Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Sometimes I wonder if you are pro-gun control under a false flag and really just trying to make the gun control side look bad.

You could have answered “I got nothing, you’re right” and saved yourself some keystrokes. :rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yep. I tell them that they are victims of their own ignorance and I explain it all to them and yet they persist in feeling more comfortable letting their kids go to a home with a pool than a home with a gun in a safe.

You actually call friends and family “hoplophobes” to their faces, knowing full and well the word was created as an insult, not as a description of a real psychological problem that is recognized by a psychological organization?
Tell me something: In return, have they ever described you as an “asshole”?

[ElvisL1ves]

I doubt it. You don’t confront an asshole who you’re pretty sure is carrying a means of lethal response. You speak soothingly him, softly and gently, while backing away, like you would if encountering an attack dog. Because your fear of him is quite rational.

Meanwhile, you look around for a car or a swimming pool you can grab to defend yourself.

[BobLibDem]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It doesn’t make me feel better, it just better describes the underlying reasons for your objections. Everybody on the road drives a car with hundreds of horsepower of potential destruction and mayhem and yet, people feel more comfortable walking alongside a highway than being in the same store as someone with a gun in a holster.

It almost requires that you impute criminal intent or particularly low character on anyone that owns a gun.

The purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. It’s a necessary part of modern life. The purpose of a gun is to kill people. It is not a necessary part of modern life.

There may be places where it makes sense to own a gun, say if you’re a rancher with rattlesnakes about. For most of us, it makes no sense. And yes, many gun owners are low lifes.

[Buck_Godot]

The thing is there are actual hoplophobes out there. My wife is one. After having been chased around by her ex-husband on multiple occasions with a one of many loaded firearms (which he still owns) she does indeed have an irrational fear of guns, to the point that she gets panic attacks sometimes when she sees me with the television remote out of the corner of her eye and instinctively thinks I have a gun. That is hoplophobia.

Calling gun control activists hoplophobes is a silly as calling NRA members hoplophiliacs

[ElvisL1ves]

How can that be? Your openly brandishing the remote should be *therapy *for her condition, according to DA.

[Czarcasm]

@ElvisL1ves

How can that be? Your openly brandishing the remote should be *therapy *for her condition, according to DA.

Maybe she just has a fear of change?

[Scumpup]

@Bone

**DA **- you’re talking to a piece of lint that makes noises. Feel free to stop anytime.

Lint is, at worst, a harmless waste substance. ElvisL1ves is a chancre sore that makes noises.
He refuses to answer my questions for this reason: He is a reprehensible piece of shit, full of anger and and unclean urges, and he has to believe eveybody else is just like him. Otherwise, he’d have to face up to his failures as a human being. He’s not strong enough or honest enough to do that.

[Lumpy]

@Czarcasm

The word was created as a pejorative, and you would have to be an idiot to think there was a chance in hell it would be accepted as an actual medical condition by any official medical organization just because some hotheads used it over and over again talking to each other on the internet. Actual medical conditions aren’t created the same way words in the “Urban Dictionary” are, ya goofs.

Does the same apply to “homophobia”?

[Lumpy]

@BobLibDem

he purpose of a gun is to kill people. It is not a necessary part of modern life.

Really? The fear of being shot dead, by the police if no one else, is the reason why criminals usually submit to arrest. Being prepared to kill people who are stupid/crazy enough to make it necessary is a part of modern life, and gun owners just think deterrence works better if it’s more decentralized. Certainly damn few people are going to try to rob or assault someone who has a gun and is on alert.

[Gyrate]

@Lumpy

Really? The fear of being shot dead, by the police if no one else, is the reason why criminals usually submit to arrest. Being prepared to kill people who are stupid/crazy enough to make it necessary is a part of modern life, and gun owners just think deterrence works better if it’s more decentralized. Certainly damn few people are going to try to rob or assault someone who has a gun and is on alert.

I’m glad you admit that it’s perfectly rational to be afraid of someone with a gun.

[BobLibDem]

@Lumpy

Really? The fear of being shot dead, by the police if no one else, is the reason why criminals usually submit to arrest. Being prepared to kill people who are stupid/crazy enough to make it necessary is a part of modern life, and gun owners just think deterrence works better if it’s more decentralized. Certainly damn few people are going to try to rob or assault someone who has a gun and is on alert.

For police, guns are necessary. For citizens, the police are necessary. Private gun ownership is only necessary for Dirty Harry fantasies of gun owners. There are a lot of people who pay for these fantasies with their lives every year.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Scumpup

He refuses to answer my questions for this reason:

No, the reason is their incoherence and childishness. :rolleyes: I respond to you on the level that is shown by your posts, such as they are. The adults here are discussing people getting killed. You don’t show any recognition of the seriousness of that, or the value of human life, and if you’re old enough to post a complete sentence, it is likely that you are incapable of it, too.

If you think you’re showing your responsibility and trustworthiness with even so much as that box of crayons, then you’re sadly mistaken. Now put that thing away and go ask Mommy to change your diaper.

[ElvisL1ves]

@BobLibDem

Private gun ownership is only necessary for Dirty Harry fantasies of gun owners. There are a lot of people who pay for these fantasies with their lives every year.

There are also the Defending Liberty Against Tyranny fantasies, for which fewer pay with their lives, but it still happens and is still just as irresponsible.

[Scumpup]

@ElvisL1ves

No, the reason is their incoherence and childishness. :rolleyes: I respond to you on the level that is shown by your posts, such as they are. The adults here are discussing people getting killed. You don’t show any recognition of the seriousness of that, or the value of human life, and if you’re old enough to post a complete sentence, it is likely that you are incapable of it, too.

If you think you’re showing your responsibility and trustworthiness with even so much as that box of crayons, then you’re sadly mistaken. Now put that thing away and go ask Mommy to change your diaper.

Dodge and turn, weasel, dodge and turn. You are incapable of anything else, I suspect.

I’ll ask you again: Do you rape and murder children? If not, why not?

[Projammer]

I think I’ve identified one of our resident anti-gunners. Which one of you is John Sutija?

The Second Amendment needs amending

I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun. Some careers may benefit from their use, but that’s on a professional level, not a personal one. If you need a gun at work, you should pick up your sidearm when you punch in and drop it off when you punch out. But what about the every man, those hunters I spent my last paragraph defending? They wouldn’t own their guns or their relatives. I say all ranged weapons – shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to shoot Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your gun-library-card.
…
To get such a license would require in-depth background checks and mental evaluations. You would likely have to make an appointment, and you yourself would never be allowed into the actual gun vault. You would tell the person at the register what you intend to do and they would go in back and bring you their recommendation, chosen from the limited stock they have. Things like Uzis, AKs, P90s or anything that has “armor-piercing” in its name would be ridiculous, and unless your game weighs over 500 pounds, most high-power rifles are, too. You’d be handed the weapon and a box a munitions and pointed toward gun range. When you’re happy with your choice, then comes the paper work.

[steronz]

That guy’s proposing a very expensive solution in search of a problem. I wouldn’t expect anything better from an opinion piece in a student newspaper.

[ElvisL1ves]

There’s no problem? Whew, that’s good to hear.

:rolleyes:

[steronz]

@ElvisL1ves

There’s no problem? Whew, that’s good to hear.

:rolleyes:

There’s no problem with long guns. He wants to pay for a system wherein hunters have to go check out their firearms from a government agency?

:rolleyes:

The problem is handguns getting into the hands of criminals, and one possible solution is licensing and registration with mandatory background checks for all transfers. This guy’s propose solution is way overboard and solves all kinds of problems that don’t exist.

[ElvisL1ves]

@steronz

There’s no problem with long guns.

Really? All gun deaths are caused by pistols? That’s a novel contribution to this discussion.

The problem is handguns getting into the hands of criminals, and one possible solution is licensing and registration with mandatory background checks for all transfers.

That’s not a solution, just a deterrent, but it’s in the right direction. No doubt DA will be along shortly to explain why it can’t happen, and whose fault it will be when his faction gets it stopped.