Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[micrometers]

Karmy, do yourself a favor and go to the wiki page for Reductio_ad_Hitlerum, realize what you have done, and then go to your bedroom until supper time.

True fact: Hitler relaxed gun restrictions in comparison to the Weimer republic.

 

[Yreka]

McVeigh was a member of the NRA. He even worked at gun shows across America.

Hitler was a dog owner.... He was actually very kind to them.

 

[micrometers]

Hitler was a dog owner.... He was actually very kind to them.

And if Hitler started the war on behalf of dogs, that would be relevant.

McVeigh in his statements parrots the gun culture he was a product of.

 

[Theb]

Untrue. Again, you can run from melee weapons. Guns have a far longer reach, preventing fleeing.

Which firearms and which chainsaws are you most familiar with and in what manner have you used them?

 

[WackyDan]

And don't push me or I'll post here how I REALLY feel about how you and a couple of others acted in that thread yesterday.

Really? You were arguing one point out of many you made indefensibly from the onset of the post. You solicited feedback... you got it and it was rational. You can feel however you want. Don't make a post and invite discussion, then have the post closed when it doesn't map to your ideas in the OP. I think that is a fairly simple concept. I along with others in that thread would have gladly moved on from that one point to many of the others you had that were worthy of deeper dicussion... But you wouldn't let us. You don't see that do you?

Sorry for the hijack Karmy...

 

[Nebor]

McVeigh in his statements parrots the gun culture he was a product of.

How do you know it isn't the gun culture & NRA parrotting McVeigh?

 

[WackyDan]

Your claims are bullshit, sorry. All Boeing dreamliners were recently grounded due to battery failures but the cause is unknown.
You claim that the only discussion being had is only from the anti gun crowd and they aren't compromising, that is incorrect and exhibit A would be the presidents own executive orders. On the other hand what has the pro gun side proposed?

Just to localize it for you, look at the gun threads, how many people are asking for guns to be banned? How many are claiming the left wants to ban guns?

The pro gun nuts have all ate up the NRA propaganda that the left wants to take your guns.

One side is indeed to for compromise.

Dreamliners weren't banned were they? Point is there will be an in depth analysis of what is causing the battery failures before anyone rushes to judgement on what the proper corrective fix is. Grounding an airliner is not infringing on anyone's rights.

As for what I bolded above... I suggest you look at the thread on the NYS gun control legislation that was crammed through the state legislature by the gun control crowd with no time allowed for review or dissent. Perhaps you want to look at the thread on the proposed Massachusetts bill that they want to enact. Neither of those bills are addressing the problems and are practically taking measures against gun owners seemingly out of thin air... and for what? What is the reason they couldn't take an objective look at the issues and involve the opposition? Answer that. Yet you are finding fault with gun owners being vocal about it? Bullshit on you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's draw comparisons between Obama and Mussolini and Cuomo and Hitler.

GO!

 

[irishScott]

And if Hitler started the war on behalf of dogs, that would be relevant.

McVeigh in his statements parrots the gun culture he was a product of.

So why hasn't this murderous throng of gun owners killed you yet? God knows you've pissed off enough here, and obviously we've got a nationwide network for people like you. Because that's what The Godfather taught you, right?

 

[micrometers]

How do you know it isn't the gun culture & NRA parrotting McVeigh?

Well, that would be worse, now wouldn't it?

 

[irishScott]

Well, that would be worse, now wouldn't it?

Watch out Karmy. Those parrots'll getchya!

 

[BoberFett]

Your claims are bullshit, sorry. All Boeing dreamliners were recently grounded due to battery failures but the cause is unknown.
You claim that the only discussion being had is only from the anti gun crowd and they aren't compromising, that is incorrect and exhibit A would be the presidents own executive orders. On the other hand what has the pro gun side proposed?

Just to localize it for you, look at the gun threads, how many people are asking for guns to be banned? How many are claiming the left wants to ban guns?

The pro gun nuts have all ate up the NRA propaganda that the left wants to take your guns.

One side is indeed to for compromise.

If plane crashes elicited the same kind of response as a school shooting, the "logical" response from the left in the event of an airliner going down would be to ban all travel by train and have airline stewardesses wear red instead of blue.

 

[ivwshane]

Dreamliners weren't banned were they? Point is there will be an in depth analysis of what is causing the battery failures before anyone rushes to judgement on what the proper corrective fix is. Grounding an airliner is not infringing on anyone's rights.

As for what I bolded above... I suggest you look at the thread on the NYS gun control legislation that was crammed through the state legislature by the gun control crowd with no time allowed for review or dissent. Perhaps you want to look at the thread on the proposed Massachusetts bill that they want to enact. Neither of those bills are addressing the problems and are practically taking measures against gun owners seemingly out of thin air... and for what? What is the reason they couldn't take an objective look at the issues and involve the opposition? Answer that. Yet you are finding fault with gun owners being vocal about it? Bullshit on you.

I'm sorry you think elected STATE officials should represent your views and not their constituents. I'll ask you again, what have the pro gun crowd proposed?
You are upset that the conversation leans one direction but are oblivious as to why that's happening. One side is discussing actions and the other just complains, that's not a good way to debate nor is it a good way to get good laws passed.

You want better, smarter laws? Step up to the table then.



And with regard to the Dreamliner battery you missed the point. They took action and in this case it was immediate, it may not be permanent but action was taken, you can't say the same when gun related tragedies happen.

 

[ivwshane]

If plane crashes elicited the same kind of response as a school shooting, the "logical" response from the left in the event of an airliner going down would be to ban all travel by train and have airline stewardesses wear red instead of blue.

Except no one is proposing that.

 

[WackyDan]

Except no one is proposing that.

What fucking rock have you been under the last few weeks? Feinstine's presser days after Newtown should have told you everything. The numerous comments on this board and across the internet calling for confiscation and total bans. The NY law was originally going to be confiscation until they assessed the cost to themselves politically.

And yes... they are elected to represent us, but in NYS they are playing to the throngs in NYC and in the upstate, central and western NY they are ignoring their constituents entirely. When an elected official cites the need for gun control legislation and in their own comments exposes blatant inaccuracies in regard to gun ownership and cherry picked facts, it should be evident we have idiots legislating.

The original comment was made comparing airline safety to guns... you are the one that made the OP there on it. My point was that we allow for a long deliberate investigation by a non-partisan group to determine what was the cause, what would have prevented it, and what actions will prevent it in the future. We never see any of that from the anti-gun crowd. All we get is knee jerk legislation.

 

[Nebor]

Well, that would be worse, now wouldn't it?

Depends on who you ask. :sneaky:

 

[BoberFett]

Except no one is proposing that.

Sure they are. The majority of firearm deaths are suicide. Of the remaining firearm deaths, the vast majority are committed by handguns, not be "assault weapons." In the few cases where "assault weapons" are used, what defines said "assault weapons?" The way the firearm looks, not how it functions.

Handgun = Plane
Assault rifles = Train
Stewardess = The way the plane looks

That I even have to explain this to you is further evidence that the typical gun grabber has the mental faculties of a potato.

 

[Incorruptible]

Really? You were arguing one point out of many you made indefensibly from the onset of the post. You solicited feedback... you got it and it was rational. You can feel however you want. Don't make a post and invite discussion, then have the post closed when it doesn't map to your ideas in the OP. I think that is a fairly simple concept. I along with others in that thread would have gladly moved on from that one point to many of the others you had that were worthy of deeper dicussion... But you wouldn't let us. You don't see that do you?

Sorry for the hijack Karmy...

Agree, He was essentially SUPPORTING GUN CONTROL and didn't like the responses

 

[corwin]

hat I even have to explain this to you is further evidence that the typical gun grabber has the mental faculties of a potato.

You're giving them too much credit there...

There's stupid, then there's "I can't believe their brain remembers to breath" stupid...then there's Karmy

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Of course the irony here is that Tim Mcviegh didn't need to use a commercially popular firearm to kill 168 people but lets not use any logic or facts here and instead use a distorted and flawed comparison to push a warped point.

 

[Darwin333]

For starters, OK City was a political act.

The others are all murder suicides.

Pretty big difference, actually.

Secondly, there are a number of less publicized mass shootings. If you add them all up, they exceed OK City.

edit: I do waver on banning or not banning. Like, given resistance to background checks (several local sheriffs have refused), it might be easier to simply ban weapons across the board. OTOH, I do understand why law abiding citizens might enjoy the rifle, so I'd like to create a better regulatory system that kept the rifles in law abiding hands and out of the hands of random psychos. However, several local government agencies refuse to participate, so that undermines it.

My point is, why aren't you at least as concerned with keeping gasoline and other fuels out of psychos hands? They have been proven to be even more deadly, especially when mixed with a single readily available and rather cheap chemical. Even if you regulate the shit out of the chemical, which you really can't considering how widespread its used in ag, simple Molotov cocktails are made using gas and oil. Could you imagine how horrifically worse the recent school shooting would have been if the psycho used a few dozen Molotov cocktails instead of an AR-15? Or how about the movie theater shooting? There are usually only 3 or 4 exits, all of which he could have had burning before the first person was able to reach them. Throw a couple more into the crowd and I guarantee you the death toll rises by a TON.

The issue is not the tool it is the psycho. Psychos will do what psychos do, if they can't find the first tool they want they will simply dig deeper into their psycho minds to find another. That is a very scary thought when someone is attempting to commit mass murder considering it took me (and I consider myself at least sorta sane) 10 seconds to come up with something that would be much more tragic than the gun.


On a side note, considering the advancement in 3D printing will any ban actually be effective? There have already been working guns made with 3d printers and the materials are continually getting better. I would imagine that in 10 years it will be ridiculously easy to print up all the 30 round magazines and AR-15s that you want. Of course if they are banned law abiding citizens won't do this but it would be an almost endless supply to people who don't give a damn about the laws with very little cost of entry and no smuggling or supply issues to speak of. Do you think the cartels would still be in business if we could "print" the drugs they sell for less cost and absurdly less risk?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

He was also saying that in the big scope of things, their deaths were insignificant.

That's what the NRA implies when it opposes gun restrictions. Massacres you guys argue are insignificant compared to car crashes and swimming pool drownings.

You know who else says that ? The Obama administration when people bring up the issue of drone strikes on US citizens without due process being allowed and of which they say "so what" about the collateral damage of a few innocents.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm sorry you think elected STATE officials should represent your views and not their constituents. I'll ask you again, what have the pro gun crowd proposed?
You are upset that the conversation leans one direction but are oblivious as to why that's happening. One side is discussing actions and the other just complains, that's not a good way to debate nor is it a good way to get good laws passed.

You want better, smarter laws? Step up to the table then.



And with regard to the Dreamliner battery you missed the point. They took action and in this case it was immediate, it may not be permanent but action was taken, you can't say the same when gun related tragedies happen.

I can answer that for you and it really is a rather simple answer but the problem itself is rather complex.

Fix the mental health system.

Done. 95% of mass shootings go away if the psycho would have been recieving treatment for whatever the hell made him psycho or was removed from society due to his psycho-ness not being under control. I am constantly amazed at how this issue is barely given lip service yet a ton of people think that removing a few items will cause psycho people to just give up on their psycho plans.

 

[Doppel]

I for one do believe that the Westboro Baptists should be arrested and thrown in jail, stomped out.

So now you don't care about the 1st amendment much, either. And no, I'm not kidding. What classic rule of law in this country isn't on the table for your progressive sentiments to consider getting rid of? On the one hand you think the 2nd amendment is a silly thing and protection from government a fantasy and on the other you're ok arresting people for just being massive assholes.

 

[micrometers]

I can answer that for you and it really is a rather simple answer but the problem itself is rather complex.

Fix the mental health system.

Done. 95% of mass shootings go away if the psycho would have been recieving treatment for whatever the hell made him psycho or was removed from society due to his psycho-ness not being under control. I am constantly amazed at how this issue is barely given lip service yet a ton of people think that removing a few items will cause psycho people to just give up on their psycho plans.

You do realize that like the criminal justice system, mental health is on a sliding scale?

For instance, rather than hold individuals in prison, sometimes they are put on parole where they have to meet with an officer every so often. They also wear ankle bracelets to keep track of them.

For mental health, a significant part would have to be gun confiscation of certain people.