After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

So your position is that if you're not willing to deal with a home invader with your fists, then you're a weak little person who has mental problems? Your incessant belittling of people who don't share that ridiculous philosophy of yours kind of exposes your fetish for weightlifting people who like to box. Are you fond of physical confrontation? What could you possible get out of that.

Under different circumstances, I wouldn't have pointed that out. But your constant insults directed toward those whose opinion on the matter differ from yours calls for it. If you want to psychoanalyze those who feel differently than you about this subject, then you can expect the same thing in return.

 

storch

What are you on about? Do you need someone to explain things very, very simply so you can follow what’s going on, I’m not sure I have the time or training having never been a kindergarten teacher.

But ill try my best if you need help.

 

Yeah, you could help by answering my question. If you don't understand it in the context of the post it was in response to, I don't care. I'm not here for you.

 

But the problem is that it doesn’t make any sense in the context to the post.

I can explain why if you don’t understand that – I promise to keep it simple for you

 

No. Please, allow me.

In your attempt to further vilify guns, you presented a scenario in which the only way to acquire money to resolve your dire straits was to use a gun. I simply asked you whether or not a gun was the deciding factor in your decision to get the money. The reason I asked you that is because you seemed to not consider using a quieter means to accomplish your goal, like a knife or blunt object to the head, as your chances of getting away with your thuggish thievery would be a lot better.

 

Storch

Ok let’s see it was argued that giving people extra years in prison for committing a crime with a gun would reduce gun crime, but that’s not how most people think they don’t think they are going to be caught or they don’t care.

The point being – it wasn’t the crime without a gun it was about the crime with a gun

Doing the crime without the gun doesn’t make sense in the context.

I hope that helps I don’t know if I can simplify it any further without getting the sock puppets out.

 

Oh I was explaining when you posted this -

Ok so I was right you completely got it wrong maybe you should read the posts more thoroughly in future?

 

Yeah it does. You presented the scenario in which the only choice was to use a gun, presumably for the purpose of bolstering your opinion concerning the dangers of gun ownership. But you didn't think it through. Your scenario did not take into account that any weapon could be used, and that since a quiet weapon is much less likely to be heard, a person in the circumstances you presented would probably choose one, especially considering that they just want to save their kid. I mean it's not like they're a criminal-minded psychopath not opposed to being on the run from the law.

This doesn't reflect badly on you. It just means that you didn't think things through before posting due to your firm stance against guns. That's all.

 

LOL what the fuck are you on about?

…Oh hell where are those sock puppets…

 

The thing was the crime WITH THE GUN bringing with it THE EXTRA TIME IN PRISON.

That circumstance might conspire so as that you don’t care about doing the crime even WITH A GUN that would bringing with it THE EXTRA TIME IN PRISON.

Also if you read my post rather trying to make cheap shots you’d know I’m not opposed to legal gun ownership by the responsible and law-abiding.

I just want to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible so your premise doesn’t stand up

But it was about doing the crime WITH A GUN that would bringing with it THE EXTRA TIME IN PRISON. Doing it without the gun wouldn’t work in context.

Sorry but I’m putting the sock puppets away because I think you need to go away and re-read the thread, run along now

 

Right. Why would someone in the situation you spelled out not use a weapon that would not have carried with it the extra time in prison?

All that's happened here is that you used a bad example to prove your point because it helped you put a bad light on gun ownership. That's all.

 

Then why did you create a scenario in which a father with a gun could go bad? Or did you forget to mention in your scenario that the father possessed his gun illegally?

 

What?

I can’t make it any more simplistic than I have – they didn’t have to have the gun but it wouldn’t have made sense given the context.

Again what are you on about?

To repeat - I’m not opposed to legal gun ownership by the responsible and law-abiding. I just want to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible so your explanation doesn’t stand up

Again - I think you need to go away and re-read the thread.

In the context it didn’t matter if the gun was legally or illegally held it was about doing the crime WITH A GUN that would bringing with it THE EXTRA TIME IN PRISON.

And I’d ask the question, has the father ‘gone bad’ would you commit the crime to save your child or not?

 

This sentence is ill-written. Even so, I don't believe a law-abiding, responsible parent would grab a gun and use it to get enough money to pay for an operation his kid needed. If you know of any incidents of that kind, I'm interested in hearing about them. At any rate, it was a bad example.
___________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, back to my last point in this thread:

Someone had recently said that they want to ban "all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor."

I'm curious as to how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle they are aware of. I also asked if a folding stock makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting, and how many mass shootings they are aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting. I also asked how a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? I mean, who do you think they're trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

They also said that they would ban all semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but then they mentioned that the law does ban magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So they want to ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but not 10-round magazines.

Given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shootings to date (12 of which involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why are they focused on the least used weapon?

I welcome any answers to these points.

Oh, and why are you even bringing up what a parent would do in the situation you presented? You said you're okay with law abiding citizens having guns. So are you trying to create a scenario that would prove that law abiding citizens can't be trusted?

 

The wiskers, men and fort were used metaphorically to indicate my firearms are completely legal and in no danger of being taken from me. I abide by the law, use them as I desire and aren't worried about losing them anytime soon. I see that as my ideas of gun control being pretty solid, because they are my reality. I have read the threads and have noticed some valid thoughts and some disturbing trends.

Knock knock
Who's there?
Not Balbus, he doesn't live in this country.

 

I've done so.

My comment here is not meant to imply that others have not done so, but I'm only going to speak for myself.

People who try to violate people's rights for no reason are not actually bettering the world.

We oppose gun control that violates our rights because we like being free.

Gun control that is no threat to our rights is unlikely to be opposed.

 

I assume you're also pro-choice and support immigration and LGBQT rights as well, under the auspices of promoting personal freedom?

Aside from that though, what gun control violates your rights? I assume you're familiar with the relevant case law and legal precedence on gun control

 

“Wanting” to kill is a very blurry statement, though. Maybe not many who carry have the intent to murder but they would kill if they had to. It gave George Zimmerman a sense of false bravery for example when he harassed Trayvon Martin, to the point where Martin reacted and what a surprise, Zimmerman shot him. So we could say people who carry might not be plotting to kill, but they have a sense of bravery to push the limits and take the law into their own hands, that carrying affords them.

I’m not against carrying but I’m not so naive and neither are you to think that guns don’t make people a little braver to push the limits or act hard, much more so than if they weren’t carrying a lethal weapon.

 

We can go on a whole other thread about the Zimmerman case but for summary, he was a designated neighborhood watch captain. That in it of itself at the very least puts pressure on the person bearing the title to at least go and see what's going on. Think of it like a security gaurd. Also when he saw Martin doing suspecious activity, he initially did chased him but stopped when the 911 operator told him to. Then on his way back he was attacked.

 

No, he didn’t stop but Trayvon Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong to warrant Zimmerman following him. Zimmerman is an example of someone who is legally carrying but has a moment of false bravery because he is carrying. He wouldn’t have stalked Martin if he didn’t have a gun. He also threatened his gf with a gun, so I bring him up because this guy was on the neighborhood watch list and thought he was a cop. You’re not a cop if you’re on neighborhood watch. But guns have a way of making guys like Zimmerman, act like they’re a bad ass. He followed Martin because he knew he could shoot him if he got into a bad situation. And in my opinion, he set up that bad situation. But the point isn’t about that as much as it is about how Zimmerman wouldn’t have had the nerve to follow Martin as long as he did, without a gun.

Same for the old man who shot the guy texting in the movie theater. The guy got up and tossed some popcorn at the elderly man and he ended up dead. And the claim by the old guy was “I feared for my life.” Lol This is why stand your ground law is such bs, many people abuse it.

The reality is that guns can escalate situations that would never have been escalated. Now of course, they’re used for protection and that is fine, but there’s also another side to it all.