[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147910]Have you ever seen a major protest on or near a road?[/QUOTE]
Ok. Again, because someone could use a truck in a terrorist attack we shouldn’t introduce stricter gun legislation?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147912]How many times has that happened compared to the incident rate of mass shootings with semi automatic weapons in the United States?[/QUOTE]
How many times have drunk drivers killed innocents compared to the incident rate of mass shootings with semi automatic weapons in the United States?
Did you know semi automatic rifles are responsible for less than 1% of firearms homicides?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147907]Are you fucking kidding me? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack[/url]
Do you not realize how deadly vehicles are?[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t look like a good 150 MPH ramming attack, but okay, because we can’t stop vehicle ramming attacks we should for some reason...not introduce strict gun control legislation??
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147906]You’re being obtuse. Can you honestly imagine someone racking up the same amount of kills and injuries as any of the crimes described above? No?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the venue. We have a lot of street fairs and easily rentable moving trucks in the US though so a comparable body count is a reasonable possibility.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147917]Not if you think banning bump stocks is a legitimate tactic. The logic doesn't hold.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when I saw the headline I thought to myself “banning bump stocks won’t do shit”, honesty. I’m right there with you. I’m personally all for a semi auto rifle ban, not like that will ever see the light of day.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147918]That doesn’t look like a good 150 MPH ramming attack, but okay, because we can’t stop vehicle ramming attacks we should for some reason...not introduce strict gun control legislation??[/QUOTE]
Holy shit hahaha. Can you imagine the carnage if it WAS 150 mph? What is your point there, even?
The point is it's incredibly easy to cause this kind of damage. Rent a box truck and go to town. You can't get by just banning everything that's used in crime. It isn't possible. Why single out firearms instead of taking action against the sources of violence and curbing the WHOLE thing instead of one specific subcategory of violence? Why are you SO hung up on guns?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147916]
Did you know semi automatic rifles are responsible for less than 1% of firearms homicides?[/QUOTE]
According to [url=https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls]this[/url] from the FBI, in 2014 (I dont know if this is the entire country but just their records), there were 248 homicides using a rifle. There were 660 that were killed with "personal weapons" which essentially means beaten to death with their bare hands/feet.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147918]That doesn’t look like a good 150 MPH ramming attack, but okay, because we can’t stop vehicle ramming attacks we should for some reason...not introduce strict gun control legislation??[/QUOTE]
Banning guns is like banning vanilla ice cream. I may have wanted vanilla but if I really want ice cream I'll settle for chocolate.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147923]Holy shit hahaha. Can you imagine the carnage if it WAS 150 mph? What is your point there, even?
The point is it's incredibly easy to cause this kind of damage. Rent a box truck and go to town. You can't get by just banning everything that's used in crime. It isn't possible. Why single out firearms instead of taking action against the sources of violence and curbing the WHOLE thing instead of one specific subcategory of violence? Why are you SO hung up on guns?[/QUOTE]
You don’t even understand where I come from. I own weapons, I’ve used the M4 at my job. I think that your average civilian doesn’t need to have unfettered access to weaponry that can cause massive loss of life. This doesn’t mean I don’t support increased mental health support or cultural or societal changes. The ease of access to these weapon systems make it incredibly easier for people to cause a massive lost of life, which is why we should restrict their access.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147921]I’m right there with you. I’m personally all for a semi auto rifle ban, not like that will ever see the light of day.[/QUOTE]
But that would solve nothing other than the occasional shooting, and shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech were not committed with rifles. And if you wanted to prevent mass shootings, why go after the tool rather than the cause? You do not see these acts of violence in countries like Switzerland, Czechia or Finland despite access to rifles of many different kinds.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147933]You don’t even understand where I come from. I own weapons, I’ve used the M4 at my job. I think that your average civilian doesn’t need to have unfettered access to weaponry that can cause massive loss of life. This doesn’t mean I don’t support increased mental health support or cultural or societal changes. The ease of access to these weapon systems make it incredibly easier for people to cause a massive lost of life, which is why we should restrict their access.[/QUOTE]
I don't care where you come from. I don't care if you're John Moses Browning himself speaking to me from beyond the grave. Your arguments are empty and not supported by reality. You can't keep brushing off facts forever.
-merge
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53147934]But that would solve nothing other than the occasional shooting, and shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech were not committed with rifles.[/QUOTE]
If it prevents 15 more kids from being killed at school I’m all for it and this is where we differ. The struggle doesn’t end with semi auto weapons for me, but baby steps.
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147936]I don't care where you come from. I don't care if you're John Moses Browning himself speaking to me from beyond the grave. Your arguments are empty and not supported by reality. You can't keep brushing off facts forever.[/QUOTE]
But they are supported by reality..you’re extremely naive and mistaken if you think I’m the only person that feels this way when the majority of Americans are for increased gun legislation and semi auto bans.
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53147934]But that would solve nothing other than the occasional shooting, and shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech were not committed with rifles. And if you wanted to prevent mass shootings, why go after the tool rather than the cause? You do not see these acts of violence in countries like Switzerland, Czechia or Finland despite access to rifles of many different kinds.[/QUOTE]
Like I’ve said a bunch of times, because I support semi auto weapons bans does not mean we should not also tackle the problems in the way you support either.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147933]You don’t even understand where I come from. I own weapons, I’ve used the M4 at my job. I think that your average civilian doesn’t need to have unfettered access to weaponry that can cause massive loss of life. This doesn’t mean I don’t support increased mental health support or cultural or societal changes. The ease of access to these weapon systems make it incredibly easier for people to cause a massive lost of life, which is why we should restrict their access.[/QUOTE]
You don't get to decide what people "need" and in addition, it seems dystopic that you wish people are only allowed what some authority figure declares they "need". It doesn't matter if I "need" it or not. You don't need air conditioning. You don't need a swimming pool. But they sure are nice to have.
And it's not the Bill of Needs.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147939]
Like I’ve said a bunch of times, because I support semi auto weapons bans does not mean we should not also tackle the problems in the way you support either.[/QUOTE]
But the thing is, the semi-auto ban would achieve very little other than making a tiny, tiny impact on massive numbers that would otherwise not be changed. The installment of a rifle ban would not make a difference if more progressive social policies were in place or not. It is an attack on a symptom as opposed to the cause.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147939]If it prevents 15 more kids from being killed at school I’m all for it and this is where we differ. The struggle doesn’t end with semi auto weapons for me, but baby steps.
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
But they are supported by reality..you’re extremely naive and mistaken if you think I’m the only person that feels this way when the majority of Americans are for increased gun legislation and semi auto bans.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter how you feel. I don't care which way you feel. This isn't about fucking feelings, you are talking about taking property away from and potentially criminalizing hundreds of millions of Americans. That isn't a conversation that can be led by FEELINGS. You are discounting actual hard statistics and going with feels over reals because that's the only way you can set up an argument. You came to a conclusion without knowledge and now you're struggling to find anything to support it. That's why every post you make in this thread and others has been a defensive retreat where you give up every new point you bring up almost immediately and pull something else out of your hat.
You need to sit back and give the whole thing a good hard think for once. There are people who have brought up good arguments in favor of regulation. I am not opposed to regulation and I do not think those people are stupid. It's possible to have a conversation about how to alter the availability of firearms without defaulting to "ban em all because i feel that is a good idea in spite of hard statistics suggesting otherwise."
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147946]You don't get to decide what people "need" and in addition, it seems dystopic that you wish people are only allowed what some authority figure declares they "need". It doesn't matter if I "need" it or not. You don't need air conditioning. You don't need a swimming pool. But they sure are nice to have.
And it's not the Bill of Needs.[/QUOTE]
If you want to go down that road, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was perverted by the NRA and other interest groups in the late 1900’s. Also people don’t walk into schools with AC units and swimming pools and have the ability to kill 15 kids.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147953]If you want to go down that road, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was perverted by the NRA and other interest groups in the late 1900’s. Also people don’t walk into schools with AC units and swimming pools and have the ability to kill 15 kids.[/QUOTE]
If you're suddenly so concerned with the ~actual~ meaning of the Second Amendment I don't think you'll like what they wrote down on that old scrap of paper. The NRA and other interest groups and gun owners across the country caved and agreed that the Second Amendment somehow doesn't guarantee protection for ALL firearms... even though it pretty explicitly does. Do you really care about what it really means?
[quote][U]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,[/U] [B]the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/B][/quote]
There's only one way to interpret this. It's VERY, VERY clear in its meaning. We make a big show out of "oh it's so hard to understand, we must discover the true meaning" because that's the only way we can all get together and pretend the Constitution of the fucking United States doesn't ACTUALLY guarantee civilian ownership of ICBMs.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147953]If you want to go down that road, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was perverted by the NRA and other interest groups in the late 1900’s. Also people don’t walk into schools with AC units and swimming pools and have the ability to kill 15 kids.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me exactly how they perverted it?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147933]You don’t even understand where I come from. I own weapons, I’ve used the M4 at my job. I think that your average civilian doesn’t need to have unfettered access to weaponry that can cause massive loss of life. [/quote]
In almost every argument you're in you bring up your military service even when its only vaguely related to the topic. Its a shitty thinly veiled appeal to authority.
[quote]
This doesn’t mean I don’t support increased mental health support or cultural or societal changes. The ease of access to these weapon systems make it incredibly easier for people to cause a massive lost of life, which is why we should restrict their access.[/QUOTE]
The average US citizen has access to a myriad of things that can be used to cause a large amount of death. Banning guns is like banning green paint. You can do the same thing with blue and yellow paint.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147948]It doesn't matter how you feel. I don't care which way you feel. This isn't about fucking feelings, you are talking about taking property away from and potentially criminalizing hundreds of millions of Americans. That isn't a conversation that can be led by FEELINGS. You are discounting actual hard statistics and going with feels over reals because that's the only way you can set up an argument. You came to a conclusion without knowledge and now you're struggling to find anything to support it. That's why every post you make in this thread and others has been a defensive retreat where you give up every new point you bring up almost immediately and pull something else out of your hat.
You need to sit back and give the whole thing a good hard think for once. There are people who have brought up good arguments in favor of regulation. I am not opposed to regulation and I do not think those people are stupid. It's possible to have a conversation about how to alter the availability of firearms without defaulting to "ban em all because i feel that is a good idea in spite of hard statistics suggesting otherwise."[/QUOTE]
You’re nuts dude, you’re reading between the lines too much. I’m not retreating and I firmly believe in everything I’ve said in regards to gun control. You cannot discount the fact that millions of Americans support increased gun legislation, including the same type of stuff I’m talking about. So this idea of me you have where I’m this crazy liberal spouting nonsense is innacurate since I’m NOT the only person in a America that feels this way. Maybe it seems like I am to you since SH is an echo chamber and especially when it comes to gun legislation.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147963]You’re nuts dude, you’re reading between the lines too much. I’m not retreating and I firmly believe in everything I’ve said in regards to gun control. You cannot discount the fact that millions of Americans support increased gun legislation, including the same type of stuff I’m talking about. So this idea of me you have where I’m this crazy liberal spouting nonsense is innacurate since I’m NOT the only person in a America that feels this way. Maybe it seems like I am to you since SH is an echo chamber and especially when it comes to gun legislation.[/QUOTE]
I don't care if you believe it, that doesn't mean you're right. Your beliefs and feelings do not mean anything when stacked against hard evidence that you're wrong. It doesn't matter how many other people are also wrong with you.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147957]If you're suddenly so concerned with the ~actual~ meaning of the Second Amendment I don't think you'll like what they wrote down on that old scrap of paper. The NRA and other interest groups and gun owners across the country caved and agreed that the Second Amendment somehow doesn't guarantee protection for ALL firearms... even though it pretty explicitly does. Do you really care about what it really means?
There's only one way to interpret this. It's VERY, VERY clear in its meaning. We make a big show out of "oh it's so hard to understand, we must discover the true meaning" because that's the only way we can all get together and pretend the Constitution of the fucking United States doesn't ACTUALLY guarantee civilian ownership of ICBMs.[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t though. I’m on my phone so I don’t have much energy to go down that road about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment but I encourage you to do some research about how the Supreme Court and congress interpreted the meaning all the way up until late 1900’s.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147963]. Maybe it seems like I am to you since SH is an echo chamber and especially when it comes to gun legislation.[/QUOTE]
If anything SH is an echo chamber of pro gun control posters so I dont know what youre getting at
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147963]You’re nuts dude, you’re reading between the lines too much. I’m not retreating and I firmly believe in everything I’ve said in regards to gun control. You cannot discount the fact that millions of Americans support increased gun legislation, including the same type of stuff I’m talking about. So this idea of me you have where I’m this crazy liberal spouting nonsense is innacurate since I’m NOT the only person in a America that feels this way. Maybe it seems like I am to you since SH is an echo chamber and especially when it comes to gun legislation.[/QUOTE]
Millions also supported Trump.
Millions supported the war on drugs.
Millions support lots of things they don't understand.
Numbers mean little when your average person doesn't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, or an AR-15 and an Assault Rifle.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147965]I don't care if you believe it, that doesn't mean you're right. Your beliefs and feelings do not mean anything when stacked against hard evidence that you're wrong. It doesn't matter how many other people are also wrong with you.[/QUOTE]
So millions of Americans are wrong on gun control but Grenadian is right?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147969]So millions of Americans are wrong on gun control but Grenadian is right?[/QUOTE]
Yeah sure? Why not. My take on the whole subject rides on FBI statistics. Yours rides on feelings.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147969]So millions of Americans are wrong on gun contro-[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Just because lot's of people support something doesn't mean it's correct.
The individual is smart people are stupid etc etc
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147961]In almost every argument you're in you bring up your military service even when its only vaguely related to the topic. Its a shitty thinly veiled appeal to authority.
The average US citizen has access to a myriad of things that can be used to cause a large amount of death. Banning guns is like banning green paint. You can do the same thing with blue and yellow paint.[/QUOTE]
I bring up my military service because I often get printed as a gun fearing liberal, I like to show that I’m rather reasonable and have experience using these weapons.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147963]You’re nuts dude, you’re reading between the lines too much. I’m not retreating and I firmly believe in everything I’ve said in regards to gun control. You cannot discount the fact that millions of Americans support increased gun legislation, including the same type of stuff I’m talking about. So this idea of me you have where I’m this crazy liberal spouting nonsense is innacurate since I’m NOT the only person in a America that feels this way. Maybe it seems like I am to you since SH is an echo chamber and especially when it comes to gun legislation.[/QUOTE]
Worth noting a [url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/]majority[/url] of americans don't live in a household with a gun. Gun owners are a loud minority.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.