Snowboarder Bo, quit being a dumbass. He never compared coal power to guns, so quit misrepresenting what he said. It’s been explained to you very clearly twice. You’re being extremely dishonest.
Yes it does, because the whole point is that gun ownership is a right. Once a concession is made to “regulate” it beyond the point where other rights may be regulated (e.g. for the mentally incompetent or underage) then all guns WILL be banned, having removed the legal impediment to the gun-confiscation nuts’ desire to do so.
My list of people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about includes anyone who thinks an “assault weapon” is a definable thing, and anyone who thinks “automatic weapons” are the problem despite automatic weapons being used in precisely 0 famous mass shooting incidents and being part of a number of crimes in American history that is statistically equivalent to zero. Agreed?
Oh yeah, it’s a bitter irony all right. There were a few Khalistan purists at the secondary school I went to that wore labels such as this.
Well, we’re comparing total deaths with mass murder deaths again. Accidental death and one off events should be factored in. I don’t feel guilty getting into a car and wearing a seatbelt because of drunk drivers, nor do I feel car sellers are unscrupulous for selling a potentially dangerous product (bar negligence and not informing customers as to specific risks). However, I’m perfectly fine with laws which make wearing a seatbelt mandatory as they reduce the fatality rate for driving. An acceptable tradeoff of liberty for safety. An analogue may be reducing the amount of ammunition any one individual may purchase in a month and subjecting them to waiting periods and tests.
Slippery slope.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t say a thing about guns. It says “arms,” clearly in the sense of weapons (and in the context of a militia, not in the context of recreation or protection of family property, and certainly not in the context of ability to murder on a whim). Yet there is heavy regulation on switchblades, and nobody seems to be crying about that. They are illegal in several states. If the right to bear arms is so precious, why are people not up in arms (so to speak) about the restrictions on knives and katana swords and things?
By this logic, then we should be more afraid that they’re going to confiscate all our automobiles since every auto that is used on a public highway is registered and many are required to have routine inspections. All it would take is one little stroke of the pen to make automobiles illegal, hence I think we need to fight for our right to buy and use autos without any registrations, insurance or restrictions. As a matter of fact, I’m going to go out and hide my truck right now in case they try to do a stealth attack and take it while I’m not looking 
Per the bolded part… I’m not a historian, but I think American history dates back to before the 1950s… maybe even as far back as the 1900s. IF that is the case (and only if that is the case), then how does the St Valentines Day Masacre factor into the statement that “precisely 0 famous mass shooting incidents” are part of the number of crimes in American history? Weren’t those bad boys who used automatic weapons back in the 1930’s part of the reason that automatic weapons were required to be registered, then ultimately strictly controlled?
Ah, more personal attacks. Keep 'em coming! While you’re preparing your next one, perhaps you could read post #197 and post #198 again. You did read them the first time through, right?
And the point of my drawing attention to his trying to use coal power plant related deaths is that we do actually regulate coal power plants. We know they pose a health risk, and we have discussions and enact laws to regulate and curtail the harm they do all the time. And coal plants arguably do a lot more good for a lot more people than the 200 million privately owned guns in the US do. As such, I see no reason why this country couldn’t survive just fine with some reasonable restrictions and regulations on gun ownership. But then, if you’d really read my posts (and Kimstu’s post), you’d know the point I was making.
It’s at this point that someone will prolly make the “slippery slope” argu- hey what do you know? There it is, post #202!
This post is amazing.
In the very same post, you criticize gun owners for being paranoid about the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby.
And then bring up legally owned machine guns. Which were indeed became tightly regulated after the incidents you refer to. Since then, since 1934, legal machine gun owners in the US have had an absolutely perfect record, no crimes, no accidents. You could even say that it’s a massive success for gun control - after the devices were tightly regulated, they became a complete non-problem.
Except… what happened? Apparently after 52 years of a perfect record, after having them hurt no one, the gun lobby pushed to have them effectively banned anyway. If they actually were interested in safety and preventing of crime, this was a perfect case - the weapons had become a non-threat to safety - job done. But that didn’t stop them.
You apparently are unaware that in the very same post you demonstrate that your first point is wrong to such a degree that I’m amazed that you’re oblivious to the fact that irony pulled out of your ass, spun you around, and finished all over your face.
Yeah, the gun control lobby. Politicians tremble in fear of their awesome power. If only there were an effective counter-balance to their iron grip.
It’s only a fallacy when there’s no logical connection between the stages. No one actually wants to legalize man-on-turtle marriage, and there’s no legal or logical reason that legalizing same-sex marriage would have to lead to that, so that’s a slippery slope fallacy. A large number, almost certainly a supermajority, of people who think that banning scary-looking guns or automatic weapons, have in fact plainly stated that they want to ban all or nearly all guns. Reporting on what people have in fact said is their own position is not a fallacy. And looking at analogous cases in the past twenty years of political debate, it’s clear that there isn’t any slope the confiscation nuts won’t jump down headfirst–I remember “it’s absurd to suggest we want to ban unhealthy food just because we want to regulate cigarettes” and now look where we are with soda and fast food bans becoming a reality.
Murder on a whim is what happens when people who are strong enough to murder others with their fists or a knife don’t have to fear an equalizer in their victim’s home or person. It’s indeed sad that we live in a society where there is enough murder to worry about this, but banning guns is only going to make it worse.
Was that murder done with a legally licensed and registered machine gun? Was it a stolen or lost formalerly legally registered machine gun? If not, what’s your point?
It wasn’t in the US anyway.
You link to a story about a single-victim murder in England to prove that machine guns are used to commit mass killings in the U.S.
As always, gun-confiscation nuts are the most honest and intelligent people around!
I’m not sure it ever happened at all–after all, since guns are largely illegal to own in the UK, there are no murders there, certainly not murders with guns.
Yeah, those gun confiscation nuts. See them all the time at those gun-confiscation shows, drooling over all the guns they won’t ever have, and you won’t either. Weirdos.
God, you’re a dumb fuck.
Way to miss the point. The reason I brought that up is that the Bill of Rights does not merely say “everyone has the right to own a gun, kthxbye” and the reason it says what it does is in a specific context which has since been soundly ignored.
And for the record, a gun is not an equalizer. There is no tool or weapon that will do that. There are still differences in training, practice, ability, physical strength and dexterity, willingness to risk getting shot, and willingness to injure or kill another person. There will always be people who are better, faster, stronger, and generally more able than you. Some of them are bad people. Welcome to reality; I’m sorry it’s so scary.
A gun confiscation nut is the person whose response to anything bad involving a gun is to stand on the still-cooling bodies and scream that guns must be confiscated. They are not interested in statistics, linguistics, philosophy, or, apparently, geography–they are monomaniacally obsessed with their one-size-fits-all solution no matter how many times they are proven wrong, and are willing to bring down their political allies by insisting that it be trumpeted throughout the land.
(Obviously, I am using the term in contrast to the smear term “gun nut,” the confiscators’ standard term for anyone who has ever owned or shot a gun or believes there is any right to use a gun for any purpose).
Please tell me you think “well-regulated militia” means “only the army, subject to legal regulations” so I can be absolutely sure you have no idea what you’re talking about whatsoever.