| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 6 7 8 [9] 10 |
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun? 
IMAGE
i think the answer is a big fat NO
you realize it's the little copper tip that lodges in people right? The gold part is the shell???
A shotgun would blow bigger holes than the .223.
And a bullet(s), regardless of size, in a child is pretty destructive either way.
|
Posted 1/11/13 11:52 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
A shotgun requires loading the shells each time. A revolver can hold what, five or six? A handgun, nine or ten? Automated rifles can fire off more ammunition in far less time than any of those other guns. The ease of the automated weapons to me is what was capable of creating that kind of destruction. In my mind that is what makes a ban on assault rifles necessary.
There are some inaccuracies here actually, so I feel like with my limited ballistics knowledge I can correct 'em? but most rifles in existence right now are in fact semi auto, most handguns too. It's not the "semi auto" thing that makes it an "assault" weapon as defined by the last or current proposed ban. Semi Auto deals with the trigger - a semi auto weapon requires a distinct trigger pull for each shot. Full Auto machines are the ones you see in movies where just one sustained pull launches a barrage.
An AR-15 rifle, no matter how it is marketed by Bushmaster and others, is to me, an assault weapon. It was used by terrorists in the 70s, it's built as a civilian version of the M-16. It was created to kill PEOPLE, a lot of them. Now if you combine that efficiency with a high capacity mag (30rds, 50, 100) you have either a really great day at the shooting range, or a really bad scene at a public place.
It is not a hunting rifle. It is not. Gunners will tell you it is. I will tell you it's not. And other hunters will laugh at you.
The joke is that it's a terrible hunter's weapon, but a great sausage maker. True story.
Hunting, by the way, is no more constitutionally protected than bowling. So the face that one uses it to hunt is fine, but it's not FOR hunting.
Groups are out there clamoring for your attention, but the big mistake is to think all agendas are the same kwim? All gun control does not equal bans. I support
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
*Currently the ATF is an impotent agency, with an acting but not appointed director for 6 YEARS. So that needs fixing as well.
There's a lot to this issue. A whole lot. But there's also a lot of common ground, I really believe that.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:57 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by My2Girlz11
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by Chatham-Chick
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
I would love a total gun ban. maybe one day we will get there.
but there can be justifications for a hand gun. there are certainly justifications for rifles and shot guns (hunting, rural living and wild animals etc).
There is not ONE justification in my mind for an AR.. not one. I don't consider "but it's my hobby" as a justification, either.
There still has not been a valid response why to have one
semi-automatics are pretty common for target shooting. In this case, the .223 is ideal 1. because of the cheaper ammo and 2. it doesn't destroy the range walls (unlike a 9mm or .45) , 3. recoil isn't as strong if you're doing a lot of target shooting. It is a big hobby/pastime for many people and 99.9 don't go around blowing people away.
Why do people get into archery? no benefit to it.
why do people buy fast cars when our speed limit is 55mph? no benefit to having a car that goes over 100mph.
why do people drink? other than some evidence in wine, there's no benefit.
yet we're given the freedom to enjoy these things in the hopes that we'll be responsible with their use.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 11:59 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Just facts, from a firearms blog i follow:
Low Caliber: .22 rim-fire bullet that costs only two cents each and is accurate up to 150 yards. The higher .223 is a souped-up .22 with a large cartridge that costs only 30 cents per round and is accurate to 600 yard, perfect for any target shooting except snipers.
High powered, low caliber: This includes the .223 (AR-15 assault rifles) This is just as much fun as the 30-06, the 30-30, as well as the new 50 caliber sniper rifles that can penetrate 36 inches of concrete at over a quarter mile.
These are both low caliber bullets. It's the "power" behind it that is different.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:02 AM |
| |
|
LittleBlueBug
Happy Mommy
Member since 9/06 4074 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
There are some inaccuracies here actually, so I feel like with my limited ballistics knowledge I can correct 'em? but most rifles in existence right now are in fact semi auto, most handguns too. It's not the "semi auto" thing that makes it an "assault" weapon as defined by the last or current proposed ban. Semi Auto deals with the trigger - a semi auto weapon requires a distinct trigger pull for each shot. Full Auto machines are the ones you see in movies where just one sustained pull launches a barrage.
An AR-15 rifle, no matter how it is marketed by Bushmaster and others, is to me, an assault weapon. It was used by terrorists in the 70s, it's built as a civilian version of the M-16. It was created to kill PEOPLE, a lot of them. Now if you combine that efficiency with a high capacity mag (30rds, 50, 100) you have either a really great day at the shooting range, or a really bad scene at a public place.
It is not a hunting rifle. It is not. Gunners will tell you it is. I will tell you it's not. And other hunters will laugh at you.
The joke is that it's a terrible hunter's weapon, but a great sausage maker. True story.
Hunting, by the way, is no more constitutionally protected than bowling. So the face that one uses it to hunt is fine, but it's not FOR hunting.
Groups are out there clamoring for your attention, but the big mistake is to think all agendas are the same kwim? All gun control does not equal bans. I support
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
*Currently the ATF is an impotent agency, with an acting but not appointed director for 6 YEARS. So that needs fixing as well.
There's a lot to this issue. A whole lot. But there's also a lot of common ground, I really believe that.
And it's true that most guns out there are semi-auto and that is not the same as assault weapon.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:03 AM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Chatham, you know your stuff, but the point remains.
Hobbies. Not constitutionally protected. Not one little bit.
It is a public safety issue. No,crisis.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:04 AM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Chatham, you know your stuff, but the point remains.
Hobbies. Not constitutionally protected. Not one little bit.
It is a public safety issue. No,crisis.
The public safety issue is addressing mental health and media.
and yes...I do agree with restrictions, tighter background checks, longer waits! but i don't believe a ban on semi-automatics is the answer.
Message edited 1/12/2013 12:09:59 AM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:08 AM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by My2Girlz11
Enough with talking about 911 and Oklahoma. It is a silly comparison. Those who do not agree with the original post still had not answered the question to why someone needs guns to that extreme that could put rounds and rounds of bullets in someone. They serve no purpose unless you in the military. I am starting to think some maybe arguing just to argue. It seems pretty obvious that those guns only purpose is to kill someone or to show off to friends that they can splatter a watermelon
I would imagine that those who are members of this site and own firearms, specifically ARs, aren't exactly so quick to volunteer opinions or information given public opinion and emotions.
In my mind, you're either for a gun ban or you're not. How you can justify just banning ARs and not handguns is beyond me considering handguns kill way more children and people overall than ARs.
But Adam Lanza would not have been able to unleash the fury that he did with a handgun.
Really? You think he wouldn't be able to create devastation with a shotgun? Or a handgun?
A shotgun requires loading the shells each time. A revolver can hold what, five or six? A handgun, nine or ten? Automated rifles can fire off more ammunition in far less time than any of those other guns. The ease of the automated weapons to me is what was capable of creating that kind of destruction. In my mind that is what makes a ban on assault rifles necessary.
There are some inaccuracies here actually, so I feel like with my limited ballistics knowledge I can correct 'em? but most rifles in existence right now are in fact semi auto, most handguns too. It's not the "semi auto" thing that makes it an "assault" weapon as defined by the last or current proposed ban. Semi Auto deals with the trigger - a semi auto weapon requires a distinct trigger pull for each shot. Full Auto machines are the ones you see in movies where just one sustained pull launches a barrage.
An AR-15 rifle, no matter how it is marketed by Bushmaster and others, is to me, an assault weapon. It was used by terrorists in the 70s, it's built as a civilian version of the M-16. It was created to kill PEOPLE, a lot of them. Now if you combine that efficiency with a high capacity mag (30rds, 50, 100) you have either a really great day at the shooting range, or a really bad scene at a public place.
It is not a hunting rifle. It is not. Gunners will tell you it is. I will tell you it's not. And other hunters will laugh at you.
The joke is that it's a terrible hunter's weapon, but a great sausage maker. True story.
Hunting, by the way, is no more constitutionally protected than bowling. So the face that one uses it to hunt is fine, but it's not FOR hunting.
Groups are out there clamoring for your attention, but the big mistake is to think all agendas are the same kwim? All gun control does not equal bans. I support
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
*Currently the ATF is an impotent agency, with an acting but not appointed director for 6 YEARS. So that needs fixing as well.
There's a lot to this issue. A whole lot. But there's also a lot of common ground, I really believe that.
I agree with your points; I was also going off my own very limited knowledge of weapons. I don't want to ban every single gun out their either, but I don't think anyone needs to own military weaponry. I also think hunting for hobby is a lame excuse, but I digress.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:09 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
The argument is not
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:14 AM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Media as in violent movies and violent first person shooter video games!?!??? You think they have no impact on young men who are unstable and hormonal?
and it's a semi-automatic rifle, not much different than a rifle. You still have to pull the trigger each time. we're not talking about machine guns.
Message edited 1/12/2013 12:18:36 AM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:17 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Media as in violent movies and violent first person shooter video games!?!??? You think they have no impact on young men who are unstable and hormonal?
and it's a semi-automatic rifle, not much different than a rifle. You still have to pull the trigger each time. we're not talking about machine guns.
Violent movies and COD or GTA haven't always existed. Gun violence has been around much much longer. I'm not saying that there are some people out there who aren't influenced by them but you can't have these acts of violence without easy access to these weapons.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:22 AM |
| |
|
emilylives
biking
Member since 12/09 2163 total posts
Name:
Emily
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by LIVINMYDREAM
Posted by colette
Well then there's our common ground. Good thing I'm not looking to get sane murder legislation passed. Whew.
The zero-risk bias is a particularly weak debate tactic. Just fyi.
Sane murder legislation ???
What sense does that make???? Obviously if you are going to commit murder, YOU ARE NOT SANE!!!
It is a perfectly viable "debate tactic" as you call it . And if you were to look past your own "opinion" , and see others views on this, you may understand.
This topic has one of 2 view points, and you are either strictly for more gun control or you are not . You are very condecending in the way you are trying to prove your point.
It does not make me a "bad person " or a "problem in this country" because I don't believe that stricter gun control will stop a murderer from murderering. IN MY OPINION, I believe that anyone that believes that does not know all the facts and is just going off of their emotions. I am a mother, and STB wife of a police officer. I hear stories everyday that would make a normal everyday mother and wife cringe. REALITY is REALITY. And REALITY is that no matter how much we combat guns, drugs or any other legal or illegal activity, it can and does happen ... Bottom line.
This seems like a very anarchist attitude. If guns laws don't work to prevent guns, why do all our other laws "work"? Or should we get rid of those, too? Should we legalize drugs, since illegalizing them doesn't help (I personally think we should, but that's a separate issue)? Should we legalize shoplifting, because people do it anyway? I'm just not sure I understand how this logic about guns fits with a support of the legal system and the idea of laws generally.
I'm responding to this quote before I finish reading the thread, because otherwise I will forget...sorry if this has been brought up already.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:24 AM |
| |
|
LittleBlueBug
Happy Mommy
Member since 9/06 4074 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Not to stir the pot...this was just posted on facebook and I just wanted to get thoughts...like an intellectual discussion. This may give some insight too about why people may argue against stricter laws on guns. Not saying I agree, but just another point of view. As far as the assault weapons goes, I think if it doesnt take long to re-load a clip, as she said, then there is no need for them
Message edited 1/12/2013 12:40:26 AM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:34 AM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by emilylives
Posted by LIVINMYDREAM
Posted by colette
Well then there's our common ground. Good thing I'm not looking to get sane murder legislation passed. Whew.
The zero-risk bias is a particularly weak debate tactic. Just fyi.
Sane murder legislation ???
What sense does that make???? Obviously if you are going to commit murder, YOU ARE NOT SANE!!!
It is a perfectly viable "debate tactic" as you call it . And if you were to look past your own "opinion" , and see others views on this, you may understand.
This topic has one of 2 view points, and you are either strictly for more gun control or you are not . You are very condecending in the way you are trying to prove your point.
It does not make me a "bad person " or a "problem in this country" because I don't believe that stricter gun control will stop a murderer from murderering. IN MY OPINION, I believe that anyone that believes that does not know all the facts and is just going off of their emotions. I am a mother, and STB wife of a police officer. I hear stories everyday that would make a normal everyday mother and wife cringe. REALITY is REALITY. And REALITY is that no matter how much we combat guns, drugs or any other legal or illegal activity, it can and does happen ... Bottom line.
This seems like a very anarchist attitude. If guns laws don't work to prevent guns, why do all our other laws "work"? Or should we get rid of those, too? Should we legalize drugs, since illegalizing them doesn't help (I personally think we should, but that's a separate issue)? Should we legalize shoplifting, because people do it anyway? I'm just not sure I understand how this logic about guns fits with a support of the legal system and the idea of laws generally.
I'm responding to this quote before I finish reading the thread, because otherwise I will forget...sorry if this has been brought up already.
It's like the saying "Locks only keep honest people out."
Same principle applies...it keeps "good" people from potentially doing bad things, but it doesn't stop the bad people from doing bad things.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:35 AM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Media as in violent movies and violent first person shooter video games!?!??? You think they have no impact on young men who are unstable and hormonal?
and it's a semi-automatic rifle, not much different than a rifle. You still have to pull the trigger each time. we're not talking about machine guns.
Europe. Same movies.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 1:23 AM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by LittleBlueBug
Not to stir the pot...this was just posted on facebook and I just wanted to get thoughts...like an intellectual discussion. This may give some insight too about why people may argue against stricter laws on guns. Not saying I agree, but just another point of view. As far as the assault weapons goes, I think if it doesnt take long to re-load a clip, as she said, then there is no need for them
this incident (i remember it actually) was awwwwful. But the defensive weapon she left in her car - not an assault weapon. a pistol. I wish she had it with her too - and i'm not certain but i think tx opened up concealed carry licenses after that to be easier to get. Again, though it's not speaking to asault weapons and hi cap rds, which i believe is where more common ground is possible.
States are always going to interpret and adjust that's fine. But some sort of universality at the federal level is much needed.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 1:27 AM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by emilylives
Posted by LIVINMYDREAM
Posted by colette
Well then there's our common ground. Good thing I'm not looking to get sane murder legislation passed. Whew.
The zero-risk bias is a particularly weak debate tactic. Just fyi.
Sane murder legislation ???
What sense does that make???? Obviously if you are going to commit murder, YOU ARE NOT SANE!!!
It is a perfectly viable "debate tactic" as you call it . And if you were to look past your own "opinion" , and see others views on this, you may understand.
This topic has one of 2 view points, and you are either strictly for more gun control or you are not . You are very condecending in the way you are trying to prove your point.
It does not make me a "bad person " or a "problem in this country" because I don't believe that stricter gun control will stop a murderer from murderering. IN MY OPINION, I believe that anyone that believes that does not know all the facts and is just going off of their emotions. I am a mother, and STB wife of a police officer. I hear stories everyday that would make a normal everyday mother and wife cringe. REALITY is REALITY. And REALITY is that no matter how much we combat guns, drugs or any other legal or illegal activity, it can and does happen ... Bottom line.
This seems like a very anarchist attitude. If guns laws don't work to prevent guns, why do all our other laws "work"? Or should we get rid of those, too? Should we legalize drugs, since illegalizing them doesn't help (I personally think we should, but that's a separate issue)? Should we legalize shoplifting, because people do it anyway? I'm just not sure I understand how this logic about guns fits with a support of the legal system and the idea of laws generally.
I'm responding to this quote before I finish reading the thread, because otherwise I will forget...sorry if this has been brought up already.
It's like the saying "Locks only keep honest people out."
Same principle applies...it keeps "good" people from potentially doing bad things, but it doesn't stop the bad people from doing bad things.
In fact it's like saying a broken lock doesn't keep anyone out. Our laws around guns are broken. very broken.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 1:29 AM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by emilylives
Posted by LIVINMYDREAM
Posted by colette
Well then there's our common ground. Good thing I'm not looking to get sane murder legislation passed. Whew.
The zero-risk bias is a particularly weak debate tactic. Just fyi.
Sane murder legislation ???
What sense does that make???? Obviously if you are going to commit murder, YOU ARE NOT SANE!!!
It is a perfectly viable "debate tactic" as you call it . And if you were to look past your own "opinion" , and see others views on this, you may understand.
This topic has one of 2 view points, and you are either strictly for more gun control or you are not . You are very condecending in the way you are trying to prove your point.
It does not make me a "bad person " or a "problem in this country" because I don't believe that stricter gun control will stop a murderer from murderering. IN MY OPINION, I believe that anyone that believes that does not know all the facts and is just going off of their emotions. I am a mother, and STB wife of a police officer. I hear stories everyday that would make a normal everyday mother and wife cringe. REALITY is REALITY. And REALITY is that no matter how much we combat guns, drugs or any other legal or illegal activity, it can and does happen ... Bottom line.
This seems like a very anarchist attitude. If guns laws don't work to prevent guns, why do all our other laws "work"? Or should we get rid of those, too? Should we legalize drugs, since illegalizing them doesn't help (I personally think we should, but that's a separate issue)? Should we legalize shoplifting, because people do it anyway? I'm just not sure I understand how this logic about guns fits with a support of the legal system and the idea of laws generally.
I'm responding to this quote before I finish reading the thread, because otherwise I will forget...sorry if this has been brought up already.
It's like the saying "Locks only keep honest people out."
Same principle applies...it keeps "good" people from potentially doing bad things, but it doesn't stop the bad people from doing bad things.
In fact it's like saying a broken lock doesn't keep anyone out. Our laws around guns are broken. very broken.
Um, but, we still lock our doors.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 9:53 AM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
I suppose they'd be grandfathered in? I think if they're banned, people should have to give them up plain and simple. Those guns should not ever be owned by civilians.
when Australia instituted their assault weapon ban, they bought back all of these guns and saw a sharp decrease in gun crimes.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 10:58 AM |
| |
|
DrMeg
Back home!
Member since 5/08 1858 total posts
Name:
Meg
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Article that articulates the point of this post really well (and it is written by a republican)
Message edited 1/12/2013 4:08:37 PM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:07 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Wow Meg, that was something, thanks for sharing.
ETA your link had a kink :)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/09/guns-are-killing-the-republican-party.html
Message edited 1/12/2013 12:36:45 PM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 12:35 PM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Media as in violent movies and violent first person shooter video games!?!??? You think they have no impact on young men who are unstable and hormonal?
and it's a semi-automatic rifle, not much different than a rifle. You still have to pull the trigger each time. we're not talking about machine guns.
If (automatic) guns aren't the problem (the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra) and we need to address media instead...... assault weapons should be/would be easier to access than violent movies or video games? Are we to treat media as the weapon?
Just like "guns don't kill people", movies and video games don't kill people. Give the unstable kid the game, he's not going to kill anyone with it. Give him the gun... different outcome.
Kids (unstable or not) in other countries watch the same movies and play the same games. They don't have access to the same weapons. You don't often hear about them going to shoot up schools.
How would you even define an unstable young man and regulate his ability to view violent movies or play violent video games? Should all young men be tested to assess their stability before allowed to view such media? (much like i think all gun purchasers should be psychologically assessed before purchasing, but that's neither here nor there)....
How would the government be able to ensure these types of media stay out of the hands of an unstable young man? I know certain movies and video games come with the appropriate warning labels and consumers need proper identification showing they're of age to engage in such activity... but, as far as regulations go, how would the retailer ensure purchaser is not unstable? Is it the retailer's responsibility? He's out to sell product and make money. (Gun dealer isn't responsible for evaluating purchaser's mental stability... but game/movie retailer should be?)....
And just like you can't stop a criminal from getting a gun, you can't block a kid from watching a movie or playing a game.... he'll find another way to get it. Even with utmost parental controls.
To go one step further, in the same vein as the pro-gun argument "if they start to ban this gun, how do we know they won't ban that one too"... how far would regulations on movies/video games go? Where does it stop? How much violence is too much violence? How much is just enough? Ban it completely? Nobody can enjoy a good mafia movie every once in a while anymore for fear it might make us snap and join the mob? Where would the line be crossed into infringement of freedom of speech of the makers of the products?
Slippery slope.
Not being snarky at all, genuinely curious of your thoughts. I always found this rebuttal to place more weight and value on one amendment over another...
|
| Posted 1/12/13 6:54 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MC09
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Media as in violent movies and violent first person shooter video games!?!??? You think they have no impact on young men who are unstable and hormonal?
and it's a semi-automatic rifle, not much different than a rifle. You still have to pull the trigger each time. we're not talking about machine guns.
If (automatic) guns aren't the problem (the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra) and we need to address media instead...... assault weapons should be/would be easier to access than violent movies or video games? Are we to treat media as the weapon?
Just like "guns don't kill people", movies and video games don't kill people. Give the unstable kid the game, he's not going to kill anyone with it. Give him the gun... different outcome.
Kids (unstable or not) in other countries watch the same movies and play the same games. They don't have access to the same weapons. You don't often hear about them going to shoot up schools.
How would you even define an unstable young man and regulate his ability to view violent movies or play violent video games? Should all young men be tested to assess their stability before allowed to view such media? (much like i think all gun purchasers should be psychologically assessed before purchasing, but that's neither here nor there)....
How would the government be able to ensure these types of media stay out of the hands of an unstable young man? I know certain movies and video games come with the appropriate warning labels and consumers need proper identification showing they're of age to engage in such activity... but, as far as regulations go, how would the retailer ensure purchaser is not unstable? Is it the retailer's responsibility? He's out to sell product and make money. (Gun dealer isn't responsible for evaluating purchaser's mental stability... but game/movie retailer should be?)....
And just like you can't stop a criminal from getting a gun, you can't block a kid from watching a movie or playing a game.... he'll find another way to get it. Even with utmost parental controls.
To go one step further, in the same vein as the pro-gun argument "if they start to ban this gun, how do we know they won't ban that one too"... how far would regulations on movies/video games go? Where does it stop? How much violence is too much violence? How much is just enough? Ban it completely? Nobody can enjoy a good mafia movie every once in a while anymore for fear it might make us snap and join the mob? Where would the line be crossed into infringement of freedom of speech of the makers of the products?
Slippery slope.
Not being snarky at all, genuinely curious of your thoughts. I always found this rebuttal to place more weight and value on one amendment over another...
did you read any of the articles i posted links to?
i'm not saying we need a ban on anything.
i think its a complex issue involving a number of amendments and i think people are quick to point the blame on a gun because it's a concrete thing to blame.
Message edited 1/12/2013 8:04:24 PM.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 7:53 PM |
| |
|
Erica
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 11767 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I don't like guns, never shot one, don't want them in my house, and I do support gun control laws (what the author of the article suggested sounds very feasible and promising).
That being said, I do support the second amendment. I think it is important. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought because the British were going to seize the colonists' weapons. The Nazis banned guns; which some link to the success of the Holocaust. As much as I don't like guns and what they do and I would love to ban guns, I find it hard to give up this right, even though I don't even participate in it.
The point of the above, is that you don't have to take a side. You can be on both sides, see both sides, understand both sides. It doesn't make you heartless.
|
| Posted 1/12/13 10:01 PM |
| |
|
LIVINMYDREAM
LIF Adolescent
Member since 12/07 833 total posts
Name:
Erin
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Totally not wanting to 
Or anything of the sort, but after reading through all of the posts and also re reading my responses I just want to say that I understand why so many feel the opposite of what I do , and in fact I see your points.
I responded in a way to some of your posts with emotion and anger for feeling I was being attacked instead of logically. And for that I apologize. It's nice to hear others points of views on a subject that we all feel so strongly about, without getting condecending and nasty. And I will say after reading through this whole post I see your points on legislation for stricter Gun Control for Assault weapons and am in agreement with that. Any little bit helps and if we can save one babies life so be it . ( I think I just needed to calm down to actually see such a viable point. )
I just wanted to clarify because I would never want to paint myself as some heartless person on here when thats the farthest thing from the truth.
|
| Posted 1/14/13 10:06 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 6 7 8 [9] 10 |
