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

Meliai love you girl. We need more of you.

Fight for your inner belief.

Just cause you out numbered don't mean you wrong.

 

Needing a gun for safety is indicative of a little ego

 

Of course the reasons are bull shit. They’re just rationalizations. The only reason for the current gun laws is people’s gun fetish. Plain and simple. They like guns because they make them feel tough when they can’t achiece that feeling without them. That need to feel manly far surpasses the concern for children being murdered.

 

So if a man breaks into your house, put you in a train, you rather say OK?

Or have the choice to say FUCK YOU go out protectionist.

Learn from the jews,.

I have the right to say fuck you?

trying to take that away?

nope.

 

Anit gun people are asking to get in line to suck it

Emotionless is what they want

 

If you get rid of semiautomatics, people will stop murdering each other.

Duh....

 

To 6, broony and the rest of the gun lobby

You keep coming in with this one liner shit on stuff you know has already been covered and you know has outstanding criticism of out there that you know you are unable to refute.

Why are you people so dishonest?

 

\
Can someone translate this?

I'm not saying guns have never been used successfully as protection. I'm saying the math does not indicate that they offer a level of protection that's worth our kids getting murdered at school in record numbers

 

I'm not part of the gun lobby, nor dishonest. Just a guy who lives 8 time zones away from you with my own opinions

 

They can't be honest. The cognitive dissonance is too great. They know the safety and militia stuff is total crap, but the alternative is to acknowledge that their weak man gun fetish is worth more to them than someone else's kids life.

 

6

ALREADY COVERED please address the outstanding criticisms of this argument instead of just repeating crap.

Debate is meant to be linear someone presents an argument, the presentation or statement is criticised, then the next step is the person addressing the criticisms or if unable to do so adapting or dropping that argument or taking back the statement. The problem and reason why so many arguments involving the gun lobby go circular is because they refuse to address the criticisms but also refuse to adapt or drop their argument.

Please address the outstanding criticisms

 

What are the outstanding criticisms?

 

Kerri

They have been repeated many times and if the gun lobby people don’t know what they are then they should, as they should have seen them many times by now.

If anyone else wishes to read them they can be found in any one of the gun issue threads

*

Thing is that there has been complains about the debate going around in circles, what happens is –

Someone from the gun lobby makes a statement or presents an argument

People criticise what’s been said

The gun lobby ignore the criticism

Someone from the gun lobby makes a similar or even the same statement or presents the same type of argument again

People criticise what’s been said

The gun lobby ignore the criticism

And so on and so on………………….

 

Maybe its time to close the thread if there are no outstanding issues

 

There are a couple of other arguments lurking in the background that may easily be dismissed as non-rational but are still emotionally important to some gun advocates. One is the so-called " gun culture" which is powerful in the South and West in the United States. As an Arkansas State police spokesman put it: "This is a part of the country and a state where it's unusual if a child doesn't grow up going out with dad and granddad to hunt deer, using a very powerful weapon." CNN - School shootings cast shadow on Southern gun culture - March 26, 1998

Embedded in this statement is the notion that private citizens need guns to resist the police, and that the citizens will take up arms appropriately to challenge perceived government tyranny. This argument is flawed because: (1) unless we're to allow citizens to acquire state of the art military hardware, including artillery, jet bombers and tanks, it's unlikely they'll prevail in an all out confrontation with the government; and (2) lots of the citizen militia types are the last people I'd trust to exercise good judgment in perceiving and resisting tyranny. For example, in the western states many ranchers believe they are the rightful owners of the federal public lands--a crackpot idea. The 2014 Bundy ranch standoff between ranchers and the feds in Oregon is a disturbing example of what this mentality can lead to. I'll take my chances with the police as an alternative to mob rule by armed asshole crackpots--especially ones like alt right Trumpster cultster Stefan Molyneux.. I, for one, don't oppose guns per se, even in private hands, although I think reasonable measures to keep them out of the hands of criminals and nutjobs are worth considering. I do like the idea of government, though, as an alternative to anarchy, and government entails, as sociologist Max Weber told us, a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of force.

 

This IS dishonest as fuck though, do you want to prove Balbus's point? Because you just did.

No one wants to take anyone's guns by force at gun point. That's fucking ridiculous. The only thing that has been floated that remotely resembles that sort of plan is a VOLUNTARY buyback program which, as you can see by the word VOLUNTARY, is voluntary. And we all know that a nationwide buyback program is too extreme for the US right now anyways, gun control will have to happen in very small baby steps, starting with stricter background checks. If we see a decline in mass shootings by taking small measures then it is likely bigger measures like a voluntary buyback program will be dropped from the conversation anyways

Its like you guys aren't even listening to your opponents arguments. Not surprising. You're not the first person on HF to make me feel like they're arguing against an argument that hasnt been made.

 

There threads go to the circular discussions when you attempt to censure the views that don't agree with yours. And then the terms nutjobs are defined by whom?


You are certainly entitled to interpret it this way if you like. But that's not the idea shared by others. If say 50% of 300,000,000 homes across America were armed, how likely do you think the government will be successful in disarming those homes regardless of what weapons they use? If 150,000,000 people resisted armed forces of what 3,000,000 troops, they will need a lot more than tanks and rockets to beat them. Further if it is not known which of the 300,000,000 homes were armed and which ones weren't, the systematic liquidation of what population would be required to insure a successful takeover by that govt.? And then....who would be left to govern and tax......etc etc etc. IF the government became tyrannical, the answer is not to be disarmed.

To me the likelihood, that I can trust my government is decreasing not increasing. Doesn't mean I think they will come knocking on my door next week. But if I were in California, watching how those nut jobs run the state, I may feel differently about it.