Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people

33 posts in this topic

Posted

I wish some of you could understand how hard it is to be pro-gun rights and have to make arguments in favor of guns while contending with posters like Harris Aballah and others that all go "DERPA DERP COLD DEAD HANDDDSSSS!!!"

This incident is a tragedy, but no amount of legislation could have prevented it nor will it change it after the fact.

There are terrible gun owners out there. They don't know what responsibility is and, most likely, neither will their children.

It is a sad example of our culture when the kids are outside playing "shoot 'em," and I'm sure we all did some of it as kids.

We desensitize violence. We don't know what responsibility is.

I'm at a point where I can agree to a fair compromise. I really don't want databases (even though I'm sure they already exist.) I don't want an insurance system. I don't think any restriction on weapon "style" has any real justification. Sure, make it terribly difficult to own fully automatics (already is most places). Make extended clips some sort of permitted type thing. Extend background checks and hold the institutions responsible for them at a higher standard. As for anything else, I'm open to discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Gun control bill about to go to a vote...

What part of the bill would have prevented Newtown from occurring?

Dunno, what we do know is the Second Amendment, ready access to guns, etc... didn't stop it from occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish some of you could understand how hard it is to be pro-gun rights and have to make arguments in favor of guns while contending with posters like Harris Aballah and others that all go "DERPA DERP COLD DEAD HANDDDSSSS!!!"

This incident is a tragedy, but no amount of legislation could have prevented it nor will it change it after the fact.

There are terrible gun owners out there. They don't know what responsibility is and, most likely, neither will their children.

It is a sad example of our culture when the kids are outside playing "shoot 'em," and I'm sure we all did some of it as kids.

We desensitize violence. We don't know what responsibility is.

I'm at a point where I can agree to a fair compromise. I really don't want databases (even though I'm sure they already exist.) I don't want an insurance system. I don't think any restriction on weapon "style" has any real justification. Sure, make it terribly difficult to own fully automatics (already is most places). Make extended clips some sort of permitted type thing. Extend background checks and hold the institutions responsible for them at a higher standard. As for anything else, I'm open to discussion.

I don't recall saying anything about cold dead hands. my arguement is that theres enough laws on the books already. And that guns are not for killing. They are for defending. Background checks for illegally obtained firearms will never happen (because they are obtained illegally). Thieves do not have background checks in the act of thier crime. So yes, I am a little concerned at who these new laws are for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was more a reference of your arguing points basically towing the lines of the NRA...

my arguement is that theres enough laws on the books already.

I can kinda agree there, but the problem is that what you're talking about are likely state/local laws that may not apply to the entire country.

And that guns are not for killing. They are for defending.

This is a half-full/half-empty argument. It is pretty much a question of intent, and intent is based on those whom guns are in the hands of.

Background checks for illegally obtained firearms will never happen (because they are obtained illegally).

This is obvious.

But, the argument that some are trying to make is that if you reduce the possibility of a gun floating into the illegal market by making them more difficult to obtain legally, then you have reduced the chance at gun violence. Basically, they are hoping that tighter restrictions on legal guns equates to less legal guns. Less legal guns equates to decreased probability that said legal guns would be used illegally. It makes sense on paper, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works.

Thieves do not have background checks in the act of thier crime. So yes, I am a little concerned at who these new laws are for?

See above.

I'm open to discussion about what we can do to take guns out of the hands of bad guys. I'm not open to taking guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lastest fad graph...

11713_10151387792469290_580720914_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lastest fad graph...

11713_10151387792469290_580720914_n.jpg

lol...

Chicago has nearly 12,000 people per square mile.

Houston has less than 4,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Should that matter since there are no gun stores?

Either way...find another simlarly sized city with Chicago density of population and availability to guns as Houston has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Should that matter since there are no gun stores?

Either way...find another simlarly sized city with Chicago density of population and availability to guns as Houston has.

I've demonstrated in other threads that one could correlate population density with a higher crime rate.

Throw something like guns into the equation, obviously you're going to have a higher gun violence rate per capita.

Basically, statistics can be tailored to suit the person desiring them's confirmation biases. Much like your example did so, ironically, to January temperature.

My true theory is that people are crazy in general, and that the more people in an area with regards to area size is why people's crazy factor is amplified enough for them to become violent in the first place. It's interesting to me how, when isolated, people crave human interaction, and when they are bombarded with human interaction they generally become introverted and want to be left alone.

I've only tested this theory against the US, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites