Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Firearms are the great equalizer. Thus, the right to self defense for all should be inalienable. In one's domicile I would tend to agree with you. Carrying around outside though, that should be a privilege given to people who prove themselves with "the" firearm they will be carrying. Neither the military nor police just give you a gun on day one and say have at it jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 In one's domicile I would tend to agree with you. Carrying around outside though, that should be a privilege given to people who prove themselves with "the" firearm they will be carrying. Neither the military nor police just give you a gun on day one and say have at it jr. That is why you have to pay for a course to get your CCW license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 the potential lethality of a car isn't the issue here though is it? I It isn't the issue because you don't want to concede that a car can murder people. You're hung up on what the original purpose of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm in favor of gun ownership and protecting that right for people who are responsible. Many irresponsible people certainly own guns today - figuring out what could be done to fix that is a valid discussion. But if you compare guns to cars in terms of deadliness, you can't be selectively ignorant towards ALL of the differences between cars, guns, and what it takes to own and operate each - you have to consider everything, such as: - Cars primary purpose is transportation, guns primary purpose is to stop or kill whatever's on the other end of the barrel - It takes more individual effort to legally drive a car than carry a gun (insurance, license, inspections) - Law enforcement has at least some way of knowing if you're driving a car irresponsibly or illegally, while there's little way of knowing if you're carrying a gun illegally. Etc, etc. So I wouldn't compare guns to cars if you don't want to talk about all of the differences between guns and cars. That is why you have to pay for a course to get your CCW license. Some states, like Ohio, open carry is legal without any form of permit - though some certain cities may have laws against it, statewide it's legal to have a gun on your hip as long as it's visible and you're in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 It isn't the issue because you don't want to concede that a car can murder people. You're hung up on what the original purpose of it is. A pencil can murder people, or a bottle, or a fridge, or, basically, anything. Pretty much everything else has a different primary use that enhances our lives except a gun. I'm not seeing how that's difficult to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 A pencil can murder people, or a bottle, or a fridge, or, basically, anything. Pretty much everything else has a different primary use that enhances our lives except a gun. I'm not seeing how that's difficult to understand.I understand it perfectly fine. You'd have to be an idiot to not understand it. I don't see how the flip side of the argument is difficult to understand. The point is you have to decide which side makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 A gun definitely enhances your life if you're the Otero family and you're randomly victimized and your children and family murdered by a psycho killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 High power or revolver they all kill you. Nonsensical argument. So in your mind there's no difference in the number of people one can kill in a short period of time between a revolver and a high powered rifle? Wanna restate that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 It isn't the issue because you don't want to concede that a car can murder people. You're hung up on what the original purpose of it is. I've conceded numerous times that many many many things can murder people, what have you been reading? Are we reading the same thread? Anyway, yes i'm hung up on the purpose of a firearm....which designates that it be considered vastly different in a society than a car. It just does. I'm sorry, it.....just.......does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 These "high powered firearms"you think are rampant are already illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 A gun definitely enhances your life if you're the Otero family and you're randomly victimized and your children and family murdered by a psycho killer but nobody's ever argued that owning a gun for self defense purpose's had no validity. Nobody here at least. And in the end you're debating with people HERE. But you keep assigning strawmans to our points. You're lumping anyone with any sort of hang up to unfettered firearm ownership, with commie leftists that want all guns taken away from everyone. No one here that I've seen has made that argument. We're all making the argument for more stringent ownership regulations. Something that I can't believe there's still people running around that don't see the necessity of that. There are people still arguing to keep the gun show loophole. I mean that you just can't have a discussion with, you just walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 So in your mind there's no difference in the number of people one can kill in a short period of time between a revolver and a high powered rifle? Wanna restate that? No. Because the number isn't important. Murder is murder. If 9/11 only killed 500 people is it less monumental? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 but nobody's ever argued that owning a gun for self defense purpose's had no validity. Nobody here at least. And in the end you're debating with people HERE. But you keep assigning strawmans to our points. You're lumping anyone with any sort of hang up to unfettered firearm ownership, with commie leftists that want all guns taken away from everyone. No one here that I've seen has made that argument. We're all making the argument for more stringent ownership regulations. Something that I can't believe there's still people running around that don't see the necessity of that. There are people still arguing to keep the gun show loophole. I mean that you just can't have a discussion with, you just walk away. That's the singular reason we have guns. Period. There is no other reason. This gets back to a murderer choosing to murder. It's the murderer murdering not the gun and yes he could do it another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 No. Because the number isn't important. Murder is murder. If 9/11 only killed 500 people is it less monumental? no.....but if only 1 person was killed...less monumental? Of course the number is important on the grand scale. With a fully automatic ak 47 one could feasibly kill an enormous amount of people in a very very short period of time....before LE had a chance to stop you. So yes, OF COURSE it matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 If Adam Lanza got into the school by breaking the window with a brick and stabbed five children to death are their parents comforted that it was only five? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 You already can't have fully automatic weapons. Invalid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 no.....but if only 1 person was killed...less monumental? Of course the number is important on the grand scale. With a fully automatic ak 47 one could feasibly kill an enormous amount of people in a very very short period of time....before LE had a chance to stop you. So yes, OF COURSE it matter. and yet one random citizen with a cool head and a wheel gun could put a stop to that with one bullet. Unarmed masses running and hiding can not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 What you fail to realize or accept is that there's far more to these killings than the gun. Drugs, noteriety, desensitization these things all have their part to play. Also the genie is already out of the bottle. Even if we "stop" gun sales the world's most dangerous country is directly adjacent to us to the south with a porous barely existant border. You think those mexican drug lords wouldn't expand their businesses into arms dealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 You already can't have fully automatic weapons. Invalid argument. well only because of anti gun people. Didn't the NRA fight that vehemently? If it was up to gun people we'd have access to everything the military has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 There are many, many things at play besides the gun, and in an ideal world, having guns for self defence would not be necessary, and for sport would not be a problem at all. But we don't live in an ideal world. Bad/stupid people are the reason we can't have nice things. ISIS is like a guy with mental problems - it sure would be great if we could resolve those problems, but in the mean time I'm willing to bet fewer people would be dying if they didn't have guns. (yes I know there are other ways of killing people but it's a lot harder to oppress people without guns. Are you going to hold an RPG to someone's head?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Essentially. Yes you are. Or a knife or sword. How do you think people were historically oppressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Essentially. Yes you are. Or a knife or sword. How do you think people were historically oppressed? I agree with this statement. However a sword and a gun are two different animals. Not saying you can't fuck shit up with a sword, but if you're not faster than the person you're trying to hit....he/she can very conceivably outrun you. This innate limitation to edged weapons is why they're not the go-to choice for someone that wants to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Of course I can get a good knife and to a mall and shank a bunch of people, but the number of people I can potentially kill with a knife vs even a semi auto rifle isn't up for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 So really, what is this thread about? The original premise was why aren't liberals up in arms about people getting killed with a car. As if liberals didn't care that some bitch drove her car into a parade. Can we drop these stupid strawman threads please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 well only because of anti gun people. Didn't the NRA fight that vehemently? If it was up to gun people we'd have access to everything the military has. Full auto weapons have been under extreme regulation since the 30s. Reagan and the NRA were actually behind the 1986 law that stated that no new full auto firearms could be produced for civilian use. Anyone who has a class III license has to buy firearms and full auto sears produced before 1986. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 wasn't there a fight about full auto's in the 90's? I distinctly remember something from when I was in grade school/high school. And I remember the NRA, of course, being right in the middle of it.....was the first time I heard the "they're for hunting" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 wasn't there a fight about full auto's in the 90's? I distinctly remember something from when I was in grade school/high school. And I remember the NRA, of course, being right in the middle of it.....was the first time I heard the "they're for hunting" argument. Dumb politicians wanted to ban "military style firearms" (anything that looks scary but functions the same as any hunting rifle). The NRA opposed it but Clinton passed it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 It expired under Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 so it had nothing to do with full or semi auto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 I agree with this statement. However a sword and a gun are two different animals. Not saying you can't fuck shit up with a sword, but if you're not faster than the person you're trying to hit....he/she can very conceivably outrun you. This innate limitation to edged weapons is why they're not the go-to choice for someone that wants to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Of course I can get a good knife and to a mall and shank a bunch of people, but the number of people I can potentially kill with a knife vs even a semi auto rifle isn't up for debate. You also have to be a good shot. Despite what you may think it's entirely possible to miss from even a few yards away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 You also have to be a good shot. Despite what you may think it's entirely possible to miss from even a few yards away that is true, however if you've got massive multi round clips not that big of a deal to let off 3 or 4 rounds before you hit someone right? This is the prime argument against these huge clips, it allows these assholes a lot of shots before they have to reclip. It is true that it also potentially nerfs the good guy too, it's always been a complicated issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.