Guns & Freedom

What logic are you appealing to?
Which would you prefer, if you had the choice? Garroted, stabbed, hit with a blunt object, pushed off the top of a tall building, or shot? Or perhaps there is some other method of being killed that you would prefer, Oh - I forgot being poisoned. No, that is not the question. The question is if you would be rather in a gathering of people where there is one crazy person with a rock, or a crazy person with a firearm. Where is the chance being killed bigger, you think? And you forget the psychological effect of owning firearms: the feeling of power. If there is no difference in the ability to kill others between firearms and rocks, why don't you own just a few rocks, just in case. You can also go into a rock club, and hit other rocks with your rocks. Great fun! Or smash melons! Great effect! Real men own rocks, not firearms! Breakup, everybody has the right to have his photons.
The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison. What really matters is that with or without guns people will find a way to kill each other, and guns in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, is not the fault of the existing gun laws or availability. Most of the anti-gun rhetoric are red herrings that do not address the cause of the problem, but try to put a band-aid on the symptom of the problem. If Roof had a rock, he would have found his victims one at a time, alone, and killed a lot more till they caught him, and would have had the whole community terrorized till that happened.
Of course there's no comparison, this is a false equivalency. You can only compare the two by statistics per capita and the U.S. Is fourth in the World (tied with Chile) in violent crimes committed by guns. Mexico and Brazil are numbers one and two. And yes, psychopaths will find a way to kill with whatever weapon they have available but they are incapable of mass murder on a large scale unless they are using a gun, especially a sub machine gun. By using a rock or rope Roof would have left a trail that would have eventually led to his killing or capture. And these incidents are becoming far more common. I see no red herring here as most anti-gun lobbies want to make it harder for of said psychopaths to own a gun, e.g. there has been little done to monitor the secondary market. Also, enforcing background checks would be a good place to start. http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/background-checks-reduce-crimes-and-save-lives.pdf Cap't Jack
Which would you prefer, if you had the choice? Garroted, stabbed, hit with a blunt object, pushed off the top of a tall building, or shot? Or perhaps there is some other method of being killed that you would prefer, Oh - I forgot being poisoned.
We're getting way off topic here. There is no National Rock Association dedicated to protecting your right to own one. And for that matter I could bean you with an iron or a table leg but that's not the point. BTW none of these aforementioned items have a military purpose with the ability to fire multiple rounds. If Roof had a rock he might have been able to injure or kill one person, not nine. A nut with a gun is able to kill as many people as he can just by pulling a trigger, and as long as he has time to reload. I can guarantee you that you'll not find a site detailing multiple murders with a stick, rock or a rope. Cap't Jack
The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison. What really matters is that with or without guns people will find a way to kill each other, and guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them, is not the fault of the existing gun laws or availability. Most of the anti-gun rhetoric are red herrings that do not address the cause of the problem, but try to put a band-aid on the symptom of the problem. If Roof had a rock, he would have found his victims one at a time, alone, and killed a lot more till they caught him, and would have had the whole community terrorized till that happened. Why do you suppose that in countries with effective gun control mass murders are not being carried out with other weapons? Of all developed countries only the US has experienced regular mass killings, and they are carried out with guns. If killers will use other ways to carry out such killings, as you say, why aren't they doing it where guns are not available?
Why do you suppose that in countries with effective gun control mass murders are not being carried out with other weapons? Of all developed countries only the US has experienced regular mass killings, and they are carried out with guns. If killers will use other ways to carry out such killings, as you say, why aren't they doing it where guns are not available?
Show me the numbers, and I disagree about the US being the only country experiencing mass murders. There are places in Africa and other continents where there are mass murders being committed, but those are mostly by organized gangs, otherwise called militias, or para-military, or even the regular military in an ethnic cleansing. So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK?
The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Somehow, I think that is the point.

FYI, I’ve been down this road before, trying to talk sense to a bunch of anti-gun wack jobs, it just doesn’t work. Because all you here are highly emotional whining about the people being killed, and blaming it on the gun, and not the person pulling the trigger. If there are any sane and sensible members who want to continue a civil conversation on the subject, lets hear it.

The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Somehow, I think that is the point. But it proves nothing useful.
So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK?
You've lost the argument when you resort to ridiculous statements such as this.
So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK?
You've lost the argument when you resort to ridiculous statements such as this. So you think Ethnic cleansing is OK? You should like Hitler.
So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK?
You've lost the argument when you resort to ridiculous statements such as this. So you think Ethnic cleansing is OK? You should like Hitler. Now you go Godwin on me. Is your brain so addled by pro-gun ideology that you can no longer string together a coherent thought?

Breakup: Your argument is essentially justifying guns because you think it is a “better” way to die for victims and thus legislation to reduce gun violence will only cause murderers to resort to other “nastier” means. So, by your (sick) thinking and logic, you might suggest that bombs are better than guns and they should not be discouraged via laws because a bomb accomplishes the objective in a second vs. all the time a gun would take and you can take out a whole building.
You probably agree with board member Cotton of the NRA who stated the Rev. present in the church in Charleston who voted against carrying concealed guns in churches is partially responsible for her own death because if that would have been allowed, someone may have been carrying a gun. There is absolutely no “low” when talking to certain people about guns.
The entire gun vs. rock analogy is that of a simpleton, for many reasons. One, guns are manufactured and can be regulated…a rock or a stick or whatever analogy does not compare. Failure of analogy. The NRA wishes everyone was this simpleminded because people who don’t think will believe anything. The NRA certainly does a lot of mental gymnastics to come to their conclusions.

The point is that gun homicides in countries where guns are freely available are being compared to gun homicides in countries where guns are not available, and there is no real comparison.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Somehow, I think that is the point. But it proves nothing useful. How are statistics showing less deaths by guns useless when that is the very topic and point of discussion?
Why do you suppose that in countries with effective gun control mass murders are not being carried out with other weapons? Of all developed countries only the US has experienced regular mass killings, and they are carried out with guns. If killers will use other ways to carry out such killings, as you say, why aren't they doing it where guns are not available?
Show me the numbers, and I disagree about the US being the only country experiencing mass murders. I didn't say that. There are places in Africa and other continents where there are mass murders being committed, but those are mostly by organized gangs, otherwise called militias, or para-military, or even the regular military in an ethnic cleansing. I said developed countries. So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK? You are comparing apples wth oranges. When you compare developed countries with primitive ones, you discover nothing. Compare like with like. Which Western developed country has had the highest rate of mass murders?
FYI, I've been down this road before, trying to talk sense to a bunch of anti-gun wack jobs, it just doesn't work. Because all you here are highly emotional whining about the people being killed,, and blaming it on the gun, and not the person pulling the trigger. If there are any sane and sensible members who want to continue a civil conversation on the subject, lets hear it.
This is the irrational "guns dont kill people people do". It's a case of not understanding there are multiple causes not one and so it sets up a false dichotomy. Both people and guns kill people. The important point is if this man had not had a gun he would not have killed anyone. He was given the gun as a birthday present. What a terrible present. Very sad.
How free are we in the U.S. if we can just do very normal things like go to school, attend a church, go to a local movie theater, a mall or whatever the unsuspecting place may be and be executed during one of these all-too-common shootings in America. Is that freedom? It's not freedom for the populace who must live in fear and certainly it isn't freedom for those dead. I am just wondering where this proverbial line is between rights to not be subjected to mass shootings and the rights of people who "just want their guns." Why is the NRA so powerful in politics? Who gives them so much money to earn the political sway that they have?
If you really want to learn about origins you'd have to study the Reagan Revolution (later evolved into New American Century insanity) and the types of people that brought into powerful positions they never really left. Hand in hand with the evangelical movement who's bottom-line message (that no one seems quite cognizant of) is that if you wish it hard enough, there's no reason it can't be true. (well that and being brainwashed into fear and loathing towards the other ones) It was the creation and manipulation of a proud but scared segment of our population. And then years and decades worth of very methodical work, one stepping stone upon the other, while the rest of us slept.

That got me to snooping around about the NRA - here are some fun facts and opinions:
http://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
Brief History
https://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
“In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment,
NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA.”
And then the ball started rolling
Gun Control Is “Racist”?
The NRA would know
By Adam Winkler
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racism-and-nra-history

I’m not very surprised that no one on this thread has mentioned what the government’s role would be if a 2nd amendment repeal were to come into play. To remove gun ownership from the average citizen in this country would elevate the state (and other criminals) to monopoly status when it comes to gun use (neither of which have proven trustworthy of such things). Do I own firearms? Several. Why do I own such terrible weapons that could potentially kill people? Because I enjoy collecting pieces of history, shooting for recreation, and I feel safer at home. If you believe that guns should all be collected and destroyed you are setting a very dangerous precedent that involves property rights of citizens being voted away. What gives you the right to destroy or seize my legally purchased property? Does your fear trump my right to own property? Does the death a stranger (or strangers) outweigh anything you want to point an agenda to? If you believe instead of regulating firearms further (as they already have pretty strict regulation) this doesn’t affect criminals as they ignore and mock societal norms and laws. This obsessive fear of a few pieces of metal is irrational and can only lead to a larger state and a smaller individual. Neither of these would lead to a safer or better country.

The desire for the right to own guns is sheer madness. Of course you are safer if everyone around doesn’t have guns. And of course they are safer if you don’t own them.

I'm not very surprised that no one on this thread has mentioned what the government's role would be if a 2nd amendment repeal were to come into play. To remove gun ownership from the average citizen in this country would elevate the state (and other criminals) to monopoly status when it comes to gun use (neither of which have proven trustworthy of such things). Do I own firearms? Several. Why do I own such terrible weapons that could potentially kill people? Because I enjoy collecting pieces of history, shooting for recreation, and I feel safer at home. If you believe that guns should all be collected and destroyed you are setting a very dangerous precedent that involves property rights of citizens being voted away. What gives you the right to destroy or seize my legally purchased property? Does your fear trump my right to own property? Does the death a stranger (or strangers) outweigh anything you want to point an agenda to? If you believe instead of regulating firearms further (as they already have pretty strict regulation) this doesn't affect criminals as they ignore and mock societal norms and laws. This obsessive fear of a few pieces of metal is irrational and can only lead to a larger state and a smaller individual. Neither of these would lead to a safer or better country.
Yeah, it's tough putting cascading consequences back into Pandora's Box.
FYI, I've been down this road before, trying to talk sense to a bunch of anti-gun wack jobs, it just doesn't work. Because all you here are highly emotional whining about the people being killed,, and blaming it on the gun, and not the person pulling the trigger. If there are any sane and sensible members who want to continue a civil conversation on the subject, lets hear it.
This is the irrational "guns dont kill people people do". Nothing irrational about it. People with guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people without guns. It's a case of not understanding there are multiple causes not one and so it sets up a false dichotomy. Both people and guns kill people. So why is it that the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 population is substantially higher in countries without gun control than in countries with it? Why does Canada have half the gun deaths per 100,000 people that the US has? Why does Western Europe have even fewer? Coincidence? The important point is if this man had not had a gun he would not have killed anyone. He was given the gun as a birthday present. What a terrible present. Very sad. It proves that guns without people kill no one and people without guns kill far fewer people than those with guns, no matter what the source. So let's keep the US population armed to the teeth!