• 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.

YAMST - Santa Clarita, CA High School

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
balloonshark said:
My niece in high school had a gun pointed at her two weeks ago and just the other day my nephew in middle school had to stay home because of a bomb threat. We live no where close to a large city. Enjoy your "right" while you can because these kids are growing up in fear and they will be of voting age very soon.

Edit: If you were smart you should do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those that can't handle them.
Click to expand...
Pointing a gun at someone is not exercising your 2A rights. You need to get that through your thick skull. And how will taking guns away from the law-abiding stop those who choose to kill from doing so? Maybe we should just outlaw murder and end the practice? What, voting crime out of existence doesn't work?

Edit: depends on what you mean by "everything." If to you "everything" = surrender my legally owned firearms to the government the the answer is no.

You keep ignoring the fact that way over 99.92% of guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone, either intentionally, accidentally or via suicide.
 
Last edited:
Paladin3 said:
That is the laziest, most BS, illogical reply ever. There are folks who murder and folks who don't. I'm shocked you can't seem to tell the difference. No true brain, right?
Click to expand...
There are also folks who blow away their children because they thought they were intruders. There are also children who blow away their folks because they found a cool toy in the back seat of mommy's car.
 
Paladin3 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that way over 99.92% of guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone, either intentionally, accidentally or via suicide.
Click to expand...

That's a really silly statistic, to the point of having minimal value. It only hurts your argument to use data that is tailored to your side (without at least acknowledging). I think you're a reasonable guy and seem like a good dude to grab a beer with, I've said as much in other gun debates when you get involved on the forum. Unfortunately, you're arguments continue to be rhetorically and statistically weak, while being based primarily on emotion.

I think it can be reasonable to support gun ownership (et al) but only when you start by admitting that at its core, it's an emotional argument.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
Almost every shovel ever made has shoveled. It can be logically said that shovels are for shoveling.
Almost every toaster ever made has toasted. It can be logically said that toasters are for toasting.
Not gonna touch the brain comment because it was a backhanded attempt at a personal attack.

Almost every gun ever made has been used to shoot bullets. It can be logically said that guns are for shooting bullets.
Almost no gun has been used to kill humans. It can not logically said that guns are for killing humans.

Edit: You seem to be unwilling to use your login on your own items. Leaning against walls an sitting on cabinets are where we PLACE the tools. Not what we USE them for. What are those tools used for? Do we say that's what they are for because that's how we use them? Yes. Do we say that's what guns are for because that's how we use them? You do. Why, when an individual one has an astronomically low chance of ever being used for that?
Click to expand...
A gun is a threat to kill humans, at least if it's not for hunting, where it might be less a threat to kill humans. You might say nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just a gentleman's game, not weapons of war because they haven't killed anyone since 1945. But would you say they aren't weapons of war? Just because we haven't been using them. They are a threat. So's a gun... it's a threat and it poisons people's psyche and affects the quality of life of people where they are proliferated. Our children all over the country are being terrorized. Every day they go to school. This has to stop and they only way it's going to stop is if we take the guns away.
 
Paladin3 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that way over 99.92% of guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone, either intentionally, accidentally or via suicide.
Click to expand...
We don't actually know how many guns are in the country, nor how many people own them so your 99.92% is a guess not a fact.
 
Paladin3 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that way over 99.92% of guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone, either intentionally, accidentally or via suicide.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow, in that case buy a few for junior, give him some bullets and all's bound to be just fine. Ain't that right, Have Gun Will Travel, wire Paladin, San Francisco?
 
Paladin3 said:
And that's a bad thing? Is self-defense and murder the same thing in your mind?
Click to expand...
Self-defense...based on... what? The same insignificant number of people that commit crimes? Why the irrational fear when you turn around and use the same "logic" to defend that no one should have to surrender their guns?
 
Paladin3 said:
That is the laziest, most BS, illogical reply ever. There are folks who murder and folks who don't. I'm shocked you can't seem to tell the difference. No true brain, right?
Click to expand...
You act like there's no cause to address guns because overall they enable only the few to do massive amounts of damage, and we're the irrational ones. The tool is the problem, because we can't just spot the people. Or do you advocate for government mandated mental health screenings? And can we eliminate all white male misogynists while we're at it?
 
dank69 said:
There are also folks who blow away their children because they thought they were intruders. There are also children who blow away their folks because they found a cool toy in the back seat of mommy's car.
Click to expand...
Again, that's only a tiny fraction of one tenth of one percent of the guns in civilian hands. I know you want to see zero accidental gun deaths and zero illegal gun violence, hell, we ALL do. But you aren't going to get anywhere as long as you keep insisting the law abiding majority are responsible for the acts of the criminal/sick/evil minority. Especially when "just ban guns" isn't even possible in a country already saturated with them.
 
soundforbjt said:
We don't actually know how many guns are in the country, nor how many people own them so your 99.92% is a guess not a fact.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, not a guess. I did the math using FBI and other government statistics. I even gave your side the benefit of the doubt and included ALL gun injuries and deaths, including stuff like justified use and suicides. I posted my work and begged folks to find any flaws. Nobody has to date.

The numbers don't lie. Do a search, I've posted it in several threads and linked to it over the years repeatedly. If you don't like the facts then show me my error. Or continue to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative.

There are some facts that the anti-gun side chooses to ignore because they have no good answer.

1. The overwhelming majority of gun owners and the guns they own are never used criminally, let alone to hurt another human. If something is commonly in use both legally and safely by the overwhelming majority of users, there is no legal standing for prohibiting it. And to make any argument of banning guns for the greater good, you need at least some evidence that your ban will actually be effective, which the last assault weapons ban proved the exact opposite of.
2. Firearms are the single best tool for self-defense. The right to own them is not granted by the 2A of the constitution. The 2A simply says the government can not infringe upon that natural right.
3. There is no possible way to forcibly remove guns from the criminal/sick/evil folks bent on using them for murder.
4. Criminals will simply ignore your new gun ban laws because they are CRIMINALS.
5. The previous assault weapons ban did zero to decrease gun violence, which is why it as legally expired, and since it's expiration gun violence has gone down.

I'm tired of typing. It's not like your mind isn't already made up. When you come up with a realistic plan that will disarm those who are causing the problem come on back and I'll consider giving mine up too. If you want me to be the first, in hopes that my great-grandchildren may someday enjoy your pie-in-the-sky dream of a gun violence free world, well, I just don't trust you that much.
 
jackstar7 said:
You act like there's no cause to address guns because overall they enable only the few to do massive amounts of damage, and we're the irrational ones. The tool is the problem, because we can't just spot the people. Or do you advocate for government mandated mental health screenings? And can we eliminate all white male misogynists while we're at it?
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. What the F do white male misogynists have to do with anything?

Anyway, what exactly are your plans on addressing gun violence? Tell me what you want? Tell me how you will stop those criminal/sick/evil individuals who choose to murder using the best tool available?

So far, all I've heard is take guns away from the law-abiding and hope it trickles down.
 
TheVrolok said:
That's a really silly statistic, to the point of having minimal value. It only hurts your argument to use data that is tailored to your side (without at least acknowledging). I think you're a reasonable guy and seem like a good dude to grab a beer with, I've said as much in other gun debates when you get involved on the forum. Unfortunately, you're arguments continue to be rhetorically and statistically weak, while being based primarily on emotion.

I think it can be reasonable to support gun ownership (et al) but only when you start by admitting that at its core, it's an emotional argument.
Click to expand...
If anything the argument that we can stop criminals from using the best tool possible for practicing their trade via prohibition is a silly and emotional quest for a simple fix to a complex problem. Exactly how will you get guns out of the hands of those who bent on criminal gun violence? Until you answer that, asking the law-abiding to disarm is wishful thinking at best.

Imagine how much you empower the next mass shooter if you guarantee the entire country is a gun free zone for anyone who chooses to obey the law.
 
Muse said:
Oh, wow, in that case buy a few for junior, give him some bullets and all's bound to be just fine. Ain't that right, Have Gun Will Travel, wire Paladin, San Francisco?
Click to expand...
Yup, that's exactly what I said. If taking my argument of lawful gun owners not being the problem to ridiculous extremes is the only way you can prove your point then I'm not sure you have one.

But, I will say, I was given my first rifle at the age of 10. And a single shot shotgun was a gift for my 12th birthday when I took my first hunter safety class. Luckily, my father believed that my brothers and I learning gun safety and the moral responsibility involved in owning one should start early in life.

And I will see your TV reference with a movie quote: "Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger...What is steel compared to the hand (and mind) that wields it."
 
And, I will finish up today's diatribe by saying this: If you really want to end gun violence, then we need to attack income inequality and the various other reasons so many disenfranchised folks choose gun violence as a method to solve their problems. This vain attempt to control tools has us totally ignoring the actual causes of violence.
 
Paladin3 said:
Yup, that's exactly what I said. If taking my argument of lawful gun owners not being the problem to ridiculous extremes is the only way you can prove your point then I'm not sure you have one.

But, I will say, I was given my first rifle at the age of 10. And a single shot shotgun was a gift for my 12th birthday when I took my first hunter safety class. Luckily, my father believed that my brothers and I learning gun safety and the moral responsibility involved in owning one should start early in life.

And I will see your TV reference with a movie quote: "Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger...What is steel compared to the hand (and mind) that wields it."
Click to expand...
OK, yeah, I figured you for a guy who's a gun owner. But I still think you're seeing The_Issue from your personal perspective, not the big picture. And I'm unimpressed with the quotation. Don't take that personally, I'm not saying it doesn't mean a lot to you. As they say "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," and the meaningfulness of quotations is certainly in the mind that ruminates on them. But pick your quotes carefully.
 
Paladin3 said:
Yup, that's exactly what I said. If taking my argument of lawful gun owners not being the problem to ridiculous extremes is the only way you can prove your point then I'm not sure you have one.

But, I will say, I was given my first rifle at the age of 10. And a single shot shotgun was a gift for my 12th birthday when I took my first hunter safety class. Luckily, my father believed that my brothers and I learning gun safety and the moral responsibility involved in owning one should start early in life.

And I will see your TV reference with a movie quote: "Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger...What is steel compared to the hand (and mind) that wields it."
Click to expand...
This is funny to see you type out considering every response you made to me in this thread contained a wild misinterpretation of what I actually posted.
 
Muse said:
A gun is a threat to kill humans, at least if it's not for hunting, where it might be less a threat to kill humans. You might say nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just a gentleman's game, not weapons of war because they haven't killed anyone since 1945. But would you say they aren't weapons of war? Just because we haven't been using them. They are a threat. So's a gun...
Click to expand...

Nukes are weapons of war because they can only be used for war or to deter war or to test how they might behave in war. Billy-Bob and Pipeline-Bob can't go out into our backyard and target practice with nukes. Or hunt. Or collect them. Or repel a home invasion. Guns have far more use than killing people and are used for that other stuff so much more that it is ridiculous to say that guns are for killing people.

Muse said:
This has to stop and they only way it's going to stop is if we take the guns away
Click to expand...

You can't take guns away. That doesn't mean I'm asking you to say "oh well...I guess I'll die". I think there are immediate and meaningful things we can do to drastically lower gun murder rates and these things also don't involve punishing non-violent people. Perhaps you could join me in finding and actively supporting such methods. Here's one: end the war on drugs. This is a great first step and probably the single biggest way to reduce gun murders and the effect would be felt almost immediately. Plus you don't have to tear apart a single family by sending non-violent people to ass-rape prison for not giving up their gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top