Since you are helping me out, and I do appreciate it, what is a name-calling name. I’d never heard of that.
So there is no such thing as a gun free zone?
If only the military had guns with which to defend itself, none of this would ever have happened.
If only they were allowed to carry…
No clue. I’ve never heard of a “name-calling name”.
But I’ve certainly heard of “name-calling”, and using the term “gun grabber” certainly fits the bill.
No matter what you believe of the accuracy of the term, it is meant to appeal to emotions both from people who support more restrictions on gun ownership and from people who support fewer restrictions on gun ownership. And it is meant to do so in a way that conveys your disrespect for a particular stance (and possibly the people who hold it).
To summarize my post with a simple example:
It would be technically accurate to call your father a “mother fucker”. But using those particular words to his face is not that act of using neutral words conveying a simple statement of fact but words deliberately chosen to be insulting and inflammatory.
Saying “but it’s technically accurate” is the sort of argument I’d expect from a 6 year old, not a functional adult.
Likewise “gun grabber”.
I don’t know what that means in your head, but there were armed guards at the Navy Yard and the shooter still managed to kill 12 people. There were far more armed guards at the Navy Yard than the NRA proposed stationing at schools. There was also an armed police officer at Columbine.
Here’s a message you need to hear: you are not Rambo, he is a fictional character. You will never be the hero who saves the day and gets the girl, you’re more likely to be the Barney who blows his own foot off. Forget your sad fantasy and join us here in reality.
Cite for the military not being allowed to carry guns, please.
It’s satire. Was that painfully obvious point lost on you?
I assume they happen because the wrong person is armed. But apparently nobody is supposed to make a judgment about someone else’s right to bear arms, lest they be called a gun grabber.
I’ve been on numerous military bases. Although it’s common enough to see soldiers (recruits, mostly) marching around with their rifles, the only people you’d expect to have ammunition would be the military police.
Well, an armed guard didn’t help, despite your side’s claims. It, in fact, made it worse by giving the gunman* another* weapon to use. So, in this case, yes, an unarmed guard would have been better.
So the presense of armed guards didnt’ help and we’ve already established that an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in violence. Is the OP proposing that the only way we can be safe is if everyone always has a gun? If so, can I have a cite for that being proven effective?
Just for the heck of it:
- What do most murders with guns have in common?
- What regulations, if any, would affect these common elements and reduce the number of murders with guns?
If it turned out, say, that 85% of murders with guns were committed with semi-automatic guns, could we consider tightened regulation on semi-automatic guns? Or is that already unacceptable?
I wonder, could the OP identify one or two ‘gun grabbers’ by name, so that I can better determine how this term applies to anything that might be said in this thread?
These mass murder guys are crazy. I don’t think you can assume any sort of rationality on their part. There is simply nothing we can do about these massacres unless we can somehow identify and treat these crazy people but society has already decided that this is not worth the trouble.
These mass murders account for a teeny tiny percentage of gun deaths in this country. There once was a time when the gun grabbers (and I don’t mean that in the perjoritive sense) focused on trying to ban handguns (the source of the vast majority of gun deaths (despite being much less lethal than rifles) and gun crime. Its not like they didn’t have mass murders back then, they just realized that these black rifles didn’t pose that much of a problem. But if you follow the polls of public sentiment on handguns, you can’t even get a bare majority of people to support a ban on handguns. So they go after black rifles with bayonet lugs.
I’ve owned a gun for almost 30 years and I’ve never pointed a gun at anyone either.
You are talking about rational thought versus what these crazy muthafuckas are thinking.
And the first amendment says that congressshall pass no law that abridges…free speech. And yet we abridge free speech, and lobbying all the time. And it is clearly constitutional and was cosntitutional at the time of the writing of the constitution (as were various infringements on the right to bear arms).
Or are you arguing that the right has become more absolute with the passage of time because we have had to use the right to rise up against our own tyrannical government so many times it has grown to a level of an absolute right necessary for the preservation of the union?
Toldya pools were dangerous.
So we would expect different results in New Zealand where they didn’t pass a gun ban but somehow the rate of violence and murder both seem to follow similar trajectories. Is it possible that guns might not be the only factor at work here?
We gun nuts don’t claim that we are basolutely and irrefutably right (well I guess some of us do) but you gun grabbers don’t realize how much you sound like bumper stickers.
Yes, and the FFs inserted a failsafe called the amendment process for folks like Elvis who want to copnfiscate all the guns.
Not really. We already have a Supreme Court that has interpreted the second amendment to say that some regulations (including licensing and registration) are acceptable. if you disagree, you can write a clearer second amendment. All you need is 2/3 of each house and 3/4th of the states. Until you can get that, the supreme court is the arbiter of the law.
I think he’s calling gun owners racist (mostly because he has to demonize his opponents to give his arguments any weight at all).
That whole controversy has always bewildered me.
We have armed guards for a reason. It doesn’t make you immune from violence but we give them guns for a reason. Banks still get robbed but the idea is that it deters these sort of criminals. I’m not sure what deters a crazy man with a gun. It doesn’t matter if that gun is black and has a bayonet lug and a forward pistol grip or a wood stock, any gun of the same caliber is going to produce about the same amount of carnage.
Unless you (like a few others) really are advocating for the banning of all guns in which case the comments about repaling the second amendment are all appropriately addressed to you.
A Google map with a pushpin in Aurora. How… Umm… Useful. :rolleyes:
Let’s review the data I claim…
Cinema Latino de Aurora/Aurora Plaza 8 Cinemas
Not posted
1.22 miles (3 minutes)
Cinema Grill
Not posted
3.72 miles (7 minutes)
Century Cinemark Theater – where the attack occurred
No weapons allowed sign
3.97 miles (8 minutes)
Harkins Northfield 18 (Billed as the home of Colorado’s largest auditorium)
Not posted at the time of the attack
5.13 miles (10 minutes)
Aurora Movie Tavern
Not posted
10.04 miles (18 minutes)
Elvis Cinemas Tiffany Plaza 6
Not posted
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.12 miles (18 minutes)
The Movie Tavern at Seven Hills
Not posted
10.02 miles (19 minutes)
Landmark Theatre Greenwood Village
Not posted
12.88 miles (19 minutes)
UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 and IMAX
Not posted
9.66 miles (20 minutes)
Esquire Theatre
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.95 miles (21 minutes)
Regal Continental Stadium 10 & RPX
No weapons allowed sign
9.97 miles (21 minutes)
UA Greenwood Plaza Stadium 12
No weapons allowed sign, but told that people who have their permit with them are allowed to carry in there.
Arapahoe Crossings 16
No weapons allowed sign
15.38 miles (23 minutes)
Mayan Theatre
Not Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.29 miles (23 minutes)
AMC Southlands 16 23955 East Plaza Avenue Aurora
No weapons allowed sign
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
20.47 miles (25 minutes)
So, like I said, 7 theaters within 20 minutes showing Batman and he bypassed 2 of them to go to the only one that was posted No Weapons.
You have actual data that contradicts this?
Well, what comes to mind first off is to find out if gun availability in New Zealand dropped after Australia’s ban. I can imagine a lot of gun manufacturers who shipped to Australia and New Zealand cutting back sharply because the lion’s share of the market (Australia) was out of business. Further, if there were any gun manufacturers in New Zealand, did they go out of business because their largest foreign market (Australia, I’d assume) dried up?
How closely tied are the Australian and New Zealand economies? Is it possible a dramatic act of legislation in Australia will have significant economic impact on New Zealand? New Zealand may not have banned guns, but their availability could have dropped anyway.
Committed using a handgun?
Committed by someone who isn’t permitted to own the gun that was used?
Well we can’t ban handguns (see heller) so I suppose we could try enforcing the gun alws that are already on the books.
Singling out a particular type of gun is probably unacceptable unless you can prove that people wouldn’t start using revolvers. Don’t you have to meet some level of efficacy before we can justify restricting the ability to exercise a constitutional right? Or can we just start passing restrictive law after restrictive law and just hope something will work?
I think a good first step for a lot of gun grabbers would be to actually go grab a gun and head out to the range. Try out different types of guns and you might recognize that just banning a particular type of gun isn’t likely to have huge effects. Go through the background check process and wonder why we don’t follow up when someone fails their background check. Read the court cases and recognize the constitutional limits of what you can and cannot regulate.
TOO MANY of the gun grabber arguments lead ultimately to the banning and confiscation of all firearms. Some openly admit this and say it would be a “good start” They just ignore that this would be unconstitutional.