We’ve heard it before. Remember when we were being accused of masturbating over dead kids?
Same old shit.
We’ve heard it before. Remember when we were being accused of masturbating over dead kids?
Same old shit.
And who is this “we” of whom you speak?
Wanting better regulations for guns after yet another massacre = yeah, dead kids!
I’ve heard about polarised issues but this is ridiculous.
Now; shake hands, say you’re sorry and work out some sensible regulations.
Ils sont fous ces Américains!
Now there’s an equivalence that’s beyond me. Because killing people (and animals, just to get that in there for completeness’ sake) is what guns are inherently useful for. The other useful aspects of guns, like scaring off intruders, are a consequence of guns’ usefulness in killing people.
Is this not fact? What part of it is false?
That part was unnecessary hyperbole of the nature that fills the Pit, sure. Grant that.
But your cynicism about the nature of politicians is repugnant, and, more importantly, unfounded. It’s precisely this sort of demonizing of the opposition that makes it so hard to have a real discussion on the issues.
If you’re looking for an equivalence, don’t look so hard. It’s easy to make one. Pro-gun folks saw the Sandy Hook shooting and said, “Woohoo, gun control means hitting your target, nice one dude!”
Except of course they didn’t, because they’re not demons.
Neither are gun-control folks.
Again, I said nothing about a secret agenda. Plenty of evil is done by people who are well-meaning. I’m not granting that is the case here, but I think Cheney probably felt invading Iraq was good for the world too, and yet that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be thrilled that 9/11 happened and gave him a flimsy excuse to go after his agenda.
Just as with the assault weapons ban, attacking Iraq as a way of somehow making 9/11 right is misguided. It would be easier to take you guys seriously as being legitimately interested in reaching a compromise that prevents death while infringing upon the fewest rights if you didn’t immediately go back to your hardon for the same generic, discredited assault weapons bans. You’ve been around here enough to know that assault weapons bans are bullshit, and that Newton didn’t occur because the rifle was black or had a bayonette lug.
This is one of those partisan issues on the board in which outrage only gets directed at one side of the issue. We’ve got hundreds of posts in which gun owners - not even gun rights advocates - are told that they are guilty for this tragedy, that it’s on them, personally, that they are reprehensible and repugnant. All sorts of crazy, insulting shit got thrown around in the weeks after the shooting, and I don’t think anyone from the gun control side said “Okay, guys, hey, look, emotions are running hot, but reel it in.”
No, instead, it turned into big circle jerks which became more and more over the top. The perfect gloating opportunity. I told you so, you gun wielding savages! This is all your fault! You wanted this to happen! You are sick fucks!
My assertions are quite a bit milder on the personal attack front.
You could’ve fooled me, the reaction by a significant minority around here definitely painted gun owners in such a negative light.
Wel, as an example that I rememberd and could dig up immediately
This was in a thread about people buying up AR-15s because there was a ban for them on the table and they were trying to snag them up before they were banned.
I really don’t have time this morning to dig up more than that, I’m running late as it is. If you want more examples of gun control advocates gloating and blaming gun owners, I can dig it up later.
Let’s say I tell management that we need to add Ball Bearing Integrators to our devices, in order to prevent our users from getting Dick Rot.
Every time one of our customers reports his Johnson falling off, I’m going to bring it up. Not to “gloat”, not to say “I told you so” but to remind them that there IS a solution, and maybe we can fix it now before we have to hear about more rotting penises. Or, perhaps I’d be effectively asking “How many more of them do we need before you acknowledge that this is a problem that deserves a fix?”
So, back to guns… How many massacres (let’s define that as 10 or more dead in a single location) are needed to re-examine our gun culture? One per year? One per month? One per week? How about accidental deaths to children? One per month, one per week, one per day?
My wife went on an Elementary School tour last night, as the kiddo is entering Kindergarten this fall. There was a 3rd grader helping with the tour, and was asked to describe the activities in the art room. Being in 3rd grade he went off on a tangent, and described in detail their lock down procedures and stressed the importance of finding a good place to hide where nobody can find you. Trust me, I’m not relaying that story with glee.
SenorBeef I understand what you are saying about the Bush administration but I feel your logic is flawed. You see it as Bush and Cheney reigning in power with the patriot act. This makes sense to me only so long as Bush and Cheney hold their offices. After that they are passing all this power they created…possibly to the “opposition” (Democrats). That wouldn’t be logical unless you also assume they installed the Patriot act to stir business in the industries they are invested in: defense, construction, etc.
I only find your argument logical if you follow through. Who would directly benefit from gun control, and why?
Keep in mind - this is the pit and I know you are being extreme - but I agree with your basic idea: We should not make decisions as a nation in knee-jerk reaction to tragedy. That will lead to foolish, irrational, fear-guided decisions.
Yes, these events MUST be considered when talking about gun control, but not, as you suggest, with the mentality that you either support gun control or you don’t want those children to live.
That is what I would pit: The gun control nuts who offer the ultamatum: you either want gun control or you want children to be slaughtered.
It isn’t fair to demonize the other side of the argument. When you make an enemy of someone right from the start how can they respond otherwise?
Since your earlier statement was not directed at politicians, this statement is irrelevant obfuscation.
What always irritates me in these discussions is some of us “gun control nuts” have guns and still see the need! I don’t know how we can stop shootings. I don’t know if we can, to be honest. But there has got to be some way to stop a toddler from picking up his daddy’s gun and shooting daddy with it! Can’t we at least put bio scanners on the guns? I hear they’re pretty fucking cheap now.
What angers us is the NRA’s refusal to consider any type of gun control, because that apparently means we have to consider all types of gun control. Hello? The NRA has a lot of money; they can take things on a case-by-case basis. They can fight the stupid controls, and maybe if we had some reasonable controls in place we wouldn’t advocate for stupid controls. Oh, someone always would, but throw us a fucking bone here, people! Let’s maybe not give out guns willy-nilly at gun shows?
Daddy can put his guns in a safe! There is already an easy, obvious solution! Why do we need some kind of legislated electronic doodad because some parents are fucking idiots? If you want, just mandate that everyone buy a gun safe! I certainly don’t want my gun’s functioning to be dependent on a “cheap bio scanner”.
Der Trihs, in various threads, and several other people. I’m not going to dig up a link, I have to go to work. But I remember the next one off the top of my head.
I said it was just as despicable as all the bullshit the anti-gun folks spew at gun owners. So, yeah, I’ve sunk to your level. Sue me.
Because kids aren’t their parents’ property; kids have a right to be protected from their parents’ neglect, malevolence, and their stupidity when their stupidity has especially hazardous potential consequences.
So, once again, the liberal solution is to implement a half-assed, poorly-thought-out blanket policy that affects everyone, including responsible gun owners who already own a safe, or gun owners who don’t have children, because of a few idiots. Do you not understand why I object to this?
I’m sure somewhere inside this proposal is the thought that, if the cheap bio-sensor ever malfunctions and causes the gun not to go off, that’s a good thing, because guns are bad and guns that don’t shoot reliably are less bad.
Weak pitting. SenorBeef is absolutely correct. The anti-gun folks take advantage of the shooting just like 9/11 was used to justify the Patriot act.
Also as others have pointed out, if there is a side of this debate that is unreasonable and hysterical it’s certainly not the pro-gun people. It’s the anti-gun people who routinely argue that all gun owners are murderers and worse. I’m sure it will start happening in this thread soon enough so just wait for it.
So you’re fine with being his equal in terms of reasonable arguments and civility. Thanks for letting us know; I’ll treat you accordingly.
A terribly clear example of confirmation bias. Are you seriously saying you’ve not seen pro-gun people be unreasonable and hysterical? Are you seriously saying you’ve not seen gun-control people be civil and calm? If you can answer “yes” to both questions, it’s almost certainly because you yourself are unreasonable and hysterical, because you’re so busy demonizing the opposition that you can’t pay attention to the idiots on your side or the decent people on the other.
There are plenty of idiots in favor of gun control, I’ll freely admit. There are plenty of decent people against new gun control measures. And vice versa. You should work at raising the level of dialog, not at adopting the lowest level of discourse.
Oh, look, a Republican talking to an empty chair. As many times as you present this caricature of pro-gun control people, it doesn’t make it any more true. A fringe minority of people think gun owners are murderous idiots. They themselves are idiots. And Absolute, just for reference, Der Tris isn’t a good cite. It’s like one of our more liberal posters quoting Curlcoat as a standard Republican viewpoint. Everyone realizes they’re crazy. We like to keep them around to makes things interesting.
What infuriates gun control proponents is that people reject any measures that would restrict guns rights in any way.
Take universal background checks, for instance. Supported by 91% of the public. Supported by a majority of gun owners. However, it’s the devil because, you know, confiscation or some such nonsense. Nobody wants to take your guns unless you are a menace or potentially unbalanced. Even if people did want to take all the guns, how possible do you think that’d be when we can’t even get universal background checks passed when it has 91% public support? It’s ridiculous. Instead of screaming, “SECOND AMENDMENT!!11!eleventy” at the top of your lungs, how about you suggest something that would meaningfully curb gun violence and save innocent lives, because that’s all we’re trying to do.
What the hell kind of business are you in?
Never mind any of that, I want to know more about how to prevent Dick Rot, and I want to know now!