BeefcakeBo Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 There certainly are. For example, a certain poster who actually believes that all mass shootings that occur in the US are "faked" in an effort to enact gun control measures.... Or for example a certain user that doesn't live in the US but thinks he understands the issue perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 There certainly are. For example, a certain poster who actually believes that all mass shootings that occur in the US are "faked" in an effort to enact gun control measures.... All? I never said all. I got the hint that I'm not allowed to talk about that anymore or risk being suspended so feel free to throw the ridicule with no retort from me while you rot your mind watching reruns of PropagAnderson Cooper on CNN. Consider it a freebie, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Or for example a certain user that doesn't live in the US but thinks he understands the issue perfectly. No-one understands the issue "perfectly", but I disagree that the idea that certain common sense restrictions for gun ownership is an "extreme" idea. Certainly nowhere near as extreme as claiming that Sandy Hook and virtually every other mass shooting were hoaxes... Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume that one needs to live in the US before one can form an opinion. The old "You ain't from around here, boy" routine went out around the time Deliverance was released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 No-one understands the issue "perfectly", but I disagree that the idea that certain common sense restrictions for gun ownership is an "extreme" idea. Certainly nowhere near as extreme as claiming that Sandy Hook and virtually every other mass shooting were hoaxes... Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume that one needs to live in the US before one can form an opinion. The old "You ain't from around here, boy" routine went out around the time Deliverance was released. I don't think you now what "common sense" means. But I have heard the phrase "common sense gun restrictions" on CNN and Fox on the TV at work so at least I know where your misunderstanding comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 All? I never said all. I got the hint that I'm not allowed to talk about that anymore or risk being suspended so feel free to throw the ridicule with no retort from me while you rot your mind watching reruns of PropagAnderson Cooper on CNN. Consider it a freebie, I guess. : :D You didn't say all? Interesting. I can't recall you ever admitting that one was legitimate. Maybe you can give us an update without saying something that will get you banned... BTW: Don't watch CNN. I'm more than capable of figuring out that more guns does not equal a safer society without any help from AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I don't think you now what "common sense" means. But I have heard the phrase "common sense gun restrictions" on CNN and Fox on the TV at work so at least I know where your misunderstanding comes from. I certainly do. Not only that, but I know how to spell "know"... and again, I don't need the TV to tell me what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 If you believe that, then there isn't much that can be done to help you. As has been said plenty of times in CDC and out, bad guys will still get guns if they want to. Gun control legislation does little to nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. It may well prevent a criminal from legally getting a gun. Gun control will make it more difficult for "good guys" to get guns, since there are added layers of bureaucracy and costs. Some will just give up and not bother. Some may just get one illegally. Can you provide any credible info whatsoever that there are people regularly getting into shootouts? I doubt that is even likely in law enforcement. Regardless, the scenario does not have to be perfect, as you claim. Putting Bocivus' conspiracy claims aside for the moment, do you not think that had there been even one or two armed school employees at some of these incidents could have saved lives or injuries to students/staff? Even if the employee is unable to successfully hit a shooter, the shooter would typically be slowed down by being on the receiving end of some gunfire, taking cover and reevaluating the situation. Your perfect scenario might make sense if you are looking to prevent all gun deaths, but that is unrealistic and something that no level of gun control can contain without the complete eradication of guns. However, someone who hears and recognizes gunshots, and is armed and trained as civilian owners should be trained, but neither combat trained nor a perfect shot still has the ability to be effective in minimizing the impact of many of these shootings Well the notion that criminals will still get guns no matter what is refuted by evidence. There are plenty of statistics that show areas with less guns and stricter gun control experience less gun deaths. So clearly gun laws keep guns out of the hands of at least some criminals. We have licenses and safety training for cars. In Canada and many other parts of the world, we have that for guns too. These parts of the world have less gun crime than parts that do not. You're missing the point of my post. Of course it would have been great to have some people with guns at the school, who were properly trained to take down the shooter. However, would it not have been better if the shooting simply didn't happen at all? This is exactly what I mean when I speak of shootouts. Rather than having a guy pull out a gun and start shooting, then having the good guys shoot him (but not before he kills or wounds couple people in the process) I'd rather just have nothing happen. We don't know for sure if gun control laws would have prevented a specific shooting that you could pick out, but statistics show that they would prevent a huge chunk of them. People should be able to go about their daily lives without having to be on edge for gunfire breaking out at any moment. It's true that guns don't kill people, however they make it easier for people to kill people. If this hammer guy had a gun, no question there would have been dead victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 You didn't say all? Interesting. I can't recall you ever admitting that one was legitimate. Maybe you can give us an update without saying something that will get you banned... BTW: Don't watch CNN. I'm more than capable of figuring out that more guns does not equal a safer society without any help from AC. I certainly do. Not only that, but I know how to spell "know"... and again, I don't need the TV to tell me what to think. Really..? lol. That's when you know you've won. When the other side is pointing out a type-o as if it some way adds to their point. But just for the record, I'll play your game. I know how to capitalize the "a" in the word "and" when it's the beginning of a sentence. Are we done with being petty now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I don't think you now what "common sense" means. But I have heard the phrase "common sense gun restrictions" on CNN and Fox on the TV at work so at least I know where your misunderstanding comes from. Let me inform you what common sense is. Common sense means restricting guns so that violent, mentally unstable people do not get them. That is common sense. What isn't common sense are people who immediately assume that some big secret US government is conspiring to take everyone's guns away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Really..? lol. That's when you know you've won. When the other side is pointing out a type-o as if it some way adds to their point. But just for the record, I'll play your game. I know how to capitalize the "a" in the word "and" when it's the beginning of a sentence. Are we done with being petty now? It wasn't the beginning of a sentence, hence the three dots after "know". The space was used to denote a pause in the narrative. As to your last sentence, I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I'm curious as to how this quickly became a "gun control vs. no gun control" debate when there were no guns involved in this incident at all. Perhaps Bocivus knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Really..? lol. That's when you know you've won. When the other side is pointing out a type-o as if it some way adds to their point. But just for the record, I'll play your game. I know how to capitalize the "a" in the word "and" when it's the beginning of a sentence. Are we done with being petty now? Its 'typo' by the way. Only wanted to point that out because it's kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Let me inform you what common sense is. Common sense means restricting guns so that violent, mentally unstable people do not get them. That is common sense. What isn't common sense are people who immediately assume that some big secret US government is conspiring to take everyone's guns away. Common sense is knowing that places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most violent crime. I guess you missed that part in the earlier part of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Common sense is knowing that places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most violent crime. I guess you missed that part in the earlier part of the thread. It is demographics, not gun laws, that result in high or low violent crimes. Common sense helps people identify coincidental causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 It is demographics, not gun laws, that result in high or low violent crimes. Common sense helps people identify coincidental causes. Coincidental causes???? And I'M the conspiracy theorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 No it doesn't. But it does assume some of the strong will prey on the weak. And so who protects them? As for Darwin, I don't even know what to say. I'd love to see your grandma culled cause she can't defend herself. Or your kid. Or yourself if you happen to have broken your leg and can't defend yourself. Yes, it does. We already have enough bad, strong people preying on good, weak people today, despite the presence of police officers putting themselves in harm's way. Strengthening said good, weak people will enable them to better protect themselves from those bad people. The police don't always get on the scene in time. You make it sound like everyone will start shooting everyone else just for the hell of it. Part of the problem with the way you describe matters is that it appears that you think everyone is the same, and no one looks out for you except the government. If even one person in each household that wanted to participate could be armed and properly trained, and was not shown to have mental health issues, that person could protect the whole household. That person might even have the strength of character to keep an eye out for their neighbor and friends, too, to help protect someone else. So, no worrying about my grandma (both have already passed, but that's besides the point), or my kids. If things were as bad here as in Bocivus' area, I could choose to be properly armed and trained, even if they themselves chose not to arm themselves. And even though it is not that bad here, there is still value in having that ability. You never know what will happen. You can only try to be prepared. Or not... your choice. It is comforting to know that you would love to see me or a family member of mine killed. Such a caring person. A most apt CDC handle, I'll give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Common sense is knowing that places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most violent crime. I guess you missed that part in the earlier part of the thread. Debateable. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html It's the US where people have the most guns. It's the US with astronomically high rates of gun crime for a first world country. Especially the states with the weakest gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The problem with your argument is that, as unlikely as it may be to happen, is you will most likely only get to make that mistake once. It's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it. ... Except it's not though. That's the point you keep missing (intentionally I think) that far more negative effects come from having guns for a personal protection situation than positive ones. And it's also pretty hard to ignore the large percentage of the general population that never had or in the very least never needed a gun to defend themselves, not to mention those that did have it or were in a situation that could call for it yet were just fine (apart from maybe a scare or some property loss) without escalating the situation by using it. But hey, you can carry around that parachute with you wherever you go as well. Good for you that you do a lot of training and shooting. Bad for you that your neighbourhood has violence to where you feel the need you have to walk around with a gun. Maybe you should move rather than keep arguing against gun control in any and all forms when that result clearly has effects on other innocent people regardless of who they vote for or if they stay in the comfort and safety of their homes. Good for me I'm not suggesting all guns be outlawed. Bad for me that I (and others) keep mentioning that yet you keep on with the same arguments. Maybe I shouldn't bother debating with you any more since you don't understand any of my points and only want to foist your own on everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Its 'typo' by the way. Only wanted to point that out because it's kind of funny. Nice to know I'm dealing with a pedant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Except it's not though. That's the point you keep missing (intentionally I think) that far more negative effects come from having guns for a personal protection situation than positive ones. And it's also pretty hard to ignore the large percentage of the general population that never had or in the very least never needed a gun to defend themselves, not to mention those that did have it or were in a situation that could call for it yet were just fine (apart from maybe a scare or some property loss) without escalating the situation by using it. But hey, you can carry around that parachute with you wherever you go as well. Good for you that you do a lot of training and shooting. Bad for you that your neighbourhood has violence to where you feel the need you have to walk around with a gun. Maybe you should move rather than keep arguing against gun control in any and all forms when that result clearly has effects on other innocent people regardless of who they vote for or if they stay in the comfort and safety of their homes. Good for me I'm not suggesting all guns be outlawed. Bad for me that I (and others) keep mentioning that yet you keep on with the same arguments. Maybe I shouldn't bother debating with you any more since you don't understand any of my points and only want to foist your own on everyone else. My opinions aren't being foisted on other people by government agents with guns. That's the point you're missing. Either way you go, people will have guns. Either it's just the government or the government AND the citizenry. We've all seen what happens when only the government has guns. Statism has caused more deaths than any war. Statism using guns, specifically. Yeah, the majority of the population will never need a gun. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are evil people. Just because the majority wants to foist their opinions in the form of "law" doesn't mean the minority should get screwed. The innocent victims and their families would disagree with you. Self-defense is a right and NO ONE has a right to take away a tool that keeps them even or gives them and advantage with the people who are initiating the violent crime against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.