Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@vikorr,

The ascribing attributes to people who dont agree with many people is a debate tactic that they expect will "settle it" when all it does is start the debate on a lower road. Im definately gun control, I have special things that Id like handled by legislation, Like straw purchases, Gun Show Loopholes (we discussed this and the NRA guys have even come up with sloganeering about that ), bump stocks, Huuge capacity clips, buying more than , say 5 guns a month when you arent a real dealr etc etc. Nowhere do many of my hunting and gun keeping gun-control "freaks" want to remove guns from anyone unless we develop a good way of detecting future behavior (which we dont presently have.)

W do have some of the end member gun-control people on A2K who started calling the NRA apologists, as Pro-eath o Pro-murder. It gos on ither side. What they all should do is practice a bit o SHUT THE **** UP with all baiting. That includes you LL . tick to the point. I wish that, once I get busted for swearing as I do, the "baiters" will be given similar time -outs for specious arguments and false claims.

0 Replies

Sometimes I go a little over with my language, but it's due to anger that gun nuts refuse to budge, while there is a crisis where only strong gun laws can make make much of a difference. As I have said before, people are not going to lose their rage any time soon. We need to lessen the kill power while we search for the rest of the answers. And the government killing off mental health programs as it does is also part of the problem. I don't use guns anymore. I have in the past and possibly could again. But I don't need to become a walking arsenal and neither does anybody else.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

people are not going to lose their rage any time soon.

How do you know? Do you understand the causes of rage?

Quote:

We need to lessen the kill power while we search for the rest of the answers.

Are you familiar with the phenomenon where improved safety leads to greater risk-taking because people feel more secure that they are safe to do so?

The economy functions in a way that produces rage along with all its other products. It is a means-justify-the-ends culture and where such a culture flourishes, violence and rage flourish as bedfellows.

So the more you remove guns as means of protection against abuse, the more abuse you can expect from people who are frustrated and angry for various reasons, and who feel safe abusing others because they have no sense that the pain they are causing is going to come back to bite them.

Quote:

And the government killing off mental health programs as it does is also part of the problem. I don't use guns anymore. I have in the past and possibly could again. But I don't need to become a walking arsenal and neither does anybody else.

There will be lots of time and money to spend on mental health and whatever else people want to do once the economy reforms to a less competitive state; and that only happens when the pressures to make so much money are alleviated, i.e. crime, immorality, cultures of drugs and other abuses, and other things that people are willing to pay a lot for to live outside the areas where those abuses are (perceived as) rampant.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Your words do not really address the problem.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Your words do not really address the problem.

They actually do, but I can see how you would think otherwise if you have a very narrow perspective and not much room to think about different aspects of the problem.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I disagree with Edgar about 50% of the time. But claiming a guy that isent as smart about gun control from someone who has been on this site for less than a year takes great big balls. Edgar has been here since 2002 discussing various subjects. Its amazing how much smarter the newbies are than the old buzzards.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

They comes and they goes.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I disagree with Edgar about 50% of the time. But claiming a guy that isent as smart about gun control from someone who has been on this site for less than a year takes great big balls. Edgar has been here since 2002 discussing various subjects. Its amazing how much smarter the newbies are than the old buzzards.

I don't know anything about him except what I gather from what he says in his posts. It doesn't take 'great big balls' or anything else to read posts and respond to what you read.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Let's hope this one goes sooner rather than later. I've never seenher contribute anything worthwhile to any discussion, and her basic blather is that of a far right-wing operative--the knee-jerk variety.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades
Paywall, but you may have that.

Interesting. How do they plan to get their anti-freedom nonsense past Speaker Pelosi?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

about damned time.

Thank you for proving that claims about "no one trying to take our guns" are untrue.

MontereyJack wrote:

Since you refuse to do anything about the carnage, the majority of the country is getting ready to do it.

The left didn't learn from Obama's catastrophic blunder in 2013???

When Obama wasted the first hundred days of his second term in a giant temper tantrum against the NRA, he prevented himself from achieving anything meaningful in his second term.

Come election day 2016, voters were tired of a do-nothing president, and now the Republicans are going to hold the White House for the next 18 years.

If House Democrats repeat Obama's blunder and waste all of their energy fighting with the NRA, that will only mean they will not achieve anything else.

Trump will probably really appreciate it if the liberals choose to waste all of their energy fighting with the NRA. They'll be too busy to commit any other mischief.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

oralloy wrote:
When the number of knife murders increases to counterbalance a decrease in gun murders, the number of murders stays pretty much the same.
only happens in your dreams.

Wrong. Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I would say the number of mass murderers would diminish, because it would not be so easy to commit mass murder anymore.

Easy enough. All they'd need to do is make bombs, or steal a truck and drive it into a crowd at a high speed.

vikorr wrote:

Uh huh. Knife wielder trying to commit mass murder Vs grenade launcher equipped trying to commit mass murder. I know which one I'd rather have running around on the loose.
Sometimes you live in fairyland.

How so? I agreed that it could increase the lethality of the attacks.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Perhaps a quick look at who started talking about grenade launchers, to who raised grenade launcher ownership, then my reply to him, would resolve your question.

There is an inner hardline zealot in me that is chomping at the bit to argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of civilians to possess grenade launchers and high explosive shells.

It's further than our courts are presently willing to go however. Currently the fight is over unjustifiable gun regulations. It will be up to future generations to roll back laws against grenades and full auto weapons.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Only strong gun control laws can make even a dent against mass murders.

Gun control isn't even about preventing murders. All the freedom haters are trying to do is violate people's civil rights for fun.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- motor vehicles are a necessity to economies. Without them many peoples daily lives become impossible. They can't be done away with. The government has however done everything it can to make them as safe as possible, and keeps working on improving such. The totality of the same arguments don't exist for firearms in the US. So as a comparison, it's also very self-serving.

I disagree. The right of a free person to carry arms is much more vital than any benefit provided by motorized transport.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Perhaps a quick look at who started talking about grenade launchers, to who raised grenade launcher ownership, then my reply to him, would resolve your question.
There is an inner hardline zealot in me that is chomping at the bit to argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of civilians to possess grenade launchers and high explosive shells.

It's further than our courts are presently willing to go however. Currently the fight is over unjustifiable gun regulations. It will be up to future generations to roll back laws against grenades and full auto weapons.

Do you think they'll ever legalize bio/chem weapons under the 2nd amendment as well? Are WMDs generally excluded from 2nd amendment protection already by some case or legislation?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

These days there are more guns in Australia than when we introduced tighter gun control. That doesn't speak at all of being anti-gun.

As I understand it, people in Australia are only allowed to have a gun if their government feels that they have a need for the gun. There is no ability to acquire a gun if the government doesn't feel that you need it.

Further, even if the government decides that someone needs to have a gun, they are not allowed to have any sort of weapon that would be useful for self defense.

Instead of calling it anti-gun, how about anti-freedom and civil rights?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Sometimes I go a little over with my language, but it's due to anger that gun nuts refuse to budge, while there is a crisis where only strong gun laws can make make much of a difference.

The freedom haters are not trying to make any difference with anything. The only point of their gun control proposals is to violate people's civil rights for fun. They simply hate freedom and enjoy violating our rights.

edgarblythe wrote:

As I have said before, people are not going to lose their rage any time soon. We need to lessen the kill power while we search for the rest of the answers.

People have the right to have guns that are effective enough for self defense.

Lessening killing power would make no difference in any case. Homicide rates remain the same regardless of gun availability.

We also already know the answers about how to stop it. Media glorification of these mass murders is what inspires subsequent killings.

edgarblythe wrote:

But I don't need to become a walking arsenal and neither does anybody else.

That's the great thing about freedom and civil rights. Free people have the right to be armed regardless of whether anyone thinks they need to be.

If you want to decide whether someone "needs" to carry a gun, you'll have to go find one of those European serfs. They're used to being told what they do and don't need.

0 Replies

Robert Reich

Another example of the National Rifle Association's stranglehold on our political system. The gunman in Thousand Oaks was equipped an extended magazine during his rampage on Tuesday night. In 2016, California voters passed an initiative to ban such magazine. However, before the law could take effect, the NRA sued the state, eventually blocking the ban in court.

Whether it's through lobbying, campaign donations, or lawsuits, the NRA will stop at nothing to protect the profits of the gun industry, even if it means endangering the lives of Americans.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know