I don't continually tell people they are ignorant, just you on this subject because you are.
I think the argument was over before you even engaged it.
You are illiterate some times, I never said don't regulate guns, just don't ban them. Especially on the fabricated notion that some guns are more apt to assault people because they are black or frightening looking.
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. You haven't argued this, frankly because you can't.
You are for better equipped outlaws then, yes that is a clear argument. I just as a person who likes peace disagrees with this.
While we,as a society, ought to better deal with mental illness in general and probably should understand who's in which category and who is a risk....the fact is...we are too damn cheap and simplistic.
Meanwhile there's a cult mentality in America about guns. Some folks Think the 2nd amendment has a page or two of invisible ink and only exists because shooting other Americans was the most precious of all rights. Oddly...the 2nd amendment fans often don't LIKE much of anything else in the constitution.
If you missed the news...it's bad timing to be "mentally ill" and want a gun.....unless of course you are in TEXAS...in which case ...that seems to cover everyone.
I can go purchase a .22 rifle, a shotgun,a deer rifle....with virtually NO hassles. Guess what...10 yr from now...that won't change. " Guns" as a broad category will NOT be " banned" PERIOD and EVERYONE knows that...including the LIARS who have a sick fetish about guns that are designed to slaughter people in QUANTITY.
Limiting magazines to 10 rounds may be an inconvenience if you want to murder more than 10 people in 30 seconds...but ...think of it as a "bag limit". I've also noticed that my urge to have a gun...quite diminishes if nobody wants to shoot me...which has been the case for decades. I do target shoot..but use an air rifle...which is less costly and won't scare the neighbors.
Any steno to ban guns is a complete failure. That goes for this lie round magazine crap too.
It all comes down to this, if you outlaw an assault rifle only outlaws will have assault rifles. The assault weapon ban is only the support of better equipped outlaws.
The argument that only outlaws will have guns if they are outlawed for what ever reason is never debated, because it can't be. It is the final nail in the gun ban coffen.
So that really says it all unless someone can argue that, I am very willing to entertain any disagreement.
Maybe you overlook all the fools,drunks,klutzes and small children who every year somehow kill themselves or others...often not intending too.
However...the REAL issue is all the people who are VERY willing to shoot people. That's WHY the fuss about assault rifles,a type of gun with no other real purpose but to shoot a lot of people in a short time. Read the news. Your "3 rules" would not have mattered in Aurora, Portland,Newtown,Columbine. They would not have saved most of the HUNDREDS shot in the short time since Newtown. Americans murdered,on average 300 children a year, in the past decade. The majority of women murdered are killed by a family member or boyfriend with a gun that had been around...waiting. Most of those guns were a legal buy.
Last edited:
Wise up. We ALL know that no current proposal "BANS GUNS"...they at MOST ban around 1% of the roughly 290 MILLION guns in the USA and at that...it pretty much re-instates laws that WERE nationwide and still apply in some cities and states.
Nobody buys an assault rifle to hunt deer or ducks,and it's not a good "home defense" weapon...unless your home includes a meth lab and the Hell's Angels are looking for you. Even Lantz could of as well used a different weapon. Not too subtle to go out in broad daylight in suburbia all dressed in some black commando costume carrying a Bushmaster. The FETISH of the gun that LOOKS military...appeals to the sort of freaks with dangerous fantasies,a violent GUN fetish. You can get a 30 rd clip for many models of Glock ,Berretta, some others..and conceal the gun. That,actually,makes those MORE a danger. Lantz could have surprised and killed an armed guard that way. Lantz, actually COULD have doubled his body count ..but seemed to want a gory "overkill" effect,so he shot those kids as many as 10 times. He seemed to be going for theatrical,not numbers...but was equipped to kill 50 in the time he had.
Where do the chronic criminals GET guns? Well....did I mention there's nearly a gun per American? Well a lot of "Law Abiding" citizens SELL guns to criminals...sometimes KNOWING the buyer is a criminal. Were I a burglar...odds are about 1/3 of places I burglarize..I get a gun or two. Since they ain't traceable...they may be the best thing a burglar can steal.
Your big screen TV....awkward to carry away and crappy resale.
You need to wise up, people do use such guns to hunt but that's not really the point.
What you deem a violent sick fetish and all those other polarizing words that don't mean much is just your opinion. It isn't your place to say that a person is wrong for having an object.
And you are wrong most guns used in crimes are stolen. that is not a good reason to ban guns. Most cars involved in crime are stolen we should ban cars to right?
A magazine and a scary looking gun are not enough to compel people to commit murder. That is just about the weirdest thing I have ever heard.
I have an AR 15, it doesn't make me want to go shoot up schools. Frankly I just go to the range and target shoot with it. You absolutely could hunt with it, its very accurate. But no it isn't some sick fetish, or any fetish its a hobby, you don't like it so don't participate.
Nope, first rule was violated, pointing a gun at somebody isn't a safe direction. Unless some magic bullet zoomed out of the gun and changed direction.
Negligence is still negligence even if it is a drunk klutz.
Columbine and Newtown and other shootings were an act by a porson, not a gun, sorry. If you just don't have murderous intent guns are not as deadly.
Again in gun crimes where the gun was purchased legally still there is murderous intent.
Outlawing guns will only insure that outlaws have them.
You know what you are 100% right. I can't possibly know any thing compared to you when it comes to guns, I have only been using and handling them for 20 years, i was only trained by my county on safe handling of fire arms, I only just tought several hundred people in proper handling of fire arms.
I can't possibly begin to scratch the surface of your vast knowledge. Even if you say something that is 100% wrong by my training it must be right because after all you know everything about everything.
Facts and data>your "training" especially considering I can find someone with equal training that holds the exact opposite viewpoint.
Certainly not. I am not the one calling everyone ignorant
The unfortunate part of this discussion is that we haven't even been able to have a real discussion because ideologues such as yourself refuse to consider certain facts, statistics, and possibilities and instead insist on your ideological stance that all bans will lead to increased or same gun massacre numbers despite cases in which that has already been disproven. In other words, the blanket statement that all bans are ineffective is wrong given the data. It becomes an anti-intellectual stance when you insist on it without properly challenging the data. I don't even want to ban all guns anyway
Certainly not. I am not the one calling everyone ignorant
The unfortunate part of this discussion is that we haven't even been able to have a real discussion because ideologues such as yourself refuse to consider certain facts, statistics, and possibilities and instead insist on your ideological stance that all bans will lead to increased or same gun massacre numbers despite cases in which that has already been disproven. In other words, the blanket statement that all bans are ineffective is wrong given the data. It becomes an anti-intellectual stance when you insist on it without properly challenging the data. I don't even want to ban all guns anyway
You said no fact.
You said something that people who don't really understand how firearms work use to support their irrational fear. Not knowing something means you are ignorant of that something.
But like I said everything I have learned in three past 20 years must be null and void because this fabricated fact you have with no support.
guns don't "go off" unless the trigger is pulled. I have taken them apart repaired them I have built them. In order for the gun to go off it first must be loaded. But we will ignore that. Because physics seems to disagree with your fact. In order for the sear to release the hammer the trigger must be pulled. Unless the property of the metal which the sear is made of is that it can allow matter to pass through matter and remain solid I am unaware of this property of matter.
Your "fact" violates physics on do many levels. I guess physics is wrong too.
The bans in the UK have reduced gun crimes even if some outlaws might still have them. And there lies the proof that your claim of bans not having any effect or making things worse is flat out wrong. It might be true in some cases, sure, but you never qualified it. Instead you insisted that no bans are good and that they always fail.
And just like guns don't just go off (I don't know why you keep insisting I am suggesting that as I have agreed with you on that point time and time again- it is a strawman on your part), neither do bombs, yet you agree those should be illegal
And just like guns don't just go off (I don't know why you keep insisting I am suggesting that as I have agreed with you on that point time and time again- it is a strawman on your part), neither do bombs, yet you agree those should be illegal
The bans in the UK have reduced gun crimes even if some outlaws might still have them. And there lies the proof that your claim of bans not having any effect or making things worse is flat out wrong. It might be true in some cases, sure, but you never qualified it. Instead you insisted that no bans are good and that they always fail.
And just like guns don't just go off (I don't know why you keep insisting I am suggesting that as I have agreed with you on that point time and time again- it is a strawman on your part), neither do bombs, yet you agree those should be illegal
It doesn't work in Illinois. Switzerland seems to be fine without bans.
This would suggest that it is different here, perhaps or culture is different. I am willing to discuss this but first I must say that everything you have said to this point is right, I agree 100% now that err got that out of the way.
Why its it that Switzerland doesn't seen to have the murder problems that the united states does? Despite vast majority of makes between 20 and 30 own guns.
If the logic is that gun bans reduce crime then Switzerland should be murder central, but its not, I just can't really understand the logic.
You understand that I am not personally making a pro-ban argument right? I was merely calling out your anti-intellectualism on the matter when you previously framed it in such simple terms. Good to see you come around. Maybe we can have a real discussion now.
Similar threads
