Suit yourself. You claim that the NRA is forcing everyone to buy guns. This is of course false and of course you cannot offer a shred of evidence to support it.
I have no interest in engaging with someone who refuses to back up his position in such a manner.
And by the way, based on your posts in other threads, I have no problem saying that you are the most vile disgusting person I have ever had the misfortune of engaging with on this discussion board.
Goodbye, scumbag.
That is a sport-adaptation of a weapon; it never would have been invented unless the weapons were first.
The first handgonnes were designed for skeet shooting!
Yes!
In other words, you’ve got nothing.
You won’t back up what your assertions. Because you can’t. Because they are fucking crazy.
There go those moving goalposts again. Look at them fly!
Are you arguing that a gun for target shooting isn’t a weapon? That it’s in the same category as a frying pan, or similar, something that can be used as a weapon in a pinch?
Eh
No. Let’s recap:
I said this:
“Pro-gun people recognize that guns are tools and that they have value other than just being evil death dealing scary things . . .”
To which, BrainGlutton disagreed.
Now, this seems crazy to me. So I called him on it.
"Let me get this straight. You think that the only reason that guns exist and that someone would own a gun is because they are “evil death dealing scary things”.
Do I have that right?"
Since this is obviously untrue, as there are millions of people who own guns that don’t ever deal death or scare people with them I figured he’d backpedal. But no.
It actually seems like his blind hatred for all things guns causes him to believe that the only reason that they exist and that someone would own one is killing and death. The idea that someone would just want to shoot trap cannot be conceived of by Brainglutton.
This is silly, of course. In a moment of clarity he must have realized how silly it is, thus his new attempt of shifting the goalposts to “the reason the first gun was invented was as a weapon”, or something.
I am with you in general on this point, but this argument doesn’t work. There are millions of people who own fire extinguishers that don’t ever use them to put out fires.
The only problem I have with gun buy back programs is they generally don’t check serial numbers to determine if the guns were stolen or if they are connected to another crime. Police are then complicit in destroying evidence. If I had a gun stolen and reported it to police, and then it was turned in during a gun buyback and destroyed rather than returned to me, I’d be pretty upset.
It’s also generally a waste of money with no efficacy but in this case it seems like it’s not using tax money other than time so that part seems moot.
Au contraire – News Stories generally report that the police do precisely this. With regard to the Tucson buyback that started this thread:
So it looks as if NRA efforts to stop destruction is trying to prevent a fait accompli
– CalMeacham, who managed to use two French phrases in one post. Yay!
I think that is the exception, rather than the rule. Most police departments do check serial numbers.
I was mistaken, if stolen guns are returned, then that seems fine. Though I’d want the person turning in the stolen gun to be questioned on how the acquired it - that part seems missing with the no questions asked method.
So how does that work? These are supposed to be “no questions asked” gun returns.
If you murder someone with a pistol and then go and hand in said pistol during a buy back program, can they use it in the investigation against you?
That’s a good comparison. People own fire extinguishers for peace of mind, hoping they’ll never have to use them. The same reason a lot of people own guns. I wonder if the anti-gun idiots here would call fire extinguisher owners cowards for not wanting to fight fire on equal terms?
And there are so many murders, suicides, and accidental fire extinguisher deaths in this county, that makes the analogy even more apt.
Well, I’m off to the fire-extinguisher range. Talk to you later.
You certainly should learn to use one properly, and not mess about with one so as not to risk injuring people. Tgat was your point, I assume?
I think his point was that your analogy was kinda shitty.
I wonder what would happen if some non-profit group or church did this with donated gift cards? What could the NRA do?