After TV Slaying, Reporter's Dad Finds Voice on Gun Control

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

It is already illegal to murder people.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

No, it isn't.

You're letting your own beliefs cloud the issue. Many anti-drug advocates treat all drugs exactly the same... just as anti-gun advocates treat all guns exactly the same. AR15's are not machine guns but it doesn't matter because the agenda is "guns bad!" Cannabis does not kill but it doesn't matter because the agenda is "drugs bad!"

Your statement should be rephrased to "all guns are capable of killing." There are 310,000,000 guns in America and all but a teeny tiny portion of a percent of those have ever or will ever kill someone.

I continue to be amazed that the ATS members most-concerned about gun laws in America do not live in America.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

It is already illegal to murder people.

It's the most-illegal thing there is but fools think that lesser laws will somehow dissuade people from doing it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

to your point in the other thread: i don't need to know how to get ahold of something on the black market. Everyone has that one cousin (or old high school friend) that is a little shady.

Yeah, even I know old high school friends that could work something out in anti-gun nazi Australia.Though, I imagine they'd be a lot more dodgy now than they even where back then. I can also basically guarantee you that if a fool like James Holmes approached them with $1200 looking for a gun, he would most certainly be relieved of his money and wouldn't get anything in return, lol.

btw, why do pro gun advocates always talk like any regulation would be making guns illegal? I can't think of one single country in the entire world where guns are illegal, just more efficiently regulated.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

You can't regulate a right.

You can only regulate privileges.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

to your point in the other thread: i don't need to know how to get ahold of something on the black market. Everyone has that one cousin (or old high school friend) that is a little shady.

Yeah, even I know old high school friends that could work something out in anti-gun nazi Australia.Though, I imagine they'd be a lot more dodgy now than they even where back then. I can also basically guarantee you that if a fool like James Holmes approached them with $1200 looking for a gun, he would most certainly be relieved of his money and wouldn't get anything in return, lol.

btw, why do pro gun advocates always talk like any regulation would be making guns illegal? I can't think of one single country in the entire world where guns are illegal, just more efficiently regulated.

Our government sells guns into countries where guns are illegal. Let that sink in: our government is involved in gun running. In addition to being the worlds largest drug cartel. Were they to prohibit all firearms, it would only be with the aim of putting more of us in prison.

That aside, my views on regulation and why I act an ass over any mention of it:



Im not sharing any more of my cake!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

btw, why do pro gun advocates always talk like any regulation would be making guns illegal? I can't think of one single country in the entire world where guns are illegal, just more efficiently regulated.

Yes, efficiently regulated to the point that the average civilian doesn't care to own one because of what's involved and the criminals are still well armed. It is still incredibly easy for a criminal to get a gun in the UK but a law-abiding individual has to jump through so many hoops that most decide it's not worth it.

You folks act like Americans are crazy for not accepting "sensible restrictions" and scoff at our "slippery slope" analogy but it has happened repeatedly in the UK. When regulations are found to be ineffective, the answer is to enact harsher restrictions. When those don't work, they get even harsher. It has played out right in front of your eyes but you're so bought in to your government's propaganda that you don't see it.

In effect, the laws worked as an outright ban. In the UK, a person must provide a "legitimate reason" for owning a firearm and self defense is not considered a legitimate reason.

The U.S. will never accept the sort of stringent regulations that the UK and Australia welcomed in their countries. Our culture is different and we tend to put up more of a fight against subjugation.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

I continue to be amazed that the ATS members most-concerned about gun laws in America do not live in America.

The majority of ATS members who are prepared to say something about it anyway.

Besides, my concern is with humanity as a whole. We will always be just a bunch of really smart primates, as long as carrying around tools that sole purpose is to kill is considered normal. I want humanity to evolve into a higher form of being and guns are a product of primitive man, imo.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


The majority of ATS members who are prepared to say something about it anyway.

Besides, my concern is with humanity as a whole. We will always be just a bunch of really smart primates, as long as carrying around tools that sole purpose is to kill is considered normal. I want humanity to evolve into a higher form of being and guns are a product of primitive man, imo.

As soon as you can get bad people and governments to give up their arms, I'll give mine up.

Until then, leave me alone and focus on the people who are actually doing harm to others.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a cute cartoon and all, except:

“The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year,” said the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action in a firearms safety fact sheet released Jan. 17, 2013.

A November 2012 report titled “Gun Control Legislation” from the Congressional Research Service also supports that number, though ranks it a bit higher.

As of 2009, the report states, “the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”

www.gunfaq.org...

That's not exactly what I would call crumbs.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Who cares if he knows the difference between a machine gun or a AR-15, what a ridiculous point to get all wound up about!

Yet this is the type of crap that the pro-gun side is supposed to put up with from the politicians that would write these bills...

If we were talking about politicians who are looking to pass gun control bills, then I would completely agree that they have an obligation to educate themselves on the issue.

But to me, it kind of just proves how weak the anti-gun regulation arguments are, when they feel the need to attack a man whose just lost his daughter in a senseless shooting, simply becuase he used the wrong terminology.

So if a woman died of a heroin overdose and her father came out wanting to ban marijuana because "all drugs are exactly the same, the technical details don't matter", you'd support that?

That's essentially what you're saying.

No, that's a completely different argument, because his daughter would have died because its already illegal and had no way of determining the dose she was taking. So he would essentially be advocating the exact law that killed his daughter.

Plus all guns kill, but cannabis doesn't kill.... so its a oranges & apples argument.

I continue to be amazed that the ATS members most-concerned about gun laws in America do not live in America.

The majority of ATS members who are prepared to say something about it anyway.

Besides, my concern is with humanity as a whole. We will always be just a bunch of really smart primates, as long as carrying around tools that sole purpose is to kill is considered normal. I want humanity to evolve into a higher form of being and guns are a product of primitive man, imo.

You know, i really do like your contributions to ATS. So don't take this the wrong way. (the conversation in general).

With that said...that isn't how evolution works. Humans are primates. We will always be primates. We can try to exercise conscious control of the more base behaviors. But most will not have very good control (human kind suffers from an underdeveloped superego, and an overdeveloped Id). Those are the folks that are a danger to me.

Even more....i live in a part of the world with several large predators. Including wolves, coyotes, javalina, mountain lion, panthers, and bobcats. This is one of the most sparsely populated areas in America, leaving plenty of room for habitat of said large predators.

Even more, i live just a couple hours from the Mexican border. The same border with a drug war that has left headless corpses piled up at the border. The same war that spills over on the backroads around here from time to time.

To give you some context to how drastically different my daily life experience is from what you seem to think it is. We don't have gangs here. We have cartel mafiosos. And large predators.

a reply to: Answer

Our culture is different and we tend to put up more of a fight against subjugation.

Is that why every time I watch an American cop show there arresting and taking people to jail for outstanding traffic fines. Why don't the citizens just get there precious guns and stand up to the government against such draconian treatment?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a cute cartoon and all, except:

“The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year,” said the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action in a firearms safety fact sheet released Jan. 17, 2013.

A November 2012 report titled “Gun Control Legislation” from the Congressional Research Service also supports that number, though ranks it a bit higher.

As of 2009, the report states, “the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”

www.gunfaq.org...

That's not exactly what I would call crumbs.

Oh, its crumbs. Just because the crumbs are a huge pile doesn't embody them with a quantum measurement. Its still a bunch of crumbs. A few firearms of a quality that wholly demeans the impetus of the 2nd Amendment (to be empower The People to stand against Uncle Sam....we are wholly outmatched on every level, having the majority of weapons made unavailable to us).

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

Our culture is different and we tend to put up more of a fight against subjugation.

Is that why every time I watch an American cop show there arresting and taking people to jail for outstanding traffic fines. Why don't the citizens just get there precious guns and stand up to the government against such draconian treatment?

Because we didn't stand up for our rights to begin with, and have allowed the king to hoard all the good steel for himself.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

Our culture is different and we tend to put up more of a fight against subjugation.

Is that why every time I watch an American cop show there arresting and taking people to jail for outstanding traffic fines. Why don't the citizens just get there precious guns and stand up to the government against such draconian treatment?

Because the government gives them too many things now. If people rose up, then they might have to fend for themselves.

And that's hard.

a reply to: harvestdog

You know... This truly breaks my heart. I could never imagine the pain of losing my child, especially in such a violent and senseless manner. However, this does not mean that guns need to be banned, or etc...

Tighter restrictions on guns will just lead to the murderous douche bags stabbing or strangling, or poisoning or beating their victims to death with either their hands or other weapons, premade, or handmade.

It's not going to make a difference IMO other than, the next person who is murdered may have to suffer a slow death at the hands of a rusty shiv.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

Our culture is different and we tend to put up more of a fight against subjugation.

Is that why every time I watch an American cop show there arresting and taking people to jail for outstanding traffic fines. Why don't the citizens just get there precious guns and stand up to the government against such draconian treatment?

The people you see being taken to jail have broken multiple laws.

When I watch an American cop show, the people they arrest and take to jail don't have "outstanding traffic fines." They are driving under the influence or they have a warrant out for their arrest for a serious offense or failure to appear in court.

Don't change the narrative just to fabricate an argument.

It seems the gun rights groups are afraid of even having a conversation about better regulations.


I can see both sides of the issue. I will admit that I have met some people that really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I have always distanced myself from those people.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I've known people who have used their 1st Amendment rights poorly.

It's not up to me to silence them.