Gun Issues page 53

2293 posts

Flag Post

Don’t supposed the infant getting shot in the face got mentioned in here, or that if there were less guns, less easily accessible, it might have been prevented?

No?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Don’t supposed the infant getting shot in the face got mentioned in here, or that if there were less guns, less easily accessible, it might have been prevented?

No?

No, I just remember the 7-year-old who shot himself because of negligence.

And if it seems like I’m saying “think of the children,” it’s because I am.

 
Flag Post

There are a lot of heinous crimes that would have never happened if we weren’t so liberal with gun ownership laws.
What can you do… liberty to anything is more important than anything else, right?
The funny thing is, conservatives tend to have extremely liberal attitudes towards gun ownership while liberals have extremely conservative views on gun ownership.
Funny how things turn out, eh?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Don’t supposed the infant getting shot in the face got mentioned in here, or that if there were less guns, less easily accessible, it might have been prevented?

No?

If the parents had the firearms illegally or if the infant went to the local gun show and bought the gun, then you may have a point. Otherwise, all it is is negligent parenting which kills scores of kids every year with items far less dangerous than a firearm. Regulating an item because some people can’t parent is a really poor excuse to limit said item.

It’s the same stupid argument when people decry McDonalds ‘making’ people obese. When did we sink to the level when people are no longer accountable for their actions and instead the item that caused the accident is instantly blamed?

 
Flag Post

My how the anti-gun posters just can’t use logic on this issue and are desperate to come up with anything to make them feel better. This is a video, on a conservative site put out by a conservative organization. Chances are you will ignore it, but I will give you the opportunity to watch it anyway.

http://www.ritely.com/article/view/id/5516

And for those of you who hope Obama can usurp the Constitution through the UN, I’m afraid you are going to lose there too. The senate has voted to exclude the US from the Arms Treaty.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/43435-senate-votes-53-46-to-block-u-s-participation-in-u-n-arms-treaty/

Harry Reid isn’t even cooperating with the Obama agenda. Of course you have seen his speeches on the subject. Still, republican opposition is strong on the subject and the conservative republlicans are threatening a filibuster on any gun control measures.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-threaten-filibuster-on-guns-89299.html

I told you coming into this discussion, we wouldn’t lay down and play dead on this. I told you there would be a fight. I also told you this is an old game that has been played over and over for decades and yet you act like it is a new assault on gun owners. Now go to your corner and sulk…or if it makes you feel better, you can call us names as usual.

Oh, don’t forget the knives just yet.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/03/25/multiple-people-stabbed-at-east-liberty-target/

 
Flag Post

Wow, when they call one side of this issue “gun NUTS”,,,,
I think I’m begining to see why.

Of course, sure….there ARE gun ENTHUSIASTS.
BUT, I don’t think I’ve ever heard them talk that way.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think guns should be banned, I mean, that would be quite silly. I just think that bullets are expensive, and there’s higher security on bullets and the guns. I think that would be pretty fair.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Wow, when they call one side of this issue “gun NUTS”,,,,
I think I’m begining to see why.

Of course, sure….there ARE gun ENTHUSIASTS.
BUT, I don’t think I’ve ever heard them talk that way.

So, you are trying to say, because I won’t roll over for you liberals arguments, I’m a gun nut? I’m sorry mon-sewer, You just aren’t getting real traction. You can’t argue the facts so you need to attack the poster. You are pretty obviously on the losing side.

 
Flag Post

If guns were safe, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Guns are not safe in the hands of people; that is why there is an issue.

How do you fix angry or tormented people? Who knows.
Owners that are responsible with their guns and only use them for their predefined use, should be gun owners.
There isn’t danger in every corner, by the way. You don’t need to open carry. Most or all of us do not need guns.
The main necessity for having guns is for protection,and safety. Although, we should define them as luxury items, and non-essential because we don’t need that amount of security to live our lives.
If the police are adequate in securing their communities, why do we need poorly trained individuals to own guns.
We only purchase guns out of the fear of the big bad world.
But if governments and communities can make a better, safer world with stricter regulations, why not? Just because you can’t enjoy firing your gun, which I doubt is really all that fun after the 100th time. There are so many pleasures in this world; why focus on such a trivial object that was only created to kill, and invade. You can always find an alternative pleasure source, and with video games and virtual simulators where they are now, you can enjoy guns in a safe manner, which don’t hold the same dangers that real life guns carry now.

Guns in the hand of the inexperienced, or the young, or the unstable are a terribly dangerous cocktail to mix, and we will keep seeing Sandy Hooks, the Coloroda mass shootings, Columbine, and the list goes on.

 
Flag Post

Oh, don’t forget the knives just yet. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/03/25/multiple-people-stabbed-at-east-liberty-target/

I mean, doesn’t that link kind of prove the point that knives can do less damage on a rampage? I mean, literally no one died, and they subdued the guy without shooting or killing him.

I don’t think that really helped your argument that even without guns, we would be as equally unsafe

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Wow, when they call one side of this issue “gun NUTS”,,,,
I think I’m begining to see why.

Of course, sure….there ARE gun ENTHUSIASTS.
BUT, I don’t think I’ve ever heard them talk that way.

So, you are trying to say, because I won’t roll over for you liberals arguments, I’m a gun nut?

No, not at all.
I know that I am not expecting that at all.
I’m unable to see that anyone else in this disussion is either.
That YOU make it so personal, vhemently beat YOUR chest, throw monkey-poo (see YOUR post just above mine) all about, kick up a lot of childish dust….THAT just might be what COULD CAUSE some ppl to think ya’re a tad overly zealous about this whole “attack on the 2nd Amend. thing.”

In reality, it is YOU who is blowing this latest “hiccup” waaaaaay out of proportion. It is YOU who is seeing a manical boogeyman behind every tree that bears fruit of calling for RENEWED (NOT “new”) discussion on the issue due to recently INCREASED negative usage of “guns”.

It is the entire PARANOIDAL bunch of “gun nuts” who IMMEDIATELY go ballistic at the mere indication that there MIGHT BE some questions reaised, some “solutions” offered, some asking for a rational dialogue on the issue….the total inflexibility of this group—being the poster children of the antithical “rollovers”—is where the problem lies.

They assume that because it is they who get the media attention, they are speaking for the entirity of those who own guns.
NO.
The rational ppl out here in the real world are mature enough to know that an inch isn’t a mile. They know that a particular inch might actually be beneficial in REDUCEING gun-tragedy incidents. They know that there is no real threat in at least coming to the table to discuss it.

I’m sorry mon-sewer,…

LOL…I just luv it when YOU go all “potty mouth” on us so early in the morning.

You just aren’t getting real traction.

Is that “you” meaning ME specifically….or the more generic, general you; as in "are you looney liberals?
Whatever.

How do YOU know what “traction”—in the areas that really matter—is being made?
“For-your-ears-only” kinds of overly conservative scare media isn’t gonna focus on it….mostly because it isn’t what “sells”.

You can’t argue the facts so you need to attack the poster.

Ya know, I highly doubt, that before joining this forum, YOU had any idea of what an ad hominem is. And, interestingly, ya still aren’t any to aware of what a true one is….lol

YOU are pretty obviously on the losing side.

Ya see, right there is what is kinda “nutty”. I didn’t know there were actually “winning & loosing” sides when a workable compromise is an outcome of a rational discussion on how to solve a problem.

Those who are able to see things in life in only black-&-white are so extremely limited by the very definitions of ONLY and EXTRRRREEEEEEEME and LIMITED. And, what really compounds the lack of any real progress being made is how these irrational ppl will plop down in the middle of the road of workable solutions and pitch-A-bitch while holding their hands over their ears and tightly closing their eyes AND MINDS.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by charredmonkeys:

I don’t think that really helped your argument that even without guns, we would be as equally unsafe

It really doesn’t whenever he posts about knives. I’m not really sure why he even bothers posting, or reading for that matter, the links he shares. All it does for me, personally, is to be more and more convinced that I’d rather be in the middle of a knifing spree than a shooting spree.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Don’t supposed the infant getting shot in the face got mentioned in here, or that if there were less guns, less easily accessible, it might have been prevented?

No?

nice emotional propaganda

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ITWASAFINGER:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Don’t supposed the infant getting shot in the face got mentioned in here, or that if there were less guns, less easily accessible, it might have been prevented?

No?

nice emotional propaganda

Well, when the other side wont play fair.

Also, is it still propaganda if it actually happened?

 
Flag Post

It being a true or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s propaganda that does nothing for the discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ITWASAFINGER:

It being a true or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s propaganda that does nothing for the discussion.

Except it does, or it would if people from both sides would actually try to discuss the topic instead of bickering between each other.

 
Flag Post

What is your definition of propaganda?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ITWASAFINGER:

What is your definition of propaganda?

I tend to go with the first definition of this.

 
Flag Post

That definition says nothing about the information needing to be true or false for it to be considered propaganda. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the meaning of “or it would if people from both sides would actually try to discuss the topic instead of bickering between each other.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ITWASAFINGER:
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the meaning of “or it would if people from both sides would actually try to discuss the topic instead of bickering between each other.”

A little, because I said that in response to you saying:

Originally posted by ITWASAFINGER:doesn’t change the fact that it’s propaganda that does nothing for the discussion.

All I was trying to argue was that it should have brought something for discussion, but it didn’t, and I wasn’t trying to use that as a qualification for it being or not being propaganda.

 
Flag Post
Also, is it still propaganda if it actually happened?
Except it does, or it would if people from both sides would actually try to discuss the topic instead of bickering between each other.

It’s propaganda when it has nothing to do with gun regulation. A baby getting hold of a handgun isn’t going to be stopped even if Feinstein got everything she wanted in her bill. If the thread was “Shitty parents in America” then it would be completely germane.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

It’s propaganda when it has nothing to do with gun regulation.

Does negligent parenting really have nothing to do with gun regulation, though? Parenting and gun ownership are both things that should carry a large responsibility, and if you cannot be responsible enough to protect your child from accidentally killing itself with one of your guns, are you also responsible enough to own a gun? And if you are responsible enough to own a gun, why did your child have easy enough access to a loaded firearm in the first place?

Also, he did make it relevant with the part of his post after bringing up the infant dying?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by issendorf:

It’s propaganda when it has nothing to do with gun regulation.

Does negligent parenting really have nothing to do with gun regulation, though? Parenting and gun ownership are both things that should carry a large responsibility, and if you cannot be responsible enough to protect your child from accidentally killing itself with one of your guns, are you also responsible enough to own a gun? And if you are responsible enough to own a gun, why did your child have easy enough access to a loaded firearm in the first place?

Also, he did make it relevant with the part of his post after bringing up the infant dying?

 
Flag Post
Parenting and gun ownership are both things that should carry a large responsibility, and if you cannot be responsible enough to protect your child from accidentally killing itself with one of your guns, are you also responsible enough to own a gun?

You’re right – they shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun. However, there are virtually no laws that can be passed that would decipher whether or not the parent is going to take care of their gun in the home short of them having a history of child neglect, in which case they shouldn’t be in charge of their kids in the first place.

Also, he did make it relevant with the part of his post after bringing up the infant dying?

I guess, but he didn’t link the story so I’m assuming it was a handgun which wouldn’t be covered by even some of the strictest federal gun regulations. It seems like yet another emotional appeal to create some sort of law that wouldn’t fix the problem. Emotion has to be taken out of the debate if a reasonable solution is going to be reached.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Parenting and gun ownership are both things that should carry a large responsibility, and if you cannot be responsible enough to protect your child from accidentally killing itself with one of your guns, are you also responsible enough to own a gun?

You’re right – they shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun. However, there are virtually no laws that can be passed that would decipher whether or not the parent is going to take care of their gun in the home short of them having a history of child neglect, in which case they shouldn’t be in charge of their kids in the first place.

Good ideas guys. I’m feeling slightly more confident on post quality on the forums again.