Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Florida School Shooting
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI've maintained from the start that guns aren't THE problem. They're part of the problem. Which is precisely why I'm for multi-pronged solutions in dealing with the problem.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt's not a refutation at all. Why would anyone think that guns make people more criminal? If that's honestly what you all think is the gun control view, then no wonder there's so much miscommunication about the subject. The argument is, again, that violence committed with guns is more lethal.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostRead my post again. I never made such a suggestion. I said, in effect, since you know that that access to guns does not make people criminal, then there is no point of trying to limit guns.
Comment
-
First off, I'd like to say this thread is progressing much faster than I can keep up since I have limited time and resources to respond at work during the day...so, please don't be surprised if this is my last response to you.
Originally posted by Adrift View PostHuh? I did explain my reasoning. The US, like other 1st world nations have the wealth, resources, and transparency to carry out something like gun control. Incredibly poor, and corrupt nations likes Mexico and Jamaica do not. I can't help but feel that you're putting me on, that you understand this as well, but you're pretending not to. But if you sincerely feel that the reason I offer is not reasoning, or if you really do deem it prejudism and cherry picking, then I don't know what more I can say. You will have to go away thinking I'm unreasonable, and prejudiced I suppose.
Gun control advocates are aware of this, and also think it's bad. Gun control advocates don't only advocate when no mass shootings go on, but when a mass shooting happens, it's natural for these issues to come to the forefront for the Joe on the street. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
No, I definitely saw that and addressed it,
here, I'll repeat what I wrote, "And why are you including both injured and dead? That sounds like you're purposely attempting to balloon up numbers."
I am going by 4 minimum dead. I can list the tragedies for you if you'd like (it'll take a bit), but they're in the middle of the page I linked. Again, why are you selectively choosing just the Obama administration to make your point? The Paris terrorist attack alone that included both mass shooting AND suicide bombs counts for the majority of dead and wounded in France's 6 attacks during Obama's administration. You might as well compare that one attack to the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers. And still, America saw more dead during Obama's administration due to mass shootings.
Yes, if you only counts deaths you are correct. To further address the charge of why use injuries and deaths instead of just deaths...the answer for that is that I saw the totals for both countries to be within 10 or 20 people(?) of each other. And it seemed to me that it was strange that with roughly the same number of people were hit by gunfire that more of them died in the US. Was that coincidence, better medical care, pure luck? Poorer marksmanship? THAT'S why I was using both figures. It seems to me to be pure luck that with the same number of total casualties that less people died in France. Does that adequately explain why I included both now?"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostFirst off, I'd like to say this thread is progressing much faster than I can keep up since I have limited time and resources to respond at work during the day...so, please don't be surprised if this is my last response to you.
Ok, gotcha. On the one hand, you may be right that the US might possibly be able to carry out some semblance of gun control...but many on your side decry the "corruption" of our politicians that "take all that money from the NRA and do nothing"...so, you can't have it both ways here. Secondly, if's a bit ironic IMO that you can't see how prejudicial your statements are. Therefore, yes, we're pretty far apart on this view and I do not see any way to reconcile it.
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostMy point is it's the mass shootings that bring out the cries for gun control when the number of people killed by them is infinitesimal to the overall total...that's my only point in bringing it up.
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostYes you did. My mistake.
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostLet me get this right...a gun rights advocate intentionally blowing UP casuality numbers to make a point?
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostWhy pick the Obama administration? Well, there's no nefarious reason, it's a well defined period and is the most recent, and pretty much all of the numbers have come in so as to be pretty accurate. Why does it bother you so much?
Isn't ANY time frame chosen arbitrary? If you say, why not go back 10 years (instead of 8), or 20 years...I might counter, well lets go back 200 years...I'm seriously puzzled why you have a thing about the time frame.
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostYes, if you only counts deaths you are correct. To further address the charge of why use injuries and deaths instead of just deaths...the answer for that is that I saw the totals for both countries to be within 10 or 20 people(?) of each other. And it seemed to me that it was strange that with roughly the same number of people were hit by gunfire that more of them died in the US. Was that coincidence, better medical care, pure luck? Poorer marksmanship? THAT'S why I was using both figures. It seems to me to be pure luck that with the same number of total casualties that less people died in France. Does that adequately explain why I included both now?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI see where you're headed, it's the old "the Founding Fathers never could have dreamed of today's technologically advanced weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, so it should be assumed to only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols" chestnut. That would be as silly as saying, "The Founding Fathers never dreamed of something as technologically advanced as the Internet when they wrote the First Amendment, so it should be assumed to only apply to newspapers and books."
But the answer to your question "Exactly which firearms are covered by the second amendment?" is, of course, all of them."Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostNo. I'm arguing that you can legal ban certain classes of firearms without infringing on the right to bear arms. Nothing modern vs. antique about it.
Almost every gun is a semi automatic.
If you do callibur bans most guns are not cassull, but .38 or nine millemeter.
To me taking away things like that is not going to do anything except make people upset.sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThe good thing about not having a side is that I don't really have to worry about what other people say. Also, I don't see how it could be ironic that my view is prejudicial even if it were the case. Where exactly is the irony? But I'm also not too worried about people thinking it's prejudicial to point out that Jamaica is, in fact, poor, corrupt, and lacking in resources. Do you doubt that these things are true, especially compared to most first world nations?
Ok, well to put your mind at ease, I believe in gun control regardless of whether or not there are mass shootings.
No problem.
Of course? Why wouldn't they, as long as it paints a picture that other places with stricter gun control laws are worse off than the US.
Because it just happens to coincide with the most deadliest attack in France since WWII. Wherever you got your source knew exactly what he was doing. This might be a convincing strategy to you, or you may think it not a big deal. You're welcome to that belief. I'm not so convinced.
As we've seen, the numbers don't appear to be very accurate, and they're fudged to take advantage of a peculiar event in France's history. Again, this might be convincing for you...not so much for me."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheWall View PostWhich class though?
Almost every gun is a semi automatic.
If you do callibur bans most guns are not cassull, but .38 or nine millemeter.
To me taking away things like that is not going to do anything except make people upset."Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostSo every gun isn't a semi-automatic then?
That's okay. We can ruffle some feathers.
*a slight exaggeration, perhaps, but hopefully you get the point.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
What I mean by upset is an understatement. It would go like this.
Government- Sir your ruger mini 14 is now illegal.
Person- Are your armed guards illegal?
Government- Sir give us the gun.
Person- See that have an flag? Get out of here you tyrannical pinko.sigpic
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
4 responses
42 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 03:51 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
8 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
462 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Comment