NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

[Paladin3]

So when you can’t honestly discuss the issue you resort to trolling.

I've made far more logical and constitutional arguments in favor of my point that any of you have. It's not my fault you don't mind tossing the Bill of Rights and constitutional law out the window in pursuit of your gun-free utopia. You don't even have a workable plan beyond punishing the lawful for the acts of the lawless and hoping criminals play along quietly. Just like they thought liquor prohibition was a good idea.

 

[Paladin3]

Lets dismiss some false equivalencies commonly used.

Alcohol does not have the sole purpose of killing things. It doesn't pose anywhere near the same direct risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Drugs do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They do not pose the same risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Vehicles do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They pose a much greater risk to others, compared to the previous examples, but still not to the same level as guns. However that risk is countered by the fact that they are vital to modern society. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Gun are designed to kill or practice killing. They pose an extremely high risk to others (highlighted by suffering from a problem that is not repeated anywhere else in the first world,while simultaneously, regarding mass civilian ownership, providing zero benefit to society. Regulation is heavily opposed, by default, by a tyranny of the minority. The US does not have any domestic or foreign enemies that would be hindered by mass civilian ownership of firearms. Ironically, the closest thing the US has in that scenario is the extremist right.

The risk to reward scenario is so heavily weighted to one side that there is no logical argument that mass civilian ownership is a benefit to US society. Attempting to argue that we should ban/restrict other things, like alcohol or smoking, is a distraction technique. Partly as they are unrelated issues, partly as the same people advocating gun control also support targeting the other factors involved in crime. Gun control isn't a one stop fix, it's merely an attempt to help alleviate a symptom, while also working on other ways to reduce the causes, such as mental health, education, poverty, etc.

So, as there isn't a logical argument to it, the anti-gun control people resort to the constitution as if it's a sacred document that should be followed regardless of a law's merit. Despite that the fact that they are justifying gun ownership via an amendment, which is a change/addition in itself, and there are multiple examples of them being added or removed as situations change. The Constitution is a set of guidelines to help encourage a healthy, safe and prosperous society. It is not a reason in itself to not do something. If it was then we'd still have slavery, because god forbid you change your mind about something or have a situation change.

People who try to justify mass civilian ownership of firearms need to take a long, hard look at themselves. You are damaging your own society, your own country, and while making excuses to try and pretend that you are doing the right thing. If you aren't willing to give up your toys, at least be honest about the reasons for it.

Ah, you don't believe force will ever be necessary to secure your human rights. Or that you will ever experience a situation where you might have to fight for your physical safety or that of a loved one. I get it now. I really don't either, but I am not willing to be EVERYTHING on it. The penalty or failure is too great.

And me giving up my gun will do nothing to save lives. It will only embolden those willing to use force against others, as your plan practically guarantees an country of unarmed victims. Just like gun-free zones create.

And go fuck yourself that guns ruin more lives than alcohol or drugs. Especially alcohol. Visit any prison and see how many are serving time for a crime where alcohol and/or drugs were involved. I have.

 

[Paladin3]

I've figured out a reasonable compromise on the whole ban the alcohol thing. Each adult over 21 can buy an alcohol consumer's license involving a background check for drunk driving or other alcohol related crimes, undergo a yearly health evaluation to make sure they aren't an alcoholic, and then they can consume a reasonable two drink per month, but only at a designated club for which they have to pay an additional fee. And all alcohol will be taxed at 300% it's current rate to get some of that blood money back from the brewers and distillers of the nation.

And if that doesn't work it's individual padded cells for everyone! For safety! Think of the children!!

 

[brycejones]

I've made far more logical and constitutional arguments in favor of my point that any of you have. It's not my fault you don't mind tossing the Bill of Rights and constitutional law out the window in pursuit of your gun-free utopia. You don't even have a workable plan beyond punishing the lawful for the acts of the lawless and hoping criminals play along quietly. Just like they thought liquor prohibition was a good idea.

When pray tell did I call for a complete ban on guns? You have my position in this very thread. Even in a post that YOU responded to. It wasn’t a gun free utopia by any means.

 

[brycejones]

I've figured out a reasonable compromise on the whole ban the alcohol thing. Each adult over 21 can buy an alcohol consumer's license involving a background check for drunk driving or other alcohol related crimes, undergo a yearly health evaluation to make sure they aren't an alcoholic, and then they can consume a reasonable two drink per month, but only at a designated club for which they have to pay an additional fee. And all alcohol will be taxed at 300% it's current rate to get some of that blood money back from the brewers and distillers of the nation.

And if that doesn't work it's individual padded cells for everyone! For safety! Think of the children!!

It’s amusing watching you get emotional when you can’t actually support your gun argument.

 

[Stryke1983]

Ah, you don't believe force will ever be necessary to secure your human rights. Or that you will ever experience a situation where you might have to fight for your physical safety or that of a loved one. I get it now. I really don't either, but I am not willing to be EVERYTHING on it. The penalty or failure is too great.

And me giving up my gun will do nothing to save lives. It will only embolden those willing to use force against others, as your plan practically guarantees an country of unarmed victims. Just like gun-free zones create.

And go fuck yourself that guns ruin more lives than alcohol or drugs. Especially alcohol. Visit any prison and see how many are serving time for a crime where alcohol and/or drugs was involved. I have.

Mass civilian gun ownership increases injuries and deaths due to their lethality. You keep talking about YOUR gun. You don't make nationwide decisions based on one random individual, you make them based on the impact over the entire country. Households with guns have more gun related incidents than ones without out. Widespread gun ownership means more disagreements, whether it's a kid angry about being grounded, a fight between a husband and wife, or a robbery, escalate into something involving injuries and deaths. Giving up your gun might not save a life directly (you also have no evidence that keeping it will save a life either, so that's a really shitty argument you have there), but nationwide the reduction in gun ownership WOULD save lives. People will still die. But overall LESS people will die.

Arguing that gun free zones only embolden those willing to use force means that you must accept a never ending arms race. That the solution is a never ending increase in the quantity and lethality of weapons. In addition, you are trying to pretend that wanting gun control suddenly means we want to instantly prevent any kind of defence against others. Which is a complete strawman argument considering we'd still have the military and intelligence services to protect against foreign threats and other intelligence services and the police to defend against domestic ones. In addition there are a wide variety of ways to protect yourself that don't require a firearm. And by drastically reducing the probability that my attacker would have a firearm I'm now safer, regardless of how well I am armed.

Then we come back to your distraction technique. That gun control suddenly means we can't and shouldn't do anything about any other issues, like alcohol or drugs. Which is still nonsense, as dealing with one thing doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else. Alcohol specifically is also definitely less lethal than firearms. Alcohol doesn't have the ability to kill you with a slip of a finger. Even trying to equate the two is just complete and utter nonsense. But again, even if alcohol were magically as lethal as firearms, it doesn't matter. Because gun control does not suddenly mean that the negative impact of alcohol couldn't be addressed as well. It's equivalent to demanding you shouldn't be arrested for a murder because someone else in the country committed murder twice. Whereas the sensible choice would be to deal with both.

You act like gun control would suddenly create a society that's completely helpless to the evil ambitions of criminals everywhere. Yet somehow the rest of the first world does it, partially because it's so much more difficult for a criminal to actually get a gun as well.

You really need to stop pretending. You don't have logical arguments in this matter.

 

[JSt0rm]

Ah, you don't believe force will ever be necessary to secure your human rights. Or that you will ever experience a situation where you might have to fight for your physical safety or that of a loved one. I get it now. I really don't either, but I am not willing to be EVERYTHING on it. The penalty or failure is too great.

And me giving up my gun will do nothing to save lives. It will only embolden those willing to use force against others, as your plan practically guarantees an country of unarmed victims. Just like gun-free zones create.

And go fuck yourself that guns ruin more lives than alcohol or drugs. Especially alcohol. Visit any prison and see how many are serving time for a crime where alcohol and/or drugs were involved. I have.

Hey more fantasy I will use a gun to defend myself.

 

[Jhhnn]

When pray tell did I call for a complete ban on guns? You have my position in this very thread. Even in a post that YOU responded to. It wasn’t a gun free utopia by any means.

Nor is what I offered but he didn't even respond.

 

[Skel]

You are a pussy. You are so fearful that someone will kill you in fucking idaho or where ever you fucking live that you put everyone else at risk by owning a gun.

"Im a good gun owner" Yeah? You are a fucking human. That means you are volatile and you make mistakes. So yeah you are a pussy.

my position is life you dummy. You will always lose.

Are you also opposed to abortion, death sentences, or are you just against 'senseless' deaths that guns create? Just trying to understand where you're coming from more.

Let's start again:

Do you believe that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
If not, how does that fit into the Second Amendment that allows you to bear arms?




There is plenty of evidence in every other modern, developed nation in the world. You know this already, so I have no idea why you keep asking this question.

Which of those countries were guns ingrained it's history like the US? Right or wrong, guns have been part of our culture as far back as the territory days. To be clear, I'm not attacking or trying to say this your point is incorrect. It's more personal curiosity. Most of the countries I know either got rid of guns from the start, or didn't have the saturation of them like the US. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few. I just can't think of them.

I happen to agree with much of what you say from a logical point of view. But to clear things up as far as what I was referring to, I need to ask you if you recognize the fact that certain styles of shotguns are meant for certain jobs that take advantage of the differing features that are designed into them that are intended for the unique circumstances of which they are dressed up for?

Like what? As I pointed out earlier, the only shotgun I've seen with a unique circumstance is the chainsaw one. Out side of that, it's just extra plastic. I'm struggling to see what you're talking about outside of entertainment.

Im pretty sure a magazine fed shotgun will kill more people then a pump shotgun. It confuses no one. Yet they dont care. They want to hold and look at thier poser call of duty gun even if it means many people die.

That would be incorrect. There are a lot of feeding tubes that carry as much ammo as those mag fed ones. I do think a AR style shotgun is ridiculous, but it's no more deadly than a pump one. Unless you impose a cap on the amount of ammo you can carry in it, it's all the same thing. You don't save lives by saying it's paint color, or extra plastic is wrong.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Damn, now I know why I never posted in this thread!! You all keep shooting your mouths off!!
Hahahah get it -- shooting -- gunz!! hahahaaa

 

[JSt0rm]

That would be incorrect. There are a lot of feeding tubes that carry as much ammo as those mag fed ones. I do think a AR style shotgun is ridiculous, but it's no more deadly than a pump one. Unless you impose a cap on the amount of ammo you can carry in it, it's all the same thing. You don't save lives by saying it's paint color, or extra plastic is wrong.

being able to reload this fast will kill more people. Im not sure why this is a debate.

semi auto shotgun. This guy compares them. He likes them both but the pump is considerably slower. So which one will do more damage in the shortest period of time?

 

[tweaker2]

being able to reload this fast will kill more people. Im not sure why this is a debate.

semi auto shotgun. This guy compares them. He likes them both but the pump is considerably slower. So which one will do more damage in the shortest period of time?

Semi-auto is ideal for those folks who have to empty their entire load to drop a single clueless dove flying low and level across a freshly plowed field 50 meters away.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That would be incorrect. There are a lot of feeding tubes that carry as much ammo as those mag fed ones. I do think a AR style shotgun is ridiculous, but it's no more deadly than a pump one. Unless you impose a cap on the amount of ammo you can carry in it, it's all the same thing. You don't save lives by saying it's paint color, or extra plastic is wrong.

I don't know why we are arguing this. Bolt action or breach load, that includes shotguns. No pump, no simi-auto. Fire up to two shells, then reload.

 

[Paladin3]

I don't know why we are arguing this. Bolt action or breach load, that includes shotguns. No pump, no simi-auto. Fire up to two shells, then reload.

If you ever figure out how to enforce it, to round up all the high capacity weapons, to stop folks from making their own higher capacity weapons, or illegally importing them, then I am sure you will get your sainthood.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If you ever figure out how to enforce it, to round up all the high capacity weapons, to stop folks from making their own higher capacity weapons, or illegally importing them, then I am sure you will get your sainthood.

I know, impossible why try? Mankind is incapable of any hard things.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you ever figure out how to enforce it, to round up all the high capacity weapons, to stop folks from making their own higher capacity weapons, or illegally importing them, then I am sure you will get your sainthood.

Pretty sure some random kid shooting up his school isn’t 3d printing a gun. Your argument that we can’t get it to 0% so we shouldn’t get it 99% done is disengenious. You don’t actually care about people dying. Children dying means nothing to next to your dreamworld of self defense. This is what you care about.

 

[Jhhnn]

That would be incorrect. There are a lot of feeding tubes that carry as much ammo as those mag fed ones. I do think a AR style shotgun is ridiculous, but it's no more deadly than a pump one. Unless you impose a cap on the amount of ammo you can carry in it, it's all the same thing. You don't save lives by saying it's paint color, or extra plastic is wrong.

You can't fire 1100 rounds in 10 minutes from a tube magazine.

 

[Skel]

You can't fire 1100 rounds in 10 minutes from a tube magazine.

You can't fire 1100 rounds in 10 mins out of any shotgun. Even with a bump stock on an AR style shotgun, there's just not big enough magazines like a AR PMAG.

 

[Commodus]

If you ever figure out how to enforce it, to round up all the high capacity weapons, to stop folks from making their own higher capacity weapons, or illegally importing them, then I am sure you will get your sainthood.

To add to the others, I've noticed that your arguments throughout the thread revolve around a fundamental logical flaw: because new legislation cannot perfectly solve gun crime, there must be no new legislation. You're arguing against a theoretical straw man and wondering why we don't just smile and nod.

No one here is under the illusion that a law will mysteriously make semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines disappear. But that's not the point. The goal is to reduce the proliferation of and easy access to these weapons, to prevent someone from walking into a gun store one day and murdering scores of people the next. All it has to do is prevent some mass murders, or to limit their damage, to accomplish its objective.

 

[zinfamous]

i alwasy thought that gun owners actually cared that kids die but I guess they are so desensitized that they literally don't care. That would explain the total lack of action to solve the problem.

nah, they have plenty of action. It's just limited to telling you that all of your ideas are wrong while in turn never offering a single thought of their own regarding what could be done. Seems to be the limits they'll go to when jumping into the "things need to be fixed" genre of conversation.

 

[Jhhnn]

To add to the others, I've noticed that your arguments throughout the thread revolve around a fundamental logical flaw: because new legislation cannot perfectly solve gun crime, there must be no new legislation. You're arguing against a theoretical straw man and wondering why we don't just smile and nod.

No one here is under the illusion that a law will mysteriously make semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines disappear. But that's not the point. The goal is to reduce the proliferation of and easy access to these weapons, to prevent someone from walking into a gun store one day and murdering scores of people the next. All it has to do is prevent some mass murders, or to limit their damage, to accomplish its objective.

Muh Freedumb!

 

[Paladin3]

I know, impossible why try? Mankind is incapable of any hard things.

The thing is I think that plan might work, at least on the already law-abiding who will turn in their gun and be disarmed and lose their constitutional rights in the process. But those who are the actual problem won't comply.

I completely understand you are more than willing to throw the 99.92% under the bus to make yourself fell like you are accomplishing something, or in the hope that you may eventually accomplish something way down the road. But we will be the ones paying the price for your experiment.

Why have all the past gun bans and restrictions never once reduce gun crime and violence? Why are the cities and states with the most restrictive laws still awash in crime? Why is murder still being committed even though it's been illegal, and punishable by death is many places, forever?

 

[Paladin3]

nah, they have plenty of action. It's just limited to telling you that all of your ideas are wrong while in turn never offering a single thought of their own regarding what could be done. Seems to be the limits they'll go to when jumping into the "things need to be fixed" genre of conversation.

I have no quick and easy answer for ending man's inhumanity towards his fellow man, but that doesn't mean I have to surrender my constitutional rights for a plan that I don't believe will work.

 

[Paladin3]

Muh Freedumb!

How many macros do you have set???

 

[Paladin3]

To add to the others, I've noticed that your arguments throughout the thread revolve around a fundamental logical flaw: because new legislation cannot perfectly solve gun crime, there must be no new legislation. You're arguing against a theoretical straw man and wondering why we don't just smile and nod.

No one here is under the illusion that a law will mysteriously make semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines disappear. But that's not the point. The goal is to reduce the proliferation of and easy access to these weapons, to prevent someone from walking into a gun store one day and murdering scores of people the next. All it has to do is prevent some mass murders, or to limit their damage, to accomplish its objective.

Yes, your plan would obviously limit access to semi-auto and high capacity weapons, but for the law-abiding only. But the California court that killed their magazine limit ruled that you can't put undue burdens on the lawful right of self-defense. Nor can you make legal guns, commonly in legal use by law abiding citizens illegal unless you have some evidence or proof that it will actually stand a chance of stopping the gun crime/violence problem.

The anti-gunners have done none of that. If you've got something to offer, please do. But you'd rather take away our constitutional rights, and the right to self-defense in the hope that it might make a difference eventually. When all the current gun legislation and restrictions on the books, and various bans that we have tried and that have expired, have left us with the "epidemic of gun violence" you keep point out.

And it's not even a rational fear. Long guns of any kind are only used in a very small percentage of crimes. Handguns kill far more people. Not to mention what alcohol does to society.

And then there is the problem that no prohibition of anything in popular demand has ever worked in the history of this country. As if the stupid drug war isn't enough, now you want to start a gun-war by trying to ban/restrict hundreds of millions of legal guns already in civilian hands. The criminal element will just laugh at you and make or import all the guns they want. And we'll be stuck with another expensive unenforceable law turning, what, 80 million people into criminals overnight.

You think all of this is a good idea? And that I should trust you and play along? Especially since the 2A isn't going anywhere?