I could probably list a thousand things that cause more deaths than mass shootings. Kids finding some household poison and drinking it. People drowning in their own backyard swimming pool. Etc. etc. You are advocating that we enact wide-sweeping laws that effect the lives of tens of millions of people based on a few highly sensational incidents which make up about .00000000000000001% of crime or deaths. Do you want to ban air travel to every time you see news about a crash?
It does amuse me that you revile in disgust, hoping you’re not even the same species as me. I feel the same way. You are irrational and ignorant, sticking to whatever views emotionally please you no matter how many facts or arguments are set up against them. You do not have a logical perspective and choose your causes not on a logical examination of what would do the most good, but how individual incidents trigger your emotional response. You have no ability to seriously consider different viewpoints or critically examine your own views. I too wish we weren’t of the same species.
With that being said, can we assume you also campaign against swimming pools? They aren’t necessary by any means, and are the cause of more deaths in one year than all of the mass shootings in the last 20 years combined. Heck, there isn’t even a pesky constitutional amendment standing in the way.
It’s amazing that this thread has gone on for so long without a single logical, coherent, fact-based argument from the OP. The OP, for what it’s worth, is not an argument, it is a screed. It’s a bit of melodramatic emotion-laden rhetoric that Mr. Haymarket Martyr thought was clever, apparently. Or maybe it’s what passes for clever in his strange world, where people who have facts to support their arguments are repulsive creatures who he wishes he was a different species from.
I mean, unbelievable, right? And yet this is the bread and butter of the anti-gun campaign.
Only if they’re deeper than 6 feet, or larger than the one in Dirty Harry. Why would you need one deeper than that anyway? The average American man is only 5’10" or so, meaning 6-foot pools are perfectly capable of drowning somebody, and 12-foot “murderiser” pools are capable of drowning two people stacked on top of one another.
haymarketmartyr keeps saying that he doesn’t want to be confused with techno-babble about guns and so refuses to get informed even about the weapons he would have banned, in order to define which ones he has a problem with. He will know it when he sees it, or something.
Early in the first few pages haymarketmartyr says that he doesn’t have a problem with owning guns for hunting. So how will he decide what can be used?
I have a light deer hunting rifle, bolt action, holds 4 shots, Ruger model 77. Ok to use?
It does not come with open sights, you must add a scope to use the thing. So I have a nice, big scope and can hit reliably for several hundred yards. Is it still a light deer hunting rifle or is it a ‘high powered sniper rifle’?
It is chambered to shoot 7.62mm x 39 ammo, the same ammo that an AK-47’assault rifle’ shoots. Just 4 at a time.
To me and anyone else who knows guns it is still just a light deer hunting rifle. But to a sensationalised media story it might be a “high power sniper rilfe shooting assault weapon bullets”. Sorta like the ‘cop killer’ handgun used in the Ft. Hood shootings. Media hype meant to stir up the same old arguments.
And that is the problem gun owners have with people who want to ban ownership, or write news articles, while at the same time refusing to learn those pesky little details about guns.
My final word on this subject in this thread and then you can have your sandbox back for the regularly scheduled NRA junior chapter meeting.
Many of you keep saying that I am motivated purely by emotion and gut feeling and I scorn facts and information that you seem to feel you have memorized in abundance.
What about the emotions of fear and paranoia? Those two emotions seem to be at the very heart of the gun lovers fascination with the Second Amendment. Sure, you want to badly make it a discussion about all the technical specifications of various guns because you specialize in that sort of stuff and I do not so it gives you and advantage. I get that.
To pretend that the rest of you are some Mr. Spock type creatures who have these computer like minds running on pure data and information is just a crock. At the heart of the gun issue is** fear and paranoia** and you folks have it in spades. You need bigger and more powerful guns because you are afraid to be walking the dangerous streets if you are not carrying a concealed weapon. You have a fear of the very government of this country and want to have your guns be as big as the government guns so when the war does come with our own elected government, you can take out as many feds as possible before they pry your beloved from your cold dead fingers… that is the bumper sticker promise is it not?
In the end, most of you do not want any restrictions on guns at all. This is why it is a fools trap to “educate” me or anyone else about technical specifications because its all just a ruse and in the end you will still plant your feet firmly, grab your weapons, and scream NO WAY. You have made that very very clear.
I should have listened to some of our more rational members who posted early on saying it was not worth it to argue with any of you. I should have listed to those voices of experience who have probably been through this routine before and know how it always ends and that the script has not and will not ever change.
Did you ‘memorize’ that a mustang has more horsepower than a civic? Or that the 80’s had a sharp downturn in quality for GM products? Or that a blender is what you use when you want to blend, and food processor doesn’t make very good smoothies?
These aren’t things you memorize, they’re things you learn.
No, not because it ‘gives [us] an advantage’ but because if you don’t base your opinions in reality, they’re fantasy.
Uhm, actually, I don’t carry a concealed firearm. I’m 19 and it would be illegal for me to do so. And, even if I was given the choice, I’m not sure I would. I’d consider it, though. I do carry around a two knives, though. Does that make me paranoid?
(As a note, both knives get used quite often, rarely for the stabbing, though… usually for opening boxes or cutting food. One is sanitary and the other is for sticking dirty places… :D)
Actually, the bumper sticker doesn’t “promise” anything, it’s a Larconic phrase indicating that you’ll take our guns (and by extension, our freedoms) when you kill us.
It’s much the same as the statement “Better to die a free man than to live an enslaved one,” or “I die free.” Just much more pointed. And most, if not all, don’t have a problem with those phrases.
Yet, you still haven’t come up with a “compromise,” like the ones you keep claiming we should accept.
You’ve come up with threats, (Agree now, and we wont take more later) like the ones used by extortionist or bullies, but no compromises.
You’re right, your script never does change.
:eek:THESE GUNS ARE BIG AND SCARY AND SHOULD BE BANNED!
:dubious:But there’s no difference between the guns you want to ban, and the guns you don’t want to ban, other than cosmetic.
:eek:BUT THEY’RE SCARY!
:dubious:No they’re not. They’re inanimate objects that you’re imbuing with magical abilities.
:eek:But… they kill people!
:dubious:So do cars, trucks, SUV’s and swimming pools, in far greater numbers.
:eek:But those aren’t guns!
:dubious:So, tell me again what you want to ban?
:eek:SCARY GUNS!
:dubious:Why?
:eek:THEY KILL PEOPLE!
:dubious:But they don’t kill nearly as many people as other things, and other things could be tackled and more lives could be saved in a far more cost efficient manner. Gun crime, and crime in general could be reduced much more efficiently by setting up social safety nets and at-risk programs.
:eek:BUT THAT WOULDN’T GET RID OF THE GUNS!
:smack::smack::smack::smack:
Ahhh yes, the oft used “I’m taking my ball and going home” stratagem. Well played sir.
Concern over personal safety is neither fear nor paranoia. One can either wish and hope and pray for the world to be a safer place, and make feel-good legislation to feel better about things, or they can identify and mitigate the risks in their own life to accomplish a far more effective result. At least this discussion has shown upon which side of that line we all reside.
Having to post this is like conceding in a debate with a white supremecist that yes, African-American men do occasionally rape and kill white women.
But in the name of full disclosure, I have to admit to it. haymarketmartyr challenged me to:
So I researched it. And what I came up with was that the courts have upheld the draft NOT on the basis of militia membership, but on the theory that the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war and create standing armies contained the implicit power to enact a national draft. The relevent Supreme Court decision was Arver v. United States in 1918.
(This was just one of multiple decisions by the Court of that era striking down any and all possible obstacles to the prosecution of World War One. I swear, if someone had argued with a straight face that the revival of Negro slavery was necessary to support the war, the Court would have upheld it. :mad:)
Interesting statement, actually. Since this board is predominantly liberal, it’s interesting that none of the majority of the board has joined in to take your side on the issue and agree with your … I’ll be generous and call them arguments.
When you say that some guns are okay, and some guns are just too deadly, it’s reasonable to ask you to clearly even define what would make them fall into either category. But you’ve been unable to do so. Your position depends on differentiating between the capabilities of guns, and yet you spew ignorance and then proudly ignore anyone attempting to educate you on the facts.
This is unfounded. I think I understand why you think this … after all, to you guns are these powerful, evil little devices that cause death and destruction. I’d imagine the very thought of being near one is scary to you. And so, if you feel that everyone else thinks like you - in order for them to overcome their fear and actually carry and use guns, their paranoia and fear of the outside world would have to trump their fear of these little killing machines.
But that’s not how most gun owners are. We aren’t hysterical. We don’t have an irrational fear of guns. Their presence is not that big a deal. They need to be treated properly, but they are just hunks of metal that we have full control over.
But we haven’t made emotional appeals in place of arguments as you have. If we were to argue in a way that was equivelant to your tactics, we’d say something like “what if my wife was walking the streets and was attacked by a rapist? Wouldn’t you want her to have a gun she was trained to use? WHY DO YOU WANT MY WIFE TO GET RAPED?!!?” and that sort of useless emotional appeal.
It’s a tool that most people will never need to use, but in the event that you do, could be invaluable. I wouldn’t classify anyone who kept a fire extinguisher in their house full of fear and paranoia, even though they likely will never have to put out a fire with it.
Well… sort of. Ideally, if somehow things degenerated to the level where this would be relevant, having an armed populace that’s willing to fight would discourage the government from doing anything that would necesitate that sort of response.
People here have been asking you for specific proposals and the compromises that you indicated that you were willing to do. You’ve refused to provide much in the way of specifics, and then claim that we’re being unreasonable to oppose ill-defined, yet obviously ignorant, proposals on your part.
I realize that you think you’ve won here. Quite frankly, there is no approach we could’ve taken - no tact, no argument, no data, that would’ve changed your mind the tiniest bit. If you are not open to considering other points of view, it is you who is inflexible with weak arguments. When your emotional appeals and ignorance about the things you proposed were pointed out to you earlier, you only dug in and declared pride over your ignorance and appealed even more heavily to emotion. You lack the ability for critical thinking and introspection. Nothing productive can possibly come from arguing with you.