True.
I withdraw my previous post, and substitute the one that follows:
Well, I said “a bit debatable.”
I think that’s a fair statement. I agree that “That monster!” is not a fair criticism.
This is known as a strawman argument – you ascribe “That monster,” to me, and then denigrate it. But since my argument was never “That monster,” you are attacking an argument I never made.
Well that’s the real tragedy then, isn’t it.
Actually, I’d be curious if you could elaborate as to what makes me so detestable now. Do I have to hop into the big recereational grieving group with you guys to be a decent human being?
Personally, I stopped respecting your posts after you didn’t shed tears for days every single time something bad happened in the world, which is pretty much constantly.
Fair enough, I’m wrong about that I guess. That’s what I’ve read, but I haven’t looked into it much. I do know that there is significant debate as to what constitutes a proper executive order and what doesn’t, so it’s not as if they’ve got carte blanche to overwrite a law.
Only one of them, the bolded one I specifically pointed out, actually said that. Others were just general concern that Obama would persue what gun control he could through executive orders. I don’t think you seem to understand how ridiculous the notion that guns would just be banned one day by surprise in one fell swoop is.
I’m kind of amazed that even after simplifying it greatly, you still don’t understand what happened.
Hentor was trying to get me in a gotcha. He was saying that because I dismissed the idea that guns would all be confiscated today by executive order, then I didn’t feel that confiscation was ever a possibility, therefore I could never worry about future legislation that might lead to confiscation.
Most people agree with the AWB because they believe something false about it. They’ve been mislead. Anyone with the slightest bit of integrity knows it’s a crock of shit, at least on this board, where it’s been explained in detail.
I’m sure that’s true. I’m not supporting them. I’m trying to combat this over the top asshole circle jerk going on on the SDMB now.
Before Sandy Hook, I really was basically okay with our gun laws in the US. I felt like there may have been areas where they could’ve been tweaked and improved, like perhaps better control regarding assault guns, but overall, I wasn’t stridently anti gun ownership.
However, after Sandy Hook and so much vitriol, lies, fear mongering, plans to circumvent the government over issues they disagreed with, straw man arguments and just generally batshit insane behavior from proponents and organizations like the NRA, I feel that banning guns in general might not be that bad of an idea after all. The way these people have reacted to even rational conversation about this is downright terrifying. Much more so then dealing with a world where everyone isn’t protected.
No. But it’s unquestionably over-the-top, which is well out of wishy-washy territory.
But
is solidly into wild-eyed rantings territory. And that was a U.S. Senator, remember.
Like I said, if this is the sort of thing you consider wishy-washy, I’m genuinely concerned for you. I worry about the batshit-insane stuff that must strike you as just middlin’ conversational to mildly assertive.
Great, thread #58482 for the checklist.
“No one is taking your guns. You’re insane if you think anyone wants to take your guns. Also, all of your guns should be taken.”
“We need to have a reasonable discussion about this issue. Also, anyone who disagrees with me is a racist, insane, and a conspiracy theorist who wants to see children die.”
“Stop using inflammatory terms like ‘gun grabber’, you gun nut with assault weapons!”
I should just start playing bingo with these things.
Yeah, so its a good thing I said lightning STRIKES not lightning deaths.
If you want to talk about deaths, then I would point out that more people die from punches and kicks than long guns and about 3 times as many people die from knives and blades.
You’re right, I forgot to include shotguns.
I will note that the only shotguns people are talking about banning are semiautomatic shotguns (which don’t really work very well IMHO because they jam a LOT).
Numerical arguments are easy to dismiss if you misread what is written.
I was trying to point out how rare death by rifle is. Change lightning strikes to knives if you like.
TO be fair, we’ve heard more than a little bit of hyperbole, misinformation and fear-mongering from the gun control side of the debate as well.
I’ve never been OK with our gun laws. I think we need a national registry that tracks ownership of every gun (we need to get rid of straw purchasers of guns who flip those guns to anyone that will pay for it). I think a gun license should be required to purchase and own a gun (a test and relicensing every few years). I think that registration follows the gun so if you sell the gun to someone, even in a private sale, the gun sale must be executed through an FFL dealer (I don’t know how much they would charge but they only charge about $25 to accept a mail order gun and handle the paperwork associated with registering the gun to you in the state and I don’t see why transferring registration would cost much more than that), the gun show loophole is fucking retarded.
Like I said before, trying to stop gun violence by banning semi automatic rifles is like trying to stop abortions by banning partial birth abortions. The VAST majority of gun violence in this country is committed with handguns and nobody is talking about limiting handguns.
I remember back in the 90s when people actually bought gaming mags. Good times.
[All the snippage is mine.]
True. There’s been plenty of hyperbole to go around. But, the complete hysterical, frothing-at-the-mouth, over-the-top-clutch-your-kids vitriol seems to be emanating from gun enthusiasts. It’s unsettling and surreal. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that the proposal on the table would be to rape and slaughter their loved ones. Step back from the ledge, people. Life will go on.
There have been multiple studies debunking the connection between video game violence and actual violence.
Anecdotal, but the gaming community I belong to doesn’t really care about new research being done, because it’s only going to bolster the existing evidence that video games act as an outlet for already violent people, and you’re more likely to become violent due to watching a football game than playing GTA or Halo. Maybe this research will stop the “Doom caused Columbine” crowd, who knows. (I do: it won’t.)
And lets put both sides into perspective:
Guns seized by Obama: 0
Number of people massacred by gun weilding lunatics in 2012 alone: 151
One side has good reason to get a bit hysterical. One side doesn’t.
As for the 150 million gun owners who didn’t massacre anyone but are still being demonized as the cause of all evil in society (complete with regular calls to imprison them, have the military slaughter them, etc), I guess they just don’t count in your addled math?
Less than half of that number actually died. Small distinction, perhaps, but those are small numbers anyway. As usual, there’s no outrage at all about the literally thousands of poor urban minority kids who died that same year. Does it just take a sudden white death toll to capture the heart of the nation, or what? Or is it only murders with scary black assault weapons that count, even though there are so few of them?
If they didn’t want this sort of reaction, they should have been supporting reasonable precautions against mass shootings all along. They wouldn’t even let us hire an ATF Director, fer cryin’ out loud.
What actions would the ATF have taken to prevent the mass shooting incidents?
The esteemed Ms. Ann Coulter proposes a new interpretation of the issue that introduces race as a filter.
I am waiting on Ted Nugent to offer his thoughts, such as they are. 
I don’t know. And if the gun lobby has its way, we’ll never know.
The thing is, that was just an example. There are a few others, like how the NRA quashed CDC research into why “guns in the house more often resulted in accidental and intentional family deaths than the protection of the inhabitants”.
It’s not just mass shootings that the NRA doesn’t do anything about.
What would research into accidental shooting deaths of one’s own family have done to prevent a school massacre?
At risk of repeating myself, “I don’t know. And if the gun lobby has its way, we’ll never know.”
But hey, I can play your game, too. How would preventing the appointment of an ATF Director keep mass shootings from happening? For that matter, what has the NRA done in any way to keep their favorite products from being used to shoot up schools?
I’m not a member or supporter of the NRA, but I am good at noticing that your supposed examples of how they or any pro-gun organization are responsible for mass shootings don’t make a lick of sense.