Bloomberg Makes New Anti-Gun Organization - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44561903]Guns were not designed to kill people. [/QUOTE] Of course man, just like knives weren't designed to cut things hey

[QUOTE=Major_Vice;44561930]I thought about getting a gun to exercise my rights, but I decided to get a nice camera with the money instead. I find shooting photos more relaxing and rewarding then shooting bullets.[/QUOTE] Hippy communist

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44561805]Americans take the second amendment way too seriously. And I think pretty much everyone outside of the US will say that US gun culture is just absurd. Because it is.[/QUOTE] Except it's not, I wish we had the same freedom in Canada that the Americans have

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44562193]Of course man, just like knives weren't designed to cut things hey[/QUOTE] I'm going to respond to this one, since it seems to show people's thinking. A knife was designed to cut things. If people use it to kill people, it doesn't change the fact that it's function is to cut. Same thing with guns. Just because they are used to kill people, and are efficient at it, doesn't make a gun's primary function killing. The primary function of a gun will ALWAYS be to fire a projectile. Regardless of what the operator chooses to do with it, it doesn't change the function.

[QUOTE=Complifused;44562041]You can say that guns were designed to launch a projectile but that projectile was designed to kill.[/QUOTE] 'Designed to kill' is a label shared by mousetraps, rat poison, and antibiotics. It's not an inherently meaningful label beyond the immediate, gut reaction it's meant to convey when used in the context of guns. You could say 'designed to kill [I]people[/I]', but even that isn't necessarily true- the most common long arms in the US, shotguns, are designed from the ground up to kill birds. That tools effective at killing birds are also effective at killing people is a product of biology, not the designer's intent. [QUOTE=fishyfish777;44561964]It would probably be better for the sake of everyone if guns didn't exist, but they do, they can't really be removed without endangering the populace, and few deaths have been prevented because legal gun-owning citizens were forbidden to have a shoulder thing that goes up.[/QUOTE] I really don't know why this particular opinion seems to be so rare in these threads because it's IMO by far the most rational perspective.

[QUOTE=OberKommando;44562232]Except it's not, I wish we had the same freedom in Canada that the Americans have[/QUOTE] It is taken too seriously and Canada doesn't want to be like America, so there's no chance of anything like that even happening

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44561851]This, let me just say everyone in Australia laughs at how pathetic the US is with defending gun rights, the media laughs at it, public speakers laugh at it, the government even laughs at it[/QUOTE] Yeah man people being able to defend themselves with necessary means this day and age? Nah we can't have that everyone should be disarmed. Authority figures should be all knowing and strong to look after us, individual people can't be trusted with their own lives. I think (self)defense should be a right. I actually find it pretty disgusting the willingness of people to just give up any means of defense. Whatever floats your boat though, stay on your island. And oh boy yes it's that time again FP, it's one of those threads.

My father probably best described why guns are important in american culture. " since early in the nation's history guns had been used by pioneers and colonists to be able to protect themselves as well as occasionally provide for themselves. Americans don't necessarily view it as being needed to strike down tyranny, but more so as a symbol of personal freedom. With it at their disposal the needn't rely too heavily on the government and others." Most Americans who have guns live mundane lives for the most part and would hopefully never have to use it for protection.

If only these people would actually work for a good cause rather than ride the coattails of something that pretty much dodges many issues with violence. There's two main things that cause people to kill, emotions, and money. A hitman kills for money, a drug addict may kill for money. A pissed off wife might shoot her husband for fucking their neighbor's wife. The first thing is pretty much impossible to stop, humans will always kill other humans until we all die out. But the second is something you can fix. Help out poor people, donate money to humanitarian groups, fund projects to get people on their feet so they can have a better life. Every little bit helps, even if it's only helping one person. Don't go and ban the tools, fix the problem. The people that are fighting this gun violence issue are trying to ban the means to an end, rather than the cause in the first place.

Also concerning the actual topic at hand Bloomberg is a shill I'm almost certain of it. He's a shill for anti-gun bullshit just like some Republicans are total shills for corporations. Look at Leeland Yee and that other brain dead "ghost guns!" senator from Cali who got caught doing illegal shit. They don't actually care about the issue they care about money.

For me, firearms represent three things. Extension of one's capabilities, one's right to self-existence, and one's right to make life and death decisions. The latter of the three I wish I never have to come to, but if it were to come, I'd still probably find myself resorting just trying to strike fear rather then actually hurting someone. It's also just relaxing really. Take the nieces and nephew out to a small field, and shoot a .22 or Pellet Rifle at some cans and hear them get all excited about hitting the cans. It brings me to back to my childhood when my dad and his biker friends would let me shoot guns on their 20 acres of land. When ever I talk about firearm rights, I usually have these things in the back of my mind, and how I want everyone to be able to experience such things. Gun Control is necessary to a degree, but at the same time it slowly over-time raises the income required to experience such hobbies. It's that which bugs me about gun control. I want everyone, no matter their income, to be able to experience such activities on their own will. Because that's a matter of self-determination and freedom itself.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44561903]Guns were not designed to kill people. They were designed to launch a projectile. Even if you said their primary use is to kill people, you would still be wrong, as more shots are fired at targets every year than people. [/QUOTE] what a silly argument if i swing a sword twice and only hit something once, then that sword wasn't designed to swing at people because i swung at something else?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44561903]Guns were not designed to kill people. They were designed to launch a projectile. Even if you said their primary use is to kill people, you would still be wrong, as more shots are fired at targets every year than people.[/QUOTE] They were designed to launch a projectile that kills its target, he's not wrong, just because more shots are fired at target practice(used to practice hitting something, like PEOPLE) doesn't invalidate anything. What a stupid excuse.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44562366]They were designed to launch a projectile that kills its target, he's not wrong, just because more shots are fired at target practice[B](used to practice hitting something, like PEOPLE)[/B] doesn't invalidate anything. What a stupid excuse.[/QUOTE] Not every person who shoots targets is practicing to go on a shooting spree, that's kind of a silly statement. :v:

[IMG]http://puu.sh/8b9Oc.png[/IMG] [quote]The real goal will be to match the NRA's financial heft. The organization has spent more than $30 million in lobbying since 1998[/quote] NRA spends $30m in 16 years. This douche donates $50m just out of pocket in a single day. $50m that could have gone to an actual worthwhile cause where it could have made a difference. Dat hypocrisy. [quote]Women, and more particularly moms, will be the key demographic in the outreach to curb gun violence, Everytown for Gun Safety spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb told CNN.[/quote] It's just so transparent and pathetic. They know their target demographic, stay at home mostly under educated on the issues moms who love their kids, who they can try and terrify with their scare tactics. Really it's preying on the stupid and they love it.

[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;44562432]Not every person who shoots targets is practicing to go on a shooting spree, that's kind of a silly statement. :v:[/QUOTE] I didn't say that though, I simply pointed out the point of target practice.

I'm sorry but this [quote] You take a look at the number of people who use illegal guns to commit suicide, the number of people that are killed every year—we're the only civilized country in the world that has this problem. We have to do something [/quote] angers me to no end. The fact that he is trying to pin the cause for suicide on illegal weapons is disgusting and insensitive. He is blatantly propaganda pushing, ignoring all of the real reasons people kill themselves and placing the blame entirely on the tool used to act it out. Anyone who has ever been suicidal or attempted suicide has a reason to be offended by this.

[quote]Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, said gun control advocates need to learn from the N.R.A. and punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own. “They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ” He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html[/url] I don't trust him.

I'll say it again... If he's worried about crime, why not take the Broken Window Theory for granted and start helping local communities, and decreasing poverty with safety-net incomes?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44562526]I'll say it again... If he's worried about crime, why not take the Broken Window Theory for granted and start helping local communities, and decreasing poverty with safety-net incomes?[/QUOTE] Nah he'd rather implement Orwellian stop and frisk policies going after minorities in the streets.

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;44561908]There are so many deadly weapons around and about [I]anyway[/I] that banning guns would just mean only outlaws and the police would have them It would work in most other settings where gun owners are registered and few in number but not in one that has nearly 1 gun per person[/QUOTE] Love this. What a false dichotomy. The only people who can use guns are bad are "outlaws," because, you know, average citizens can't use them for any bad. *cough* Adam Lanza.

I find it very difficult to trust any anti-gun support after what happened with leland yee. At least if they get the legal guns off the street and out of the hands of responsible citizens, that means they'll be able to get all the illegal ones too. Since you know, criminals are law abiding citizens. Right?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44561802]I'll never understand America's or this forum obsession with guns tbh and I just thank my luck that I was born in a country where this shit is not tolerated Not trying to start a shit riot but honestly I don't get it, I don't understand the need or desire to have or own a deadly weapon that does more harm than good [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] Props to this guy and his group, it's a good step[/QUOTE] I never get why some non-US Facepunchers find it so hard to understand why US gun culture is the way it is. You don't really need to be an American to get it if you just look at the history of the US. The government itself was founded by a bunch of guys who just shot up their rulers, and were largely in love with small government, maximum rights to citizens, and revolution when necessary (or fun). Then they enshrined the right in a document which is damn near venerated, and considered the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and this behavior has been going on for a few hundred years. I'm not making any statement about how you should personally feel about private gun ownership, but it's not very difficult to look at it historically and see why guns are so deeply embedded in American life.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44562576]Love this. What a false dichotomy. The only people who can use guns are bad are "outlaws," because, you know, average citizens can't use them for any bad. *cough* Adam Lanza.[/QUOTE] He actually couldn't buy guns or own guns. He stole them from his family. Regardless of that a minute minority being bad doesn't suddenly make the entire population suspect. I really don't this type of argument. This type of argument would never stand up in any other context.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44561903]Bloomberg likes to portray himself as a "reasonable" guy, but his true motives are not what they appear. Mayors were/are leaving "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" because the group wasn't doing anything to help get illegal guns off of the streets, but doing more to make already legal guns illegal. Everyone knows that he's anti-gun and this does not surprise me. Something tells me that this will not become as big as the NRA. Guns were not designed to kill people. They were designed to launch a projectile. Even if you said their primary use is to kill people, you would still be wrong, as more shots are fired at targets every year than people. also, the knee-jerk legislation would have done nothing to help gun violence. It was feel-good "but we have to do SOMETHIG!" legislation and nothign more.[/QUOTE] Guns weren't designed to kill people? It's a weapon, what do you think people design and build weapons for?

[QUOTE=Aman;44562598]He actually couldn't buy guns or own guns. He stole them from his family. Regardless of that a minute minority being bad doesn't suddenly make the entire population suspect.[/QUOTE] Are you fucking daft? He stole them, as in somebody legally bought them, maybe if less people had guns then this wouldn't be an issue. Why is it so difficult for pro-gun people to see the benefits in having less guns?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44562609]Are you fucking daft? He stole them, as in somebody legally bought them. Maybe if less people had guns then this wouldn't be an issue. Why is it so difficult for pro-gun people to see the benefits in having less guns?[/QUOTE] Sorry I don't buy into the "JUST 1 LIFE" fallacy. According to what you've said both handguns, and semi-auto rifles should be just simply banned cause it's too dangerous for anyone to have them cause someone indirectly might obtain them.

[QUOTE=Aman;44562617]Sorry I don't buy into the "JUST 1 LIFE" fallacy. According to what you've said both handguns, and semi-auto rifles should be just simply banned cause it's too dangerous for anyone to have them cause someone indirectly might obtain them.[/QUOTE] What is the "JUST 1 LIFE" fallacy?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44562609]Are you fucking daft? He stole them, as in somebody legally bought them, maybe if less people had guns then this wouldn't be an issue. Why is it so difficult for pro-gun people to see the benefits in having less guns?[/QUOTE] Because the paradox is that when you have less legal guns on the streets, you'll have more homemade or illegally imported guns on the streets. :v:

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44562625]What is the "JUST 1 LIFE" fallacy?[/QUOTE] The idea that banning guns will counter some super minute specific scenario that may or may not happen anyway. "It's worth banning guns if it saves just 1 life!"