New York Times to publish front page editorial on gun control, first time since 1920

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
I have never been shot, been shot at , never even had a gun pointed at me (outside of LEOS).

So tell me then, how exactly will not having a gun detrimentally impact you?

You have a demonstrably sick society and some mess-up notion that having a gun will make you safer.

It won't.

Maybe not But I feel safer.. And i tell you what If I am ever at the mall or something and someone starts shooting it up I for one will be shooting back..

Would you say you're living in fear? It sorta sounds like you are when you're taking a gun to the mall despite never - by your own admission - having encountered a gun incident...

originally posted by: aorAki

So tell me then, how exactly will not having a gun detrimentally impact you?

Ignoring the self-defense aspect for a moment, most of that 100 million or so gun owners in this country would also fall into at least one of the categories of collectors, hunters and those who own guns for other various sporting purposes. They would be detrimentally impacted as well.

a reply to: KingIcarus

No more living in fear than someone who has a bee allergy is when they carry around their epi-pen. It's not something you live in fear of or you'd never leave the house, but it is something you understand as a risk you might face, so we all react in ways we deem responsible.

Some of us are pro-active and choose to take a measure of responsibility for our own safety.

Others think the best way to secure their safety is to try to control others through denying them tools for violence without addressing why they might want to be violent in the first place.

Since the only person you can really control is yourself, I deem the first course to be the most responsible and likely to work.

on page one, someone posted that gun control will help the crime drop......how ignorant, huh!!

how can one actually post that unless they're the evil buzztard we speak of.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I guess that guy missed the part where violent crime and homicides, including those that are firearm-related, have dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, despite skyrocketing gun sales and a sharp increase in people with concealed carry permits.

Having just read the editorial in question, I must say, I was actually expecting something a bit more compelling even from a left wing anti-gun rag. Instead, he opens by conceding that the gun control opponents are correct on a number of factual points of opposition before trailing into a meandering emotional appeal for gun control because we just gotta try something, even if we know it won't work, apparently.

I've seen better anti-gun posts here. Fail.

a reply to: vor78



Emotion. It is the new liberal way. If you feel it, it is the best way to do it. Who cares if it will logically work or not.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Gun control is the same as speech control.

We're talking about rights here. Not some government allowance.

With this way of thinking be prepared for more of this:
Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

a reply to: aorAki

There are a few youtube videos in which criminals explain quite clearly why they support gun control.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yep. Though I'm not sure that's a new thing from the 'if it feels good, do it' party. BTW, have you heard? The Democrats have apparently found a new classification of firearms, and I have to admit, it sounds pretty damn scary:



Seriously, why do people listen to these idiots? They obviously have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, what they're banning or why they want to ban it.

originally posted by: okrian
We're too far gone anyway. The NRA rewrote the 2nd amendment too long ago (wasn't actually that long ago). It's hard to remember, but it was fairly recent that this new take on the 2nd amendment set out to rewrite the constitution (a sad day). And now we act like the constitution actually states that individuals have the right to bear arms for self-protection or hunting (it doesn't). What you've got is British common law, from over 239 years ago, an activist judge, & the NRA. Go lobbyists!as

Would a gun grab work... nope. Too far gone. And too much riled-up fear among the gun-toters (over a law that got rewritten).

You don't know what you are talking about. The Supreme Court has ruled on this argument.

BTW, American gun owners are NOT violent. We have well over 200 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo. If we were violent, you would KNOW it. The violence is mostly in the inner cities and drug and gang related----thug-on-thug and gang-on-gangs.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
. And i tell you what If I am ever at the mall or something and someone starts shooting it up I for one will be shooting back..

I'd hate to be caught in that crossfire...

I think that's called the price of freedom.

The same people that want to enact gun control are the same ones that would have no problem with speech control. If you're going to put limits on rights, then it's not right anymore.

originally posted by: queenofswords
BTW, American gun owners are NOT violent. We have well over 200 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo. If we were violent, you would KNOW it. The violence is mostly in the inner cities and drug and gang related----thug-on-thug and gang-on-gangs.

At current rates of yearly firearm related homicides in the US, how many years would it take before the number of such homicides equaled the number of law-abiding gun owners? And understand, there's an implication in that simple math equation that all homicides are committed by otherwise law-abiding gun owners, which is absolutely not true.

The answer proves rather definitively that the average law-abiding gun owner is not an issue.

a reply to: vor78

That is the point. Exactly right. Law-abiding gun owners are in the tens of millions and 99.99999 per cent of them go about their daily lives without a single incident. If we wanted to get violent, the whole world would know it. These gang-on-gang and thug-on-thug murders are mostly where the homicides are. The others are a minuscule percentage in a country of 380,000,000 people with lots of freedoms. We like it that way.

a reply to: queenofswords

Yep. And the answer to the question above is that, regardless of the numbers you use, it takes a long-ass time. Assuming ~10,000 yearly firearm-related homicides to ~100 million lawful gun owners, it would take TEN THOUSAND YEARS before every lawful gun owner committed a homicide...and that's making an awful lot of rather dubious assumptions about that group of 100 million gun owners (primary among them is that fact that humans don't live for 10,000 years. Literally billions of them would have lived long, happy lives and died having never committed such a crime with their firearm assuming that the 100 million number at any given time could be maintained).

a reply to: alienjuggalo

It will prevent future idiots from buying guns and ammo. If you are on a terrorist watch list and are not aloud to fly.... Then they should not be able to purchase a gun. Right now the states basically has a free for all gun market because of the NRA. The NRA wants everyone to have guns, even terrorists.

Calling for vigilanty justice is straight up wrong and makes you no better then the terrorists. As your political views are different from theirs, and calling on others to rise up and fight back to push your views is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

So technically you would be considered a terrorist by definition. Think about it, look up the definition.

Insiting violence on either side is wrong. Look at that facist pos trump. He said some horrible things about minorities, his supporters beat up a homless man cuz of his skin colour. Latino americans at his rallies get spit on, assulted, told to go back to their home country when they are born and raised in the states.

Look at how normal GOOD hearted muslims get attacked, filmed, stalked, put on blast just because people like you are insiting violence.

Vigilanty justice does not work. Americans need to wake up. Here in canada we have been attacked twice. But we are not calling for people to go gun nut crazy them. We are not spreading hate and fear like americans and it shows. Yes we did have one idiot attack a mosque, but that pos got delt with.

America NEEDS common sence gun control. If it works in every other country why wont it work there?

a reply to: snypwsd

Don't you believe in due process? Why should rights be suspended simply because someone placed you on a list?

a reply to: snypwsd

Could you please point me to a policy statement by the NRA where they state that they 'want everyone to have guns, even terrorists?' Thanks.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: snypwsd

Don't you believe in due process? Why should rights be suspended simply because someone placed you on a list?

Never mind the fact that BOTH parties just issued separate pieces of legislation to address that, only to see the other side vote each of them down. Yes, that's right, the NRA's allies in the GOP actually had their own proposal to shore up that issue, which, though problematic, at least had something of an allowance for the due process of those wrongly on the lists, and the Dems voted it down, too. But its all the NRA's and GOP's fault.