I guess fit throwing is ok as well. Good Luck
Okay. Does it also surprise you that some people on this board (me) would give away the individual right (erroneously decided by the Supreme Court, but that’s another thread :)) to own a gun because I don’t give a fuck about owning a gun, that this does not give me a magical feeling of anything, that if enough people did the same I believe we all would be safer, and that by banning such guns as used in the mass shootings last weekend would greatly reduce the number of people killed in such shootings, and that this would be a wonderful thing? Because all of that makes pretty damn good sense to me.
Maybe if someone brought an assault rifle to the Senate floor and opened fire.
But what isn’t an obstacle to a serious gun control debate? There is always another excuse not to directly talk about the issue-it’s either the way the question was asked, the assumption that we are all lying about our real intentions, our unwillingness to fulfill impossible demands, our inability to see that the problem is video games and/or reporting of all the shootings and/or immigrants, or the unwillingness to see that every other problem on earth is more important and must be solved first.
Kind of hard to prove a negative, so it’s sort of a ridiculous request. It would be on k9bfriender (and you if you are supporting that position) to demonstrate that a large number, if not a majority of gun advocates “simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with”. Since this is such a ridiculous and over the top argument that can just logically be proven to be wrong (there are, IIRC, something like 10 million members in the NRA alone…which isn’t the total of gun advocates in the US btw, just gives a number we could work with. If even half of them ACTUALLY were what k9b said we’d have millions of murders a year…not 12,000 or so) that it’s kind of not worth bothering with. Basically, emotions are running high, as usual, in this thread, and k9b should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on. But I expect he won’t…and you won’t either.
I don’t feel guns and cigarettes can be compared in this way. Unlike cigarettes, guns are often used to harm other people. And the people who choose to harm other people with guns are not going to be part of the general movement of giving up guns. If the trend you described continues and ninety percent of current gun owners decided to voluntarily get rid of their guns, all of the potential killers would be in the remaining ten percent and still represent a serious problem.
If you had a serious, responsible, realistic proposal to offer for discussion, you no doubt would have offered it.
Not at all. In fact, basically your attitude is what you would need the general population to feel in order to get serious gun control or outright bans in place. It’s a shift such as yours that will do what the OP is asking, IMHO. People who just don’t give a crap about or don’t want to own a gun, and don’t really care about having a protected right concerning gun ownership.
Not really. The request is to show behaviors or views that are not consistent with that description. If they existed, it would be easy enough.
No benefit? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the airlines are losing, not to mention the cost to Boeing?
The number of people killed by boeing 737 Maxs is less than the number of people killed by guns in 4 days. If plane safety were taken with the same lack of care as gun safety is, they would have not had any reason to take any action.
Have you been to a backyard BBQ where a group of adults have to pretend that cornhole is an actual game?
I think it’s wrong. Gun advocates don’t want murder and terrorism. I think it’s more accurate to say they feel that murder and terrorism directed at other people is a price they’re willing to accept in order to own guns themselves.
As if you have any desire to have, rather than to distract from and derail a “serious gun control debate”, but the reason that I phrased it so was specifically in response to this:
Do you also feel that that is an ugly smear, and one of the obstacles to a “serious gun control debate”?
Yeah yeah, I’ve heard it all before. But they are comparable in that society allows them and they definitely have a non-zero affect on the number of deaths per year. Also, even today it’s estimated that over 30,000 people die a year from 2nd hand smoke…which is more than are murdered by guns in the US annually. Alcohol is also comparable in this regard.
The key point, however, is that the public attitude towards tobacco (and alcohol to a degree) shifted, and people voluntarily started to give it up, to restrict when and where it could be used, and even how…and the deaths came down. Something similar has to happen wrt guns if you ever want to seriously restrict them for whatever reason. The public has to willing be in a place where they don’t care or actively don’t want to own a gun. It’s got to be a lot like the lead up to Prohibition in the US, where a large group of people are wanting to give up alcohol…enough to actually change the Constitution and either vacate or amend the Amendment. I think the gun deaths, especially the mass ones DO have an effect on the public, but not enough (well, not fast enough for most of you) to create the sorts of change that are being advocated. It’s going to take a shift in public opinion on this by a majority saying we don’t want or need guns and we don’t need an Amendment protecting our right to guns to meet what the OP is asking for. IMHO of course. Obviously, YMMV.
There is no price so high that they are not willing to let others pay it.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I said that faulty aircraft software doesn’t benefit anyone.
Yes. It’s a price society pays for allowing such things. We willingly pay that price for many things in our society. Guns are just one of them. When we aren’t willing to pay that price anymore, when a majority think the price is too high, then we will get the change the OP is asking about.
And, of course, you’ll graciously accept it. Please.
The “wrong” part is that most gun owners don’t “***want ***murder and terrorism;” that’s an absurd straw man. They just are not willing to give up their guns (which they see as being irrelevant to the mass shootings since *their *guns are locked up safe or would never be used for nefarious purposes.)
I am no fan of gun ownership, but the notion (by the other poster above) that gun owners revel with joy in Sandy Hooks, El Pasos, Daytons and Pulses is ludicrous.
They may not admit it, even to themselves, but that’s still what not *not *wanting it means.
They *call *it recognizing and accepting the price society (IOW other people) must pay in order for them to keep their talismans. But isn’t that what not *not *wanting that actually means?
If you don’t think I will then you’ve never read my thoughts in one of these threads before. Not surprising, considering you probably haven’t bothered to read and try and understand what my view on this even is. 