Yeah, it doesn’t really add up the way I thought it might.
**
Well I’ll tell you how I look at it.
I grew up in Bed Stuy Brooklyn, and it it has seen it’s share of good times and bad times. Guns were a fact of life growing up, and trust me, they weren’t used for shooting street rabbits. I’ve known people that have died over some pretty stupid things, and it was usually a gun that was dishing out the justice. I myself have had the pleasure of having Glocks and such pushed up in my face, shot at, and threatened with death several times. Now I am not a drug dealer, I’m not some street thug, I’m just an average schmuck who grew up in a bit of a crappy neighborhood.
To be honest I never really thought that guns had any good uses. I just see them as tools of thugs, and of cowards who would be unable to carry out their business without one. When you see them as I saw them, and what they do to ruin lives up close and personally, you might be calling for their banning as well.
Now, with that said, I’m well aware that this is the exception and not the norm. and that banning them wouldn’t do more then redistribute some statistics.
**
Sure, but putting a dent in the 4th highest method of homicide would be nice as well. (figures pulled out of my ass) Anyway banning them won’t solve anything, let’s move on.
**
A person was murdered, and what started out as a knee jerk thread became very educational. No exploitation from my POV.
**
Sometimes some emotion is a good thing.
**
Well we better figure something out, they’re not safe enough.
Does this mean you don’t any more? Then what is your stance?
Bullshit. And pretty fucking presumptuous. Just because someone isn’t for banning guns doesn’t mean they’re naive and don’t know of the results of gun violence. But you, you’re taking a self-described narrow viewpoint, where you’re “just” seeing them in only one of their possible uses, and using that one use, disregarding the others, as the basis for your argument.
And using emotion to usurp rational thinking has repeatedly done harm, instead of good. Zero-tolerance policies, for example.
Youth crimes have been going down steadily. Deaths in schools have been going down steadily. IIRC, a teen is much less likely to get killed in school than than out of it (Even accounting for the proportion of time spent in school and out). So in your opinion, just what would be safe enough?
You shouldn’t pull figures out of your ass. If they’re used in a fraction of a fraction of gun crime, then if you’re breaking up homicide by weapon type, I can pretty much garuntee you they’re nowhere near 4th.
**
Not when it’s an appeal to someone’s emotion with the goal of overriding their rational thoughts with pure emotion.
I see them at nearly every gun show and gun store I go to, and not typically one or two. I got mine at a gun show a couple of years ago from a private owner, in fact.
Yeah, it probably would, but not the hands you’re thinking of. It would’ve been my hands when I was a poor 21 year-old college student who lived alone and bought a gun simply because I wanted one. Less than a year later when a crackhead in a rage broke into my apartment at around 2:30 a.m. the fact that a Ruger P95DC semi-automatic 9mm pistol was mass produced and inexpensive may have saved my life.
You would’ve kept that gun out of my hands and left me in that apartment alone with the raging crackhead while I attempted to dial 911 and prayed the police got there. Thanks.
Correction. It was usually some person with a gun dishing out the justice. A gun cannot go and hunt someone down and shoot them on its own. Why do you insist on attributing the crimes of men to the objects that had no choice?
That’s cuz they’re BANNED in CA, Tony. Johnny LA was ragin’ about this last year or the year before, he’s shipped his out of state for safe keeping with a friend until he moves.
Well, World Eater, your position that semi-automatics should be banned or so expensive that poor people couldn’t have them would have left me without a means of defense when that criminal broke into my apartment.
You can roll your eyes all you want, but your idea of reducing supply until the price skyrockets so that ‘poor people’ can’t afford guns would do exactly that.
Am I missing something here? Hasn’t World Eater stated that his position has changed as a result of this thread? And that he’s re-thinking his outlook re firearms? Or did I get whooshed?
Not to hijack the thread but this is a good reason why we should be able to edit posts. World Eater should be able to add a message to his OP that says his views have changed and he no longer feels this way, or at least a MOD should do that for him
Ah, yes, now I get it. You make a vague comment about rethinking your views and changing your possition, and I’m supposed to do a nice mind-reading and see what that new possition is.
So how about can the attitude and answer the question instead of making people guess what you’re thinking?
Oh, nice. My main complain there wasn’t about banning or not banning firearms, but you being down-right presumptuous by assuming people who weren’t sharing your viewpoint of guns being only used by bad-guys (To roughly paraphrase your statement that started it all) must have not ever seen the results of gun violence, or had it happen to them.
Cute. Now are you going to be serious and answer the question, or were you unable to come up with an answer and decided to give a “witty” remark to dodge it?
And I’m still waiting on an answer as to what you meant by this:
…Because it’s really easy to read that as a pretty offensive statement, in context…
