An honest unusual discussion about firearms

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Kryties

I never said otherwise. You're the one who made something else up and pretended it's what I did.

OK. Now I know you're just here to mock people, and not actually contribute to the debate, I shall not be continuing further with you - except to point out to others that you speak to that you are here solely for the purpose of disrupting the thread and not actually contributing.

I'm glad we all got to see your true intentions here. Another troll outed. Nice.

If I honestly felt that some type of gun ban would help things, I'd give it more honest examination.

The issues here go back far before we had firearms and will certainly persist even if all firearms are somehow eradicated.

The argument that guns make things "easier" falls a bit flat when compared to weapons outside of the narrow story that is usually perpetuated.

I genuinely want a "better world," but I believe that to attain that.. the solutions wont be in specific ideas, but in how we interact with those of a different opinion. Some on the left genuinely believe their paradigm is based in beneficial social evolution, even if it absolutely is not. The reluctance to change on the right can serve as a very effective balance to that. However, once both groups become insular and perceive their opinion as morally righteous, collaboration not only becomes impossible.. it becomes traitorous.

There is also the issue that, no matter how one feels about the topic, dismantling even a single amendment sets a very, very dangerous precedent.

a reply to: Kryties

OK. Now I know you're just here to mock people,

I mocked the question, not the person. Not that I expect that to make any difference, given how much other stuff you've elected to make up and then run with.

I shall not be continuing further with you

You said that before so I won't be holding my breath.

except to point out to others that you speak to that you are here solely for the purpose of disrupting the thread and not actually contributing.

Surely you didn't just threaten to forum stalk me because you don't like what I have to say, did you?

I'm glad we all got to see your true intentions here. Another troll outed. Nice.

Whatever helps you sleep.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: DBCowboy

before you can have any real discussion on firearms, you need to set definitions of terms and what sources are considered unbiased.

are gang related deaths to be included?
are mass shootings to be included?
are deaths by race to be included?
are firearm injuries included?
are firearm accidents included?
are income levels of the reported firearms incidents to be considered?
are education levels to be considered?

what source? NRA? center for disease control? federal government statistics? state by state statistics?

we need to have ground rules in place first before a debate of this nature can happen.

This is always the biggest issue as too many rather just throw out meaningless stats like some random country like Australia has fewer deaths than the US without actually examining the variables within that data. Definitions are also a huge issue as well. We see this all the time when the "assault weapon" issue comes up.

With that said, both side do it to some degree. I see people who support gun rights also conflating gun violence stats to justify their concealed carry permits as well. For example, gun rights folks will cite Chicago violence ignoring also that most of that violence has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. Just as banning guns won't stop thugs from shooting other thugs, law abiding citizens are not very likely to also get in a shoot out with said thugs either.

a reply to: Erno86

The posts I was replying to were talking about guns without bullets being mere paperweights, and a counter to that which said they can still be used for pistol whipping. I was merely pointing out that there was yet another option for guns without bullets, one which you seem to be completely neglecting. Training with the bayonet should be just as important as training with the gun; just as stereotypical samurai also trained to use their sheaths as weapons.

Sincerely,
Anti-EnlightenedServant

a reply to: Shamrock6

Mockery of any sort does nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

a reply to: Edumakated

you make some valid points

a reply to: Kryties

Oh goodness, you're back yet again. Bless your heart.

Mockery of any sort does nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

It's the Mud-Pit. Mocking a question is entirely and completely within bounds.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: DBCowboy

Some people seriously have a notion --- not necessarily mine --- That without the availability of guns...the inner city gangs who control the illegal drug market, will have a harder time killing each other off; which would be a bad occurrence in the mind of people who believe in that kind of notion.

Apparently those folks aren’t familiar with West Side Story, or the real gangs of the 30s, 40s, and 50s who killed each other regularly with knives, bats, chains, etc.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Shamrock6

Mockery of any sort does nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

True, but sometimes some people say something so stupid, you can't help but mock them...

I see no issue with instituting gun control laws similar to what Australia has in place. As a gun owner, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest, as all I have (and all anyone really needs) is a hunting rifle and shotgun.
I'm not a fan at all of the "but it's our right" argument. Rights can (and should) change over time to reflect modern times. That's the beauty of a free nation, the ability to analyze issues and decide to change for the better. There have been many instances where things that were perfectly legal at one time are now illegal, and rightfully so. So changing gun control laws (NOT a ban) to reflect modern times seems like a no brainer to me. The notion seems so backwards to me, people that parrot the line of reasoning that it's in the Bill of Rights so it can't change, ever, just sound exactly like slaveholders from a couple hundred years ago: Very wrong, maybe even knowing they're wrong, but so resistant to change that they cling to their version of normalcy.
In regards to AR type weapons: no one in this country needs them. Period. Want them, sure, but they definitely aren't a need. This goes back to the "it's my right" argument, or "it's my hobby". Respectfully, those arguments are too shallow for me to really dignify. It was also a right and a hobby for people to collect and show off slaves. Times change. Find a new hobby, otherwise people end up sounding very selfish, even childish at times.
I also don't think the "country folk need to protect themselves from bears and lions" argument holds water. I live in a very rural area, with one of the highest concentrations of mountain lions in the continental 48, along with plenty of bears, and I've never in my life felt the need to carry a gun to protect myself or my family. Bear spray, occasionally, depending on the season.

Many replies on why we have guns, why we may own them, but do we actually need them?

I imagine that most everyone could and would get along just fine if they did not have a firearm.


As a reminder, I do own firearms.


Yet 99% of the time, the firearms stay safely locked away.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Many replies on why we have guns, why we may own them, but do we actually need them?

I imagine that most everyone could and would get along just fine if they did not have a firearm.


As a reminder, I do own firearms.


Yet 99% of the time, the firearms stay safely locked away.

Need is irrelevant. There are a lot of things I don't need but I still want to buy or have access too.

I don't need a 911 GT3 when a Hydundai will also get me from A to B.

I don't need a Rolex when Timex tells better time.

I don't need a super model wife when the fat cow down the street can cook better.

Need is also relative... just because I don't necessarily need a AR-15 in my cozy burb of Chicago, people in other areas may need them.

I maintain if someone doesn't like guns, don't buy them. It really is that simple. However, some else's dislike of firearms does not over ride my right to own firearms.

a reply to: Edumakated

It all comes down to the element of freedom, doesn't it.



Thanks for participating and your insight.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Rather than just banning guns to maybe end gun violence. Because let’s face it, any that are missed could be used in future gun violence. And there is no need to risk setting off gun owners because US gun owners vastly out number all active duty military members throughout the known world including law enforcement and armed government agents.

The simple answer is complete thermonuclear exchange. An order to the nuclear nations of the world to launch em if you got em. No living organisms capable of operating a firearm then no gun violence. Side effect of pleasing the anti nuke and over population crowds with the same stone. Yeah, the answer sucks, but it works.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet 99% of the time, the firearms stay safely locked away.

I think if most people did this then legal firearms wouldn't end up in criminal hands, I recently watch a programme on the Golden state killer, and before he was known as this he was a burglar and rapist. A gun stolen at an earlier burglary was used to kill his first victim before he moved on to became the Golden state killer. A lot of arguments put forward against any law change, or even more action on the laws that already exist, is "this will only effect the law abiding citizen", but how did so many firearms end up in criminal hands. I wonder if people made more of an effort to store firearms in a safer, and more secure way, then far less would be in circulation and used by criminals.

originally posted by: Shamrock6


It's the Mud-Pit. Mocking a question is entirely and completely within bounds.

Still does not mean that it's right nor does it contribute anything to intelligent conversation.

The fact you're defending it so hard is proof positive that it is your only intention on this website - to silence and mock. Your desire to mock people says everything I need to know about you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

If a concerted effort was put in place to eliminate firearms, then even in urban areas, the death rate would surely decrease.

There would still be multiple issues regarding inner cites, but deaths by firearms would be reduced.

If that were true, then you wouldn't have the UK talking about banning knives which have now become the weapon of choice for violent crime.

I think it does come back to violent people will be violent.

There was a highly publicized road rage incident coming out of my neck of the woods where in older man who had served time for murder stabbed a 23-year-old to death and fled the scene. No guns, but he was still murderously violent.

My 2c is that Australia and other countries just never had the gun culture or obsession with guns like in America.
Guns are just not a big issue in other countries.
America runs things how they want, and let everyone know about it and how special they are. Well in other countries they run things different and are not gun crazed gun nuts who think communists will invade if they don't have a gun for every man, woman and child in the country.
America enjoy your guns we in other countries really don't think about guns much and are not obsessed with them. And we have the freedom to live with less guns and less gun crime in our own countries like Oz. You do it your way we do it ours.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: DBCowboy

Some people seriously have a notion --- not necessarily mine --- That without the availability of guns...the inner city gangs who control the illegal drug market, will have a harder time killing each other off; which would be a bad occurrence in the mind of people who believe in that kind of notion.

Apparently those folks aren’t familiar with West Side Story, or the real gangs of the 30s, 40s, and 50s who killed each other regularly with knives, bats, chains, etc.

But if you went back in time and gave each of their members modern guns, would they kill more or fewer people?