The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[WD-40]

... This is why I do not trust anyone's "experience," including my own, over actual data.

You shouldnt Crater, because...we may not not even be real. All that data you researched might just be imaginary, as is the fallacy of Human experiences from all walks of life. Prove to me with some sort of data that cannot be disputed beyond reasonable doubt, that 'you exist'. I'll even make it easier, prove that 'we' exist.

Point is, you will never believe jack [poo] that doesn't suit you. Debating with a guy/gal like you is pointless, as you are so scientifically constipated, you wouldn't accept the truth if it hit you upside the head, because you have already accepted your own views of everything. If you asked a thousand people how the truly felt about gun control, you'll likely get 1,000 different answers or variations of answers. Every answer, you, will find fault with, because its not your answer.

[Col. Hstar]

Someone tell me what use an AK-47 has. Someone with "real world wisdom" and "experience"

The AK has an adjustable stock so it will fit husbands with long arms or wives with shorter arms. The round has excellent knock down power and the weapon can easily be fitted with flashlights, lasers or other various sights. They are inexpensive and parts a readily available. It' a very durable, proven weapon that can satisfy many home defense needs that would otherwise require the homeowner to purchase several weapons.
I'm on my phone, otherwise I would go into much more detail.
What's the next weapon you want me to justify?

Uh really? You think i was asking for the features of the gun (which isn't justification BTW)..... Either this was a joke and you have no answer, or your real world wisdom and experience completely and utterly failed you.

Fourth, how can we go to a firing range to fire off rounds in a weapon that is outlawed?

Again, I have been saying more control is needed. A race car is outlawed on the streets but it's perfectly fine to go to a race track and run your car to the max. It doesn't take real world wisdom to know that just, knowledge of the law.

Fifth, an AK-47 is a good home defense weapon.

Sounds a bit overkill, unless your home is invaded by an army

And last, but not least, we have the 2nd Amendment. It is our Right. And you can keep going on and on about piddly arguments, but throwing away your Rights is a pet peeve of mine. And to keep arguing for loss of that Right, shows your not wise to the world yet. It will hit ya, sometime in the future, hopefully not too painfully. But it will dawn on you that giving up your Rights is one of the dumbest, childish, things to do.

I feel I have the right to feel safe. If I feel that guns (specifically assault weapons) are a threat to me and my family's safety. Who the heck do you think you are to tell me otherwise. I don't give a crap how much a pet peeve it is of yours. Your ignorance of the harm that can come from guns shows me that YOU are not wise to the world yet. As I said before stamping your feet like a child saying IT'S MY RIGHT is not ever going to prove your point. As far as me throwing away my rights, wouldn't that be my right to do so? As far as a gun ban if it happens it happens one of us will be happy.

[Doves]

Otto, Crater and Homestar, I have pulled a gun in self defense, you have not. If I had not, I would be dead now (and would be happier not having to witness what I witnessed with my son). Guaranteed.

I didn't kill anyone or fire a single shot.

After I left the area, the gangs took over (not to mention the stories I have heard from around the world). Criminals are cowards by definition. Large groups of criminals and whackos will almost always submit to a single strong, armed person. This isn't some crap I found on the internet. It is something I have witnessed, time and time again, in real life.

The older gents are correct in their belief that this generation has NO [m'kay] CLUE. Worst. Generation. Ever.

'Nuff said.

And what gun were you carrying? Is an automatic weapon necessary in this situation, or would a handgun suffice? I dont think that crater is arguing for the complete eradication of guns (correct me if im wrong crater), but rather the removal of automatic weapons from households.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Doves, no offense, but are you [m'kay] kidding me? Automatic weapons? Seriously?

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Homestar....wow. That was a very serious answer. I pointed out several things that put an AK ahead of a traditional hunting rifle. It was a very clear answer.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

You shouldnt Crater, because...we may not not even be real. All that data you researched might just be imaginary, as is the fallacy of Human experiences from all walks of life. Prove to me with some sort of data that cannot be disputed beyond reasonable doubt, that 'you exist'. I'll even make it easier, prove that 'we' exist.

Point is, you will never believe jack [poo] that doesn't suit you. Debating with a guy/gal like you is pointless, as you are so scientifically constipated, you wouldn't accept the truth if it hit you upside the head, because you have already accepted your own views of everything. If you asked a thousand people how the truly felt about gun control, you'll likely get 1,000 different answers or variations of answers. Every answer, you, will find fault with, because its not your answer.

If we can't assume that we exist, however irrelevant that is right now, then nothing perceive is relevant - all opinions are worthless and data moot. So, to save us some time, and a great deal of headache, I suggest we assume for the moment that we do, in fact, exist. Remember again, very rarely does one individual's experience suffice to prove an entire contention - it is data to be circulated and taken into account, but what may occur in one situation may not be true for any other situation, no er the apparent similarity. Attempting to philosophize as to human existence in an attempt to derail Crater's reliance on fact is a less than adequate comparison.

Dude, the first problem is that if you knew anything about pre WW2 Germany then you would understand that if the German Jewish population had been left with a means to protect themselves that the Nazi machine would've been severely hampered and perhaps the British and French would've been pushed over the edge to join in and assist the resistant Germans (Jews included) in putting out the Nazi fire before it really got going.

The second problem that you've missed is that gun control was enacted on a populace in order to make their extermination easier. It's a prerequisite so to speak of what was to come. Obviously Obama, the British and the Australians don't want to exterminate their people by enacting gun restrictions, but I feel it's a very short sighted solution to a problem that's NOT going away. That problem is our violent nature.

You can feed a wolf all the fruits and vegetables you want, but that wolf will still have his teeth and the desire to consume the sheep when given a chance.

That's nonsense! Jewish freedoms were slowly but surely rescinded starting in the early 1930s, before any of them had got wind of what was actually happening. By the time the right to own a gun was abolished for Jewish families, Chancellor Von Papen had passed, and Hitler and convinced the people of Germany to give him dictatorial powers. The Nazi Army was fully formed, the Hitler Youth established, and any resistance on the part of Jewish families would have been futile.

Also consider this: Would a Jewish parent risk rebelling against the Nazis if it meant his children would be executed in front of him if he failed? Think logically, few Jews resisted, because the Nazis had all but complete control of the government.

It is unlikely that Britain or France would intervene (even if, by some miraculous fantasy-type miracle, the Jews did, as you suggest, hamper the Nazis) considering that they did nothing when Germany seized Czechoslovakia and other nearby territories. They only declared war when Germany invaded Poland over the Danzig Corridor in September 1939.

I've refrained from involving myself too deeply in this topic (gun ownership) as that is an issue I've not made up my mind on (clearly, at least), but I will chime in when I feel irrelevant, infactual, or just plain ridiculous evidence is presented.



I'd love to hear responses from both WD-40 and Matthew'sDad, considering I'd like to enhance my point of view on the situation.
Thanks,
SirPepsi

[haasd0gg]

Have you children ever heard the phrase "Give an inch and they take a mile"? That's where this debate goes. Once its OK to take away "assault" weapons, its no problem to stretch the spectrum wider to include all guns.
If you believe our government wouldn't do that, I'm surprised you have the smarts to breathe.
Are y'all comfy with predator drones flying around over your homes? Our government would never do something like that either, right?
If you can't see that we are surrendering our liberties in the name of security and turning into a surveillance ridden police state then you are truly blind.
As crater so eloquently pointed out, I don't make arguments... I'm not here to argue, though. I make statements that would hopefully inspire some other train of thought.
After rereading this thread I see how pointless it is. I am now sharing the bench with Dad, weeping for the future.

[WD-40]

I'll join ya...

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

I'll join ya...

+1

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Have you children ever heard the phrase "Give an inch and they take a mile"? That's where this debate goes. Once its OK to take away "assault" weapons, its no problem to stretch the spectrum wider to include all guns.
If you believe our government wouldn't do that, I'm surprised you have the smarts to breathe.
Are y'all comfy with predator drones flying around over your homes? Our government would never do something like that either, right?
If you can't see that we are surrendering our liberties in the name of security and turning into a surveillance ridden police state then you are truly blind.
As crater so eloquently pointed out, I don't make arguments... I'm not here to argue, though. I make statements that would hopefully inspire some other train of thought.
After rereading this thread I see how pointless it is. I am now sharing the bench with Dad, weeping for the future.

I understand your concern. The Second Amendment was originally established to keep the government in check, and I can see where emotion and tension may run high when talk comes down to circumventing these freedoms. I also understand, however, that while the Constitution is a truly remarkable piece of work, an inspiring document that has spurred the rise of liberal democracy around the world, some parts of it were written in an atmosphere that no longer applies today.

I believe the Patriot Act to be a gross violation of our freedoms, and I think its nickname simply pours salt into the wound.

That said, I don't believe that regulating fully automatic assault rifles will lead to the creation of a Police State. I feel that that is mere speculation - we recognize, as a society, that we must act in the best interest of our citizens. Because of that, I can understand the government's plans.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is quotes as saying, "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Historical precedent suggests that it is necessary to adapt to, and in some cases concede to, the pressures and realities of a modern world.