Archived

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

TruthVsComfort

Kentucky Shooting: Boy, 5, Shoots And Kills 2-Year-Old Sister, Police Say

108 posts in this topic

right but in the context of the tinderbox, what is the immediacy of the discussion at the expense of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You took the bait.

 

meh, it's a legitimate concern based on the observation. i think these sorts of observations need to be addressed rather than subducted under the shelf of ideological grandstanding. this is how misunderstanding and misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints starts, a lack of open dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My agenda is not having little boys kill little girls, terrible I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

freedom

 

 

thank you, children, for sacrificing your lives to protect our Second Amendment. You are Patriots, and I think we should put your faces on a race car to prove it.

 

 

Kid would have killed her with a fork if the gun wasn't available.

If the 2 year old would have just had a gun to protect herself...

right but in the context of the tinderbox, what is the immediacy of the discussion at the expense of?

Those are not discussion... if they wanted sincere discussion I would get it... but they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion like the kind of discussion we've gotten when I posted all the daily instances of children dying due to accidents with guns? Cause I must have missed your White Knighting then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I think that it's a "no one caring" thing...

I think people care... but also care more about their own agenda... on both sides.

Consider me guilty, if by "agenda" you mean, wanting to reduce the number of senseless deaths due to unsecured firearms falling into the hands of children, via their clueless parents.   Having an "agenda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it's the NRA's "agenda", protecting the status quo and by default assisting even more children to kill each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell is there to discuss? The pros vs. cons of 5 year olds shooting 2 year olds? Why this is a necessary evil? How this is caused by not enforcing the laws we already have or some other stupidity?

 

Two or three years ago I was completely non opinionated on all this because I truly saw all the positives and negatives, but the behavior of the gun nut crowd has turned me farther and farther away from their views, because they are not based on reality or the benefit of our nation. They are based on maintaining their hobby using any means to do so. It's become pretty disgusting to see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider me guilty, if by "agenda" you mean, wanting to reduce the number of senseless deaths due to unsecured firearms falling into the hands of children, via their clueless parents.   Having an "agenda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it's the NRA's "agenda", protecting the status quo and by default assisting even more children to kill each other.

Having an agenda is fine... not a problem in the world. You were having intelligent adult discussion... the others... not so much.

Responding to Delhommey's trolling is not necessary... I even agree with some of the things he says on this issue... but there's no discussing it with him because unless you agree with his entire position, you're a complete idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two or three years ago I was completely non opinionated on all this because I truly saw all the positives and negatives, but the behavior of the gun nut crowd has turned me farther and farther away from their views, because they are not based on reality or the benefit of our nation. They are based on maintaining their hobby using any means to do so. It's become pretty disgusting to see.

This is what I mean... CWG is treading into Delhommey territory.

Everyone that doesn't agree with their position on this is "gun nut".

I think a lot of the regulations and controls that are being proposed are quite acceptable and legitimate... but Delhommey has called me that very thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbqh I don't recall people going all Charlton Heston in the Tinderbox until someone throws out some smarmy remark about "gun nuts" or "rednecks" or "patriots" or wtf ever you want to use to describe people who own guns. OWN guns, not sleep beside them at night and build altars of sacrifice for and all that jazz that you want them to be.

I've even gone so far as to try and distance my statements and views on gun issues from people here who are a little too oversensitive and vocal about being pro-gun. But let's be serious. Most people anti-gun here are anti-gun to the point where they lump most gun owners under one umbrella and don't want to hear about anything else.

 

It's almost like a Tupac situation. "Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me."

 

I see "gun problems" as a bigger "people problems" thing. We have a large amount of social and economical imbalance in this country that leads to imbalances in other trickle-down areas like education and mental health. People, especially us Americans, are generally self-serving, somewhat irresponsible, convenience-seeking creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites