...-sales-restrictions-and-gun-registration.aspx

Yeah, they support it when it would be voluntary, but oppose it when it would be mandatory.

That's why I say the Democrats should shift and go with voluntary, and pull the rug out from under LaPierre. If use by private sellers were voluntary, he wouldn't have any room at all for complaint. Then in three or four years, it would be hard to argue against extending the mandatory reach.

For that matter, I'm having trouble seeing how anyone can argue against mandatory checks on on-line sales, since the internet involves interstate communications.

But I still think the ultimate way to go would be to go to mandatory enrollment of everyone in a local militia. At that point, any transfer of a militia-related weapon (read, any personal weapon) would (arguably) become a matter for attention by the person's militia superiors. Thus, background checks for all personal sales could be required to be conducted through not just the seller's, but the buyer's local militia -- using, obviously, the NICS.

BTW, for those opposed to firearms use, registration in that local militia could be "CO", conscientious objector, with assignment to non-weapons-related duties.

 

[Rolyo85]

So now you don't like your own reasoning.

A gun is for delivering a ballistic projectile. If you want to claim it's for killing, that's no different than claiming that a shovel is for making piles of sand -- a possible use, but not the only one.

Again fallacy. Spin it any way you want, a gun is a tool for murder, developed and designed to hurt and kill. You can describe the process bland claim it's the goal, but it's not and you know it. Ideology is irrelevant. When people were developing guns, they weren't developing them with the goal of being a deterrent.

 

[Rolyo85]

Figures showing that mass shootings take place elsewhere have already been posted in this forum -- along with ones I added showing that had it not been for Reagan's dismantling of public mental health care, the US rate would be on par with Europe's.

It's a false sense of security that having a gun saved my life? that it kept kids from being molested? that it kept the gal I knew from being raped?

No, there's nothing false about those. What's false is your blithe assumption that it would be okay if I were dead, those kids had been molested, and that gal had been raped (not to mention thousands of other crimes), just so you could have the number of total guns around smaller.

Restrictive gun laws have killed people and caused other personal harm. Give me laws that won't do that and we'll have something to talk about.

Let me put it as bluntly as I can - those situations exist BECAUSE gun culture allows for and nurtures them. And I refuse to play the anecdotal game. Numbers are numbers and you have none. Those figures you cited - can you repost them here?

 

[Rolyo85]

LOL

Call facts you don't like a lie... yeah, that's rational.

I call lies for what they are. You're free to lol but another fact - and one I'm sure YOU don't like - is that NOBODY here shares your views. Not even the craziest right wingers.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, they support it when it would be voluntary, but oppose it when it would be mandatory.

That's why I say the Democrats should shift and go with voluntary, and pull the rug out from under LaPierre. If use by private sellers were voluntary, he wouldn't have any room at all for complaint. Then in three or four years, it would be hard to argue against extending the mandatory reach.

For that matter, I'm having trouble seeing how anyone can argue against mandatory checks on on-line sales, since the internet involves interstate communications.

But I still think the ultimate way to go would be to go to mandatory enrollment of everyone in a local militia. At that point, any transfer of a militia-related weapon (read, any personal weapon) would (arguably) become a matter for attention by the person's militia superiors. Thus, background checks for all personal sales could be required to be conducted through not just the seller's, but the buyer's local militia -- using, obviously, the NICS.

BTW, for those opposed to firearms use, registration in that local militia could be "CO", conscientious objector, with assignment to non-weapons-related duties.

A law that's not mandatory is toothless and pointless. Background checks should be absolutely mandatory and there's no sane argument for anything else.

And yeah, have mandatory militia training. Lets turn the country into a military state. THAT will make everyone feel safe and will send all the right messages around the world.

Seriously, do you ever consider your... ideas... in the context of the actual reality? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be defending a culture with ten thousand gun deaths for each one in any other Western European country.

Or have you addressed that without me noticing?

 

[Kulindahr]

Again fallacy. Spin it any way you want, a gun is a tool for murder, developed and designed to hurt and kill. You can describe the process bland claim it's the goal, but it's not and you know it. Ideology is irrelevant. When people were developing guns, they weren't developing them with the goal of being a deterrent.

Most gun developers developed better arms as a deterrent, in the form of demonstrating a willingness to defend with the use of brute force. And the history of gun acquisition demonstrates that most thoroughly: most guns are never used for murder, which demonstrates that they are not purchased in order to commit murder, which means they were not manufactured to commit murder.

 

[TX-Beau]

"Mandatory" militia training is just an attempt to suggest and end run around an amendment that clearly was not concerned with thieves and murderers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

Let me put it as bluntly as I can - those situations exist BECAUSE gun culture allows for and nurtures them. And I refuse to play the anecdotal game. Numbers are numbers and you have none. Those figures you cited - can you repost them here?

Assault, child molestation, and rape exist because there's a "gun culture"?

Wow.


As for the figures, I don't have time to track down the posts using JUB's ghastly poor search function.

- - - Updated - - -

I call lies for what they are. You're free to lol but another fact - and one I'm sure YOU don't like - is that NOBODY here shares your views. Not even the craziest right wingers.

Probably because they haven't done the several thousands of pages of research, and just buy whatever LaPierre is spouting.

 

[TX-Beau]

Most gun developers developed better arms as a deterrent, in the form of demonstrating a willingness to defend with the use of brute force. And the history of gun acquisition demonstrates that most thoroughly: most guns are never used for murder, which demonstrates that they are not purchased in order to commit murder, which means they were not manufactured to commit murder.

BULLSHIT.

Hunting rifles are made explicitly for KILLING THINGS - nonhuman. Military weapons are made EXPLICITLY for killing people - "defense" (lol) firearms are made EXPLICITLY as weapons.

Dishonesty - table for two?