zoogs
New member
The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Scratchtown
- Start date
Landlord
Banned
Keep in mind that better gun regulation is aimed 95% at the relatively 'regular' citizens who either commit suicide or end up murdering someone because of ease of access combined with escalating disputes.
Ignore the ISIS extremists and the gang members for a second.
The majority of people killing with guns, believe it or not, are "for the most part" people like you and me. The guns are a tool. Think of a scenario where you would use any other tool for a job. Let's say 1 million people want to build a deck and need a hammer. If the hammer is laying right next to them, it's easy. If they don't have a hammer and have to pay $50, well a few thousand of them won't have the money, a few thousand more will be too lazy and decide that they have better things to do, and they'll give up on the pursuit. Then, if they have to drive an hour to go get a hammer, well, that weeds out several thousand more who don't have enough conviction to go through with the necessary process.
Gun regulation is the idea of putting good, sensible filters in the way of easy, careless and thoughtless acquisition of serious, lethal weapons. The people that really want them still completely have the means to get them, but you put a number of deterrents in the way that make those ill-equipped or careless have to really work hard and/or earn the ability to get their hands on one. It doesn't stop everyone, especially crazed extremists or people absolutely committed to going on a rampage, but it does filter out a lot (or at least more than we do now) of people that probably or definitely shouldn't be having guns.
Ignore the ISIS extremists and the gang members for a second.
The majority of people killing with guns, believe it or not, are "for the most part" people like you and me. The guns are a tool. Think of a scenario where you would use any other tool for a job. Let's say 1 million people want to build a deck and need a hammer. If the hammer is laying right next to them, it's easy. If they don't have a hammer and have to pay $50, well a few thousand of them won't have the money, a few thousand more will be too lazy and decide that they have better things to do, and they'll give up on the pursuit. Then, if they have to drive an hour to go get a hammer, well, that weeds out several thousand more who don't have enough conviction to go through with the necessary process.
Gun regulation is the idea of putting good, sensible filters in the way of easy, careless and thoughtless acquisition of serious, lethal weapons. The people that really want them still completely have the means to get them, but you put a number of deterrents in the way that make those ill-equipped or careless have to really work hard and/or earn the ability to get their hands on one. It doesn't stop everyone, especially crazed extremists or people absolutely committed to going on a rampage, but it does filter out a lot (or at least more than we do now) of people that probably or definitely shouldn't be having guns.
TAKODA
New member
Guns are not the problem!
The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!
However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.
Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.
knapplc
Active member
It'd have to involve a massive ship-building operation by ISIS, after they capture a few ports, and then mass training of their fighters as naval personnel, then the fleet sailing through the Mediterranean unstopped, past Gibraltar somehow, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic while the American Navy is (apparently?) distracted by something shiny, a landing on American shores where they can safely debark their troops while the Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Marines are tied up in a back room, Lassie is unable to go get help, and Chuck Norris is otherwise occupied.
In this scenario, the Air Force doesn't exist, because I can't figure out how they don't bomb the whole fleet to smithereens.
After that all happens - which is likely, you have to admit - at that point, Joe Average Citizen, America!, is going to have to drive those radical Muslims from our sacred shores.
I guess.
Redux
Donor
So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
TAKODA
New member
I do not know if Redux was really stating (believe that to be true) there was going to be a invasion? While I don't entertain the idea that ISIS has the ability to carry out a mass invasion, let's not be so naive to think that they can't inflict a lot of carnage with our lackadaisical border policies. They have proven that their sleeper cells are in fact in the US of A and they have the ability inflict at will in most cases, painful outcomes to which the gun policy comes to the forefront!
I would rather have and not need, than to need and not have! But it's "not for everyone" and "shouldn't be" either!
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
You can't tell me that wasn't hilarious.
Also, I was responding to this, which if you didn't mean an invasion of American shores, it sure came across that way....
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
New member
Okay, that was really funny
In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.
If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.
In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.
If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
Donor
I merely laid out a scenario.
I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.
I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.
zoogs
New member
This, right here.
What *is* your scenario, though? I mean, you said knapp twisted it. So what is the actual scenario where:
WE NEED GUNS --> Or else ISIS might do this.
If the argument is that civilian gun ownership is America's insurance against terrorism, then please make the case for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
Donor
So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?
knapplc
Active member
I'm on that train as well. Guns are a "want," not a "need." America needs to collectively come to terms with this, and then we can make progress.Okay, that was really funny
In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.
If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.
I understand that we have to make significant changes to our society before people will be willing to give up their guns, and that's going to take generations. But we can get there.
BigRedBuster
Active member
I have a question on banning guns.
It is correct that we have some cities that have banned hand guns....correct? Also, it is correct that some of these cities have the highest murder rates and gun crime rates in the nation. NO....I'm not correlating the two. BUT....if the guns are banned, why don't police get the guns off the streets?
Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?
What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.
It is correct that we have some cities that have banned hand guns....correct? Also, it is correct that some of these cities have the highest murder rates and gun crime rates in the nation. NO....I'm not correlating the two. BUT....if the guns are banned, why don't police get the guns off the streets?
Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?
What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.