Rayderr
Footballguy
The looks of the gun isn't what kills people.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter ATC1
- Start date
Rayderr
Footballguy
Well consider this me educating the members of the FFA. As mentioned in another post, the term assault weapon was created to make people think of something much worse when it comes to certain weapons. If we're going to have a serious discussion about gun bans and gun control, we need to be honest about what these weapons are and not try to use tricky language to make things seem to be something else.And on a side note, the anti-gun crowd is again misplacing priorities. They're targetting the semi-automatic rifles when in fact most shootings involve hand guns. Even mass shootings. Loughner - handgun. Cho - handguns. Hasan - handguns (one a revolver no less). Page - Handgun.'proninja said:
Last edited by a moderator:
G
General Tso
Guest
I don't know, maybe because the founder of Christianity is best known for being a non-violent pacifist?
Free range would mean not fed junk or shot up with hormones.Given that you don't drink, you have the high ground in this argument.
jonessed
Footballguy
The Bible isn't exactly anti-self defence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rayderr
Footballguy
Yes. The functions of an assault weapon and an assault weapon are vastly different. I asked early on if a person name the difference. He couldn't. This is what the gun control groups want. They want the 2 things to be synonymous even though they are not. I'm actually for implementing smarter gun control, but I do believe it to b e important to be honest with the language and terms used.'proninja said:
G
General Tso
Guest
Do you believe that Jesus would own a gun?
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Didnt he walk with a big stick?
jonessed
Footballguy
I have no idea. I don't see why that matters.
Rayderr
Footballguy
IIRC, wasn't turning people into pillars of salt more his thing?
17seconds
root of all aliai
Why is it you people can't understand that anti-gun people care about both? The guns and the wackos. You just care about the wackos.The typical liberal democrat anti-gun person is also very much for counseling and mental health funding.Was just thinking the same thing
Last edited by a moderator:
G
General Tso
Guest
This all got triggered by the words "God given right to own a gun". I think it's completely relevant to ask if the God we who is granting this right would carry one himself. If you can't see the incongruity between Christianity and gun ownership, I don't think you are looking hard enough.
What would He need a gun for? Can't he shoot laser beams out of his eyes and whatnot?
Abraham
Footballguy
Much like the pitbull thread, there will be no way of convincing the pro-gun people. They are so obsessed in their thinking that nothing will change their mind. They are so focused on everything except the weapon (guns) and don't care about the actual problem.
For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.
Good day.
For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.
Good day.
Furious Styles
Footballguy
It seems to me that two positions on this matter hold no merit. The first being that there isn't a way to have sensible gun control without infringing on the Constitution. The second being that gun control alone will eliminate these type of tragedies from occurring.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
News flash, there we're and will be unstable people. The only thing that's changed in the past 50 years is the easy access to weapons that spit out multiple rounds in seconds and then reloaded with ease. Its one thing when you're dealing with 6-shooters and double barrel hunting rifles, it's a whole different universe when your dealing with any of the weapons today.
To not have our laws reflect the new weapon technology is frankly idiotic as yesterday showed.
To not have our laws reflect the new weapon technology is frankly idiotic as yesterday showed.
G
General Tso
Guest
I don't think anyone is arguing the second point. Where my mind is at right now is retaining the Constitutional right to own a handgun but imposing common sense limitations. Tragedies and shootings will still occur. But maybe in ten years an autistic kid with mental issues won't be able to so easily get his hands on a Bushmaster weapon capable of killing a lot of kids in a short period of time.
Rayderr
Footballguy
Serious question. Let's say we ban all semi-automatic weapons. The gov't forcibly goes into every single house and confiscates every single semiautomatic weapon. What do we do when these type of events start occurring with revolvers and pump action shotguns?
17seconds
root of all aliai
I feel like the pro-gun people are taking mental shortcuts because they so badly want to have guns. They find ways to argue that it could have been any weapon, they say the person was crazy and getting rid of guns doesn't solve that, they start arguing about the practicality of gun bans. The only reason they do this is because they want to have their guns.Gun control is about keeping the incidents from happening as often and reducing the number of people killed when it does happen. It's one angle in the fight. It's not a cure-all. It shouldn't be thrown out because it isn't as effective as the (unachievable) goal to make everyone sane, law-abiding citizens.
jonessed
Footballguy
He used pistols. The Bushmaster was in the trunk.
G
General Tso
Guest
Do we know yet if the Bushmaster was used during the killing spree? I think that fact is going to be pivotal as to how gun control measures fare in the short term.
Rayderr
Footballguy
I asked you that back when you insisted the bushmaster was going "bye bye".Again, per CNN:
Now I'm sure there are still a lot of details to be reported, but right now, it looks like it was just the handguns.
Runningman
Footballguy
No, weapons like the handguns that the killer used yesterday have been around for more than fifty years. Try like 100. Look up the .45 caliber model 1911. Hell you could mail order a thompson sub machine gun in the 20's and 30's. Also google the browning automatic rifle. Even revolvers of 100 years ago were and are essentially semi-automatic weapons, once cocked you only have to pull the trigger to have another round ready, with only their magazine capacity set by their design. And the biggest mass killing at a school still took place in the 30's. Just saying.
G
General Tso
Guest
I just read on MSNBC that he brought all three weapons into the school, including the Bushmaster.
Brony
Footballguy
Yup. Much like the pitbull thread, pro-gun proponents refuse to look at the weapons.
jafo
Out of Mind
Wrong.
jafo
Out of Mind
It's not a gun owners fault that other people are uneducated about guns.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Incorrect.They're both problems, one is just easier to fix than the other.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Why is it you people can't understand that anti-gun people care about both? The guns and the wackos. You just care about the wackos.The typical liberal democrat anti-gun person is also very much for counseling and mental health funding.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
The only question is if the tragedies are reduced and I don't know the answer to that question.All I know is if you told me one innocent would be killed because they couldn't protect themselves vs 3 that aren't killed because there are less guns, then I'm choosing the latter. The rights of one are not important than protecting the whole.But I don't have stats to prove that, so until that happens I do think this is a nuanced debate.I am more intrigued in finding out why certain countries are more civilized overall. There is a lot of violence here. How do we evolve to be more like Iceland where almost 1 in 3 own guns but the homicide rate is low or Switzerland where its almost one in two that own guns.
Furious Styles
Footballguy
As a society, do you feel we have too many gun laws, not enough or have it exactly right currently?
MAC_32
Footballguy
Another
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Instead of debating, i think i'll just post this every dozen or so pgs til it reaches 1000, then give up. That will make me feel i've done my part. I sure hope y'all can get together and figure out precisely how the deck chairs should be aligned on this sinking ship.
A couple of weeks ago, i was about the only killing-machine (handguns & automatics - weapons designed to most furtively & effectively send missiles through human flesh - i dont care if single-shot weapons are ISSUED to each American household in exchange) abolitionist on this board and experience has taught me that i'll likely be the only one again in about a month's time.
It has nothing to do with the guns, actually, it has to do with our national mental health. As civilizations mechanize and populations expand, it becomes ever more difficult to feel personally powerful. The average person's comfort zone shrinks with the loss of each generally-followed rule and further nebulization of what few limits remain.
Control. Where do we find control? Gossip & reality shows that so easily convince us how much better we are than others? Groups with very distinct borders (Packerbackers, Goths, Reps & Dems, Twice-borns) where people who dont think "our" way are excluded and which hold regular celebrations of shared commonness? Passing the pain in the public flow of events to gain small personal revenges.
Or what about this? Down the street, I can lay a few Benjis on a counter and get a machine that, if i wanted to, could mow down everything in my sight. I'd never do it, of course, but I could have ABSOLUTE control in such a moment and even thinking about it squares my world a lil bit, maybe enough. Look at it - those cold, clean, gleaming lines fairly scream "answer". Lift it - out of the case, its surprising weight evokes power and promises that, loaded, it's almost too heavy for anything but immediate and perfect......justice. Y'know? If i had one in my home, i'd feel just enough control to get through my days.
That's why Glocks exist. The inexplicable availability of assault weapons are just an extension, as video games continue to prove, of how high-tolerance is fantasization.
That's why both need to go - when people who lose their tenuous hold on self-control have, right there in a shoebox on a shelf, a way to regain it REAL quick, #### happens. nufced
A couple of weeks ago, i was about the only killing-machine (handguns & automatics - weapons designed to most furtively & effectively send missiles through human flesh - i dont care if single-shot weapons are ISSUED to each American household in exchange) abolitionist on this board and experience has taught me that i'll likely be the only one again in about a month's time.
It has nothing to do with the guns, actually, it has to do with our national mental health. As civilizations mechanize and populations expand, it becomes ever more difficult to feel personally powerful. The average person's comfort zone shrinks with the loss of each generally-followed rule and further nebulization of what few limits remain.
Control. Where do we find control? Gossip & reality shows that so easily convince us how much better we are than others? Groups with very distinct borders (Packerbackers, Goths, Reps & Dems, Twice-borns) where people who dont think "our" way are excluded and which hold regular celebrations of shared commonness? Passing the pain in the public flow of events to gain small personal revenges.
Or what about this? Down the street, I can lay a few Benjis on a counter and get a machine that, if i wanted to, could mow down everything in my sight. I'd never do it, of course, but I could have ABSOLUTE control in such a moment and even thinking about it squares my world a lil bit, maybe enough. Look at it - those cold, clean, gleaming lines fairly scream "answer". Lift it - out of the case, its surprising weight evokes power and promises that, loaded, it's almost too heavy for anything but immediate and perfect......justice. Y'know? If i had one in my home, i'd feel just enough control to get through my days.
That's why Glocks exist. The inexplicable availability of assault weapons are just an extension, as video games continue to prove, of how high-tolerance is fantasization.
That's why both need to go - when people who lose their tenuous hold on self-control have, right there in a shoebox on a shelf, a way to regain it REAL quick, #### happens. nufced
jafo
Out of Mind
I think we have enough laws, but I think they could do a better job enforcing them.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
It's B.S. because you and others are doing everything possible to detract from the point that we need even tighter restrictions on the rifles and firearms that killed those kids yesterday. If you are so tethered to your paranoia about the government and/or your hobby, and you wish to keep both in exchange for lives lost, then we need to start having a discussion about how to get these guns out of circulation for you. Instead, you are blathering on about distinctions that, for yesterday's purposes and most others, don't really matter.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Rewind the clock a few days/weeks. What laws on the books would have saved those kids' lives yesterday? How would you have suggested they be enforced differently. If you don't have an answer to either question (preferably both), then we obviously need more laws. Because, what happened yesterday is part of a pattern that is inexcusable. And, to be perfectly frank, we all share responsibility for not doing enough to protect those kids; perhaps you for being an ardent gun supporter and certainly me for not doing enough in the past to get them out circulation.
jafo
Out of Mind
Keep feeding into the media BS. I hear its tasty.
It may have been mentioned (reading through the thread) - but I would hold the seller of an assault weapon accountable for any future actions involving that gun. So whoever sold that gun to this kid would be in it deep. Legal sale or black market.And that gun sale never takes place.
Koya
Footballguy
This may have been covered already, but can't wade through 15 pages here. Two real questions re: gun control.
1. Israel. Obviously, for reasons of need, every household in Israel has guns. Multiple guns. Assault weapons. Really dangerous stuff. But you don't ever see an incident like this... part perhaps societal, and part perhaps because if someone takes two shots in a crowded area, many others who have weapons and are very well trained will take down the target almost immediately. In addition, you almost never (never?) hear of five year olds shooting themselves by accident after finding "daddy's gun" - nor do you see a pair of 12 year olds involved in a deadly game of russian roulette or something.
What I see in Israel is that everyone is aware of guns. What they can do, positively and negatively. Everyone is well trained in how to use them, store them, gun safety etc. There is a level of KNOWLEDGE, RESPECT AND RESPONSIBILITY for the weapons, and that, imo, goes a long way, coupled with the knowledge that if you try to be some evil villain, you are not going to get far. You may kill one, or two, or three... but then you are taken out before any worse carnage could even occur.
2. Switzerland. I recently heard, and perhaps someone can attest to the accuracy, that Switzerland had the / one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. But you never hear about anything like this. Is that indeed true, and what can be learned here?
So, with this one or possibly two examples, what can we learn? How can we balance the right to bear arms with the societal right to not be exposed to unnecessary danger from other's inappropriate use of arms? If you have the concept as noted above of people wanting and needing a sense of power, if you take away bombs, does the nut go to explosives? Not as if it's that hard to make a bomb, after all. Though granted, not as easy as taking a few assault rifles and going shooting. That said, crazies will find a way, but obviously making that more difficult will mitigate the issue to a degree.
I just wonder if we have the worst of both worlds. Far too few weapons in the hands of responsible and very well trained people while just about anyone can get weapons without any intent on being responsible or of sane mind, even.
1. Israel. Obviously, for reasons of need, every household in Israel has guns. Multiple guns. Assault weapons. Really dangerous stuff. But you don't ever see an incident like this... part perhaps societal, and part perhaps because if someone takes two shots in a crowded area, many others who have weapons and are very well trained will take down the target almost immediately. In addition, you almost never (never?) hear of five year olds shooting themselves by accident after finding "daddy's gun" - nor do you see a pair of 12 year olds involved in a deadly game of russian roulette or something.
What I see in Israel is that everyone is aware of guns. What they can do, positively and negatively. Everyone is well trained in how to use them, store them, gun safety etc. There is a level of KNOWLEDGE, RESPECT AND RESPONSIBILITY for the weapons, and that, imo, goes a long way, coupled with the knowledge that if you try to be some evil villain, you are not going to get far. You may kill one, or two, or three... but then you are taken out before any worse carnage could even occur.
2. Switzerland. I recently heard, and perhaps someone can attest to the accuracy, that Switzerland had the / one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. But you never hear about anything like this. Is that indeed true, and what can be learned here?
So, with this one or possibly two examples, what can we learn? How can we balance the right to bear arms with the societal right to not be exposed to unnecessary danger from other's inappropriate use of arms? If you have the concept as noted above of people wanting and needing a sense of power, if you take away bombs, does the nut go to explosives? Not as if it's that hard to make a bomb, after all. Though granted, not as easy as taking a few assault rifles and going shooting. That said, crazies will find a way, but obviously making that more difficult will mitigate the issue to a degree.
I just wonder if we have the worst of both worlds. Far too few weapons in the hands of responsible and very well trained people while just about anyone can get weapons without any intent on being responsible or of sane mind, even.
jonessed
Footballguy
What are you talking about? There are clearly distinct differences between handguns and automatic rifles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rayderr
Footballguy
I asked Tso this earlier but he didn't respond, so I'll ask you (any other person who thinks we need to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons can also respond.)If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?
jafo
Out of Mind
No laws can protect someone crazy enough from carrying out what happened. The guy could have made a simple bomb out of fertilizer material and blown everyone up. Let's start looking at what causes this type of behavior. Turn off the TV and pay attention to those around you. There are warning signs but everyone is too busy to notice.As far as laws that could be enforced better? Felons owning a gun would be a great place to start.
Ursa M
Footballguy
That sale never did take place. I read that all three guns were registered to his mother.
Last edited by a moderator:
jafo
Out of Mind
It's already a felony offense to own an assault rifle.
