• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Everyone should watch Mark Kelly speak

Doesn't it strike anybody as a little wrongheaded to pass sweeping legislation prohibiting the physical object used to commit a crime, rather than focus on the crime itself?

Clever bit of propaganda to have the supposedly small-government conservatives talking about mental health, which will be used as the catalyst for an intrusive and ever more centralized medical surveillance state, where protection of rights is dependent upon how some establishment psychologist interprets your mental state. No debate required since the only people who theoretically should be against it are the ones calling for it.
 
Last edited:
A good talk, and note he never specifically mentioned an AWB or magazine ban. He said "have a serious discussion". Which I completely agree with, but as he states it should be a discussion about limiting gun violence while maintaining gun freedoms for those responsible enough to handle them, not about pressing an ideological agenda. Thus far, almost every proposed gun control measure has been about the latter.
 
Guns don't kill, people kill with guns. This issue could be solved by getting rid of guns or people. I just don't know which makes the most sense.

If we don't get rid of people and take away folk's guns, they will probably just kill each other with nerf balls, so well have to move on to ban them too.

So getting rid of people, so far, seems the best answer.

But I guess we could say there are different kinds of people, folk who kill others with guns and those who do not.

But I bet it's damn hard to X-ray for that so maybe all people have to go, or we're going to have to find some sort of half measures as a compromise. Maybe we should try to limit how many people you can kill per minute with a gun and do some stuff in society to make folk less sick or those who are easier to identify and get some help. Geez, I don't know? Maybe some sensible measures could be adopted because I'm really against a ban on people. Some of them are quite interesting.
 
Moonbeam said:
Guns don't kill, people kill with guns. This issue could be solved by getting rid of guns or people. I just don't know which makes the most sense.

If we don't get rid of people and take away folk's guns, they will probably just kill each other with nerf balls, so well have to move on to ban them too.

So getting rid of people, so far, seems the best answer.

But I guess we could say there are different kinds of people, folk who kill others with guns and those who do not.

But I bet it's damn hard to X-ray for that so maybe all people have to go, or we're going to have to find some sort of half measures as a compromise. Maybe we should try to limit how many people you can kill per minute with a gun and do some stuff in society to make folk less sick or those who are easier to identify and get some help. Geez, I don't know? Maybe some sensible measures could be adopted because I'm really against a ban on people. Some of them are quite interesting.
Click to expand...

Did you even think before writing this?
 
tcG said:
Doesn't it strike anybody as a little wrongheaded to pass sweeping legislation prohibiting the physical object used to commit a crime, rather than focus on the crime itself?
Click to expand...

Yep. People think removing the tools of the trade will remove the trade.
 
So Moonbeam,

We should get rid of Mark Kelly? The one who is making this speech about gun control?

Or we should get rid of people as ignorant as you?
 
I guffawed when he said something along the line of, and I quote: "I would give up my right to own an assault rifle and high capacity magazine if it will bring back a child". Talk about playing to the emotions and forgetting all about a rational debate.
 
sigurros81 said:
I guffawed when he said something along the line of, and I quote: "I would give up my right to own an assault rifle and high capacity magazine if it will bring back a child". Talk about playing to the emotions and forgetting all about a rational debate.
Click to expand...

This. Strike fear into the people. They will succumb to their own ignorance.
 
irishScott said:
A good talk, and note he never specifically mentioned an AWB or magazine ban. He said "have a serious discussion". Which I completely agree with, but as he states it should be a discussion about limiting gun violence while maintaining gun freedoms for those responsible enough to handle them, not about pressing an ideological agenda. Thus far, almost every proposed gun control measure has been about the latter.
Click to expand...

Just asking, what is your definition?
 
tcG said:
Doesn't it strike anybody as a little wrongheaded to pass sweeping legislation prohibiting the physical object used to commit a crime, rather than focus on the crime itself?
Click to expand...

We have all sorts of negligence types of laws where it's a crime before the damage is done. Food safety, child safety, transportation safety. Holy hell OSHA. We prohibit nukes, grenades, RPG's, and surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles from entering the country. Try to get your hands on Semtex; for some reason they don't sell that at Walmart. Sarin? Mustard gas? Nope.

Did you know that having your yard being an active minefield with a burning, oil-filled moat is a better deterrent than having a gun in the house? Yet somehow it's not only a crime to blow someone up with a mine. Somehow it takes less than an actual fire getting out of control, proof of smoke damage, or health effects from smoke or groundwater contamination for that moat to be a problem.

Yet, somehow, assault rifles designed for volume of fire across a battlefront don't fit the same category, according to conservatives. Nor do weapons of civilian crime and terror such as the easily concealable high-capacity pistol.
 
Horrible.

Karmy you are one massive hack job too. Guns are NOT the problem.

Want to correct a behavior then focus on the motivations for such a behavior. When a dog is chewing your shoes in the house you don't ban shoes from your house to stop the dog from chewing them. That's stupid. All the dog will do is turn to chewing on something else you don't want it chewing on. The trick is to find what the motivation is for the dog to chew on the shoes and correct the motivation.

The motivations for why people kill other people or themselves are actually pretty basic. They are the same motivations the world over. The trick is providing a solution in the cultural context needed for a given human population segment. If the majority of murders being committed are because of gangs and drug violence, then find a way to remove the motivations for such crimes. Correct the behaviors is the right thing to do and not focusing upon inanimate objects.
 
HomerJS said:
Just asking, what is your definition?
Click to expand...

Essentially the right for a responsible citizen to own any gun that isn't a machine gun. What ticks me off the most is that no gun control advocate has even proposed licensing. They just jump straight to bans, the most extreme response possible, without even a hint at legitimate compromise. Makes their true intentions quite clear.
 
DominionSeraph said:
We have all sorts of negligence types of laws where it's a crime before the damage is done. Food safety, child safety, transportation safety. Holy hell OSHA. We prohibit nukes, grenades, RPG's, and surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles from entering the country. Try to get your hands on Semtex; for some reason they don't sell that at Walmart. Sarin? Mustard gas? Nope.

Did you know that having your yard being an active minefield with a burning, oil-filled moat is a better deterrent than having a gun in the house? Yet somehow it's not only a crime to blow someone up with a mine. Somehow it takes less than an actual fire getting out of control, proof of smoke damage, or health effects from smoke or groundwater contamination for that moat to be a problem.

Yet, somehow, assault rifles designed for volume of fire across a battlefront don't fit the same category, according to conservatives. Nor do weapons of civilian crime and terror such as the easily concealable high-capacity pistol.
Click to expand...

Well, I think those laws are exactly the kind that have produced the overzealous government that we now live under, which selectively wields the vast number of legislation touching every aspect of human existence in order to promote its own agenda, whether that means silencing dissent, engaging in economic favoritism, persecuting independent journalists within the web of copyright and first-amendment-restricting laws, or police being able to pull you over because you were going a bit over the speed limit. The laws you think are so reasonable will be used down the road in a selective manner to control people. Consumer protection isn't about consumer protection, it's about controlling industries and establishing monopolies.
 
Last edited:
HumblePie said:
Horrible.

Karmy you are one massive hack job too. Guns are NOT the problem.

Want to correct a behavior then focus on the motivations for such a behavior. When a dog is chewing your shoes in the house you don't ban shoes from your house to stop the dog from chewing them. That's stupid. All the dog will do is turn to chewing on something else you don't want it chewing on. The trick is to find what the motivation is for the dog to chew on the shoes and correct the motivation.

The motivations for why people kill other people or themselves are actually pretty basic. They are the same motivations the world over. The trick is providing a solution in the cultural context needed for a given human population segment. If the majority of murders being committed are because of gangs and drug violence, then find a way to remove the motivations for such crimes. Correct the behaviors is the right thing to do and not focusing upon inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

And this is why he should just be ignored.
 
HumblePie said:
Horrible.

Karmy you are one massive hack job too. Guns are NOT the problem.

Want to correct a behavior then focus on the motivations for such a behavior. When a dog is chewing your shoes in the house you don't ban shoes from your house to stop the dog from chewing them. That's stupid. All the dog will do is turn to chewing on something else you don't want it chewing on. The trick is to find what the motivation is for the dog to chew on the shoes and correct the motivation.

The motivations for why people kill other people or themselves are actually pretty basic. They are the same motivations the world over. The trick is providing a solution in the cultural context needed for a given human population segment. If the majority of murders being committed are because of gangs and drug violence, then find a way to remove the motivations for such crimes. Correct the behaviors is the right thing to do and not focusing upon inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

You could probably cut/paste the same post across a multitude of different threads and no one would be able to tell the difference.
 
HumblePie said:
Horrible.

Karmy you are one massive hack job too. Guns are NOT the problem.

Want to correct a behavior then focus on the motivations for such a behavior. When a dog is chewing your shoes in the house you don't ban shoes from your house to stop the dog from chewing them. That's stupid. All the dog will do is turn to chewing on something else you don't want it chewing on. The trick is to find what the motivation is for the dog to chew on the shoes and correct the motivation.

The motivations for why people kill other people or themselves are actually pretty basic. They are the same motivations the world over. The trick is providing a solution in the cultural context needed for a given human population segment. If the majority of murders being committed are because of gangs and drug violence, then find a way to remove the motivations for such crimes. Correct the behaviors is the right thing to do and not focusing upon inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is this a really BAD analogy. What would be a better analogy is if your dog took your shoes and beat you to death with it, because transitively, this analogy is not working 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top