Gun Control

ZRod said:
So why can't I have a bazooka then? I'm not a sociopath or diagnosed as mentally ill.
Click to expand...
You actually can get a bazooka legally.   Just have to do a lot of paperwork and it's highly regulated....so it can be done (both the highly regulating and getting crazy a$$ weapons)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho said:
You actually can get a bazooka legally.   Just have to do a lot of paperwork and it's highly regulated....so it can be done (both the highly regulating and getting crazy a$$ weapons)
Click to expand...
Oh that's right! It's highly regulated! And why would that be? I'm a sane person, I should be able to own this arm without this much trouble, right?

 
RedDenver said:
That's not at all what I said. I never said you can't say those things or call my truth wrong. Believe whatever you want, but if you're going to post about them for other people to read, then expect to get challenged on them. Using terms like "filth" when referring to a group of people is indeed dehumanizing. And you didn't use "filth" to describe "things" unless you consider progressives to be things, which is even more problematic.

My take is entirely based in reality. But you continue to make statements that over the course of history people who have had their guns taken away resulted in mass deaths, but have given only one example. And that example is based on pure speculation.

Uh yeah, something that's not likely to have changed anything is actually unlikely to have saved lives. Not really anything ironic about this, but feel free to think so if it makes you feel better.

You aren't really challenging my assertions or proposals so much as stating the same things over and over. And your manic posting combined with dehumanizing terms is what makes me concerned, not anything in regards to my own beliefs or thinking.

Literally everything in that post was wrong. Congrats on that.

Maybe take a break from posting so much.
Click to expand...
When law-abiding people have tools commensurate to the bad people, there’s a much better chance to defend themselves against oppression.  Your unsubstantiated musings on what would’ve happened don’t really matter. In two parallel realities, I’ll take the one where the Jews, or other law abiding people, had a means to defend themselves vs what actually happened. 
 

You might be offended by the term filth. Sexually explicit content available for pre-teens in their school library is filth. I’m not saying that with any emotion. 
 

The nearest I’ve gotten to dehumanizing is an intolerance for the human filth who decide to shoot innocents because of their own deep disturbances.  I’m more indignant of the act than person, but the act is so atrocious it’s hard to decouple the two.  
 

I’m very good with the challenges. It’s the emotional projection that is nonsensical and unneeded.  The leaning on assertions, hearing opposition, is not bad. 
 

I believe there is right and wrong. Good and evil. Not a universalist take that nothing is bad or wrong.  That’s not dehumanizing anyone. Moral relativists pervades our society. I believe it has been a system that has caused confusion and decay. I, again, liken it to a city built on sand. The very fact that you believe I’m wrong (if you don’t, why are we bantering?) in my positions means you have some absolute you spring from to tell me I’m wrong. That absolute may be your perception, experience, conviction etc. We’ll remain at odds on the matter then. 

 
DefenderAO said:
When law-abiding people have tools commensurate to the bad people, there’s a much better chance to defend themselves against oppression.  Your unsubstantiated musings on what would’ve happened don’t really matter. In two parallel realities, I’ll take the one where the Jews, or other law abiding people, had a means to defend themselves vs what actually happened. 
Click to expand...
Do you understand how absolutely awful your Holocaust take is? The Nazi army killed over 7 million Red army soldiers alone in WWII. That's 14 times the Jewish population in Germany when the Nazis took power, and a million more than the estimated number of Jews killed in the entire Holocaust! The Soviets had every weapon imaginable at the time.

Not to mention that the German gun laws were only mildly effective since registrations were only based on new gun sales. Jews did have guns and they did fight back but when a nation of 65 million people wants you dead, there's not much stopping that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DefenderAO said:
I’ll give you a bullseye. Treat sociopaths’ mental illnesses.
Click to expand...
This nebulous bullseye would alleviate only a small portion of gun violence deaths. The vast majority of gun violence isn't committed by people suffering from a sociopathic disorder. If memory serves, 20,000+ Americans commit suicide with a gun every year. Most gun deaths are actually perpetrated in our streets and in our homes, not in our schools. 

A comprehensive solution between accessibility and mental health care seems like a fair and balanced solution. The Right gets to achieve their noble cause of helping people with their mental health issues and the left gets to take some guns away. Everybody wins!

 
Enhance said:
A comprehensive solution between accessibility and mental health care seems like a fair and balanced solution. The Right gets to achieve their noble cause of helping people with their mental health issues and the left gets to take some guns away. Everybody wins!
Click to expand...
when have the republicans recently done anything to try to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues?   they are currently on a wave of giving open access to almost everyone then crying about how they have to keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane.    

 
commando said:
what policy would help with that in your opinion?
Click to expand...
I don't think one currently exists.  The latest shooter was already in the system and tracked to some degree.   The conundrum - what maintains people's rights to free speech and expression, guards their personal liberties, and is not reactive after an event occurs?  Stiffer penalties on the other side are reactive.  Detainment and interrogation for comments like "Kill all gays" or "Kill all Christians" while wielding a gun infringes on personal freedom.  

Focused just on mental health only, what has worked the best in the past without overstepping certain freedoms?  

commando said:
it's almost like if you heavily regulate who can get such weapons helps keep them out of the hands of those who are a few fries short of a happy meal
Click to expand...
I'm following.  You want tighter restrictions on access to people who are unfit.  Because people are the problem.  I too don't want untreated mentally ill to run around with true intent to cause great harm.

 
Back
Top