ADVERTISEMENT

554 children under the age of 12 killed by gun violence

Lock up violent criminals and stop letting them back out on the street. Every day I read about some scumbag doing something awful, and more times than not, the perp has a long list of priors and shouldn't have been allowed in society to victimize anybody in the first place.
The biggest supporters of no guns are usually suburban white folks who have never had to deal with violence. The first thing that goes through their minds is that guns are the problem. Where in reality the cultures of certain groups is the major problem. Combine that with a sort of psychopathic and hidden hate mentality amongst suburban America and you have what you have.

This country destroys itself because certain parts of it hates itself. Lies, war, corporate and government theft, too much bureaucracy, too much system over humanity, and there you have it. PC keeps people from having mainstream discussion on what issues need to be addressed, and we're too focused on other issues besides the real ones that ultimately lead to everything else.

Humanity either evolves and learns from it's mistakes, or it will continue to systematically destroy itself.
 
Our gun problem is worse than countries who don't lock up as many people. If locking up people was the answer we should have low gun violence rates, not the other way around.

Think about what you just said. I'm mean reread it, then reread it again. I'll wait for it to hit you.
 
The gun lobby has successfully blocked the study of gun violence, trying to hide facts from the public and has tried to minimize the danger of guns that people like you seem to buy into. Seems the two are more relatable than you think.

Minimize the danger of guns? Let's see, if you're on the wrong end of a gun when it goes off, it's bad. What the hell are they hiding that we don't already know?
 
While I agree with your main point, I object to the use of the term "do gooders." This is a term that the right has worked very hard and quite successfully to morph into a disparaging synonym for "liberal." But liberals (along with libertarians) have been the most outspoken critics of the War on Drugs and almost the lone voice against the prison privatization movement whose profits are fed by this disastrous policy.
Child...puhleaaaasse. When the liberals controlled all levels of government, they never NEVER lifted a finger to turn things back. They are beholden to the lawyers. Much like the GOP railing against taxes, Social Insecurity, Medicare, Medicaid etc., it still stands.
 
That is just since Sandy Hook. I heard that a few minutes ago on MSNBC. Most commonly they were killed by handguns.
I wonder if any of the strongly pro life Republican candidates will talk about the importance of those children's lives tomorrow during the Republican debate?
How many kids 12 and under have died in car accidents nationally since the same date? Way more. I don't hear anybody even suggesting we ban cars. Hell, we can't even keep drunk drivers off the road.
 
As Martin Luther King lamented at the height of the war in Vietnam, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”

A government that adores war and conditions its people for acceptable violence so they can fight their illegal wars will not be a beneficiary to a civil society. Our nation glorifies the military. The Department of Offense partners up with professional sports teams and gets the ignorant masses to wrap themselves up in nationalism. Then they turn around and blame video games.
 
As compared with the pro-gun crazies who think more children dead by guns means we should have more guns and less control over who gets them?

There are so many conservative memes that make little sense, it's hard to identify which makes the least sense. But this argument against gun control has to be in the running.
I object to your term 'gun crazies'.
 
The bottom line is that guns allow smaller people to defend themselves against bigger people. No longer is a weaker person at a disadvantage.
Yes, this IS one of the decent arguments for guns.

I recommend to all my female and black friends that they get guns - to help level the playing field in an unequal and all-to-often violent culture.

I also figure that if blacks and women start buying and carrying guns to political rallies, concerts and PTA meetings that we'll get good gun control laws mighty fast.

I'm not sure why our conservatives are so comfortable with the people who regularly cause problems having guns, but they are. Somehow they seem to think most gun owners are the "right sorts of people." But what will they do if gun sales surge for the "wrong sorts of people"?

Of course there isn't much risk of too many blacks getting guns legally. So many of them can't pass background checks thanks to our discriminatory "justice" system. But that prior restraint doesn't apply to women.
 
I'll ask you what I asked earlier. How many of those kids were killed in the inner cities by black on black violence? Should we get rid of blacks?
Very telling that you seem to think those are equivalent "solutions."

And even more telling that the one you seem to think is better isn't the one that restricts guns.
 
That is just since Sandy Hook. I heard that a few minutes ago on MSNBC. Most commonly they were killed by handguns.
I wonder if any of the strongly pro life Republican candidates will talk about the importance of those children's lives tomorrow during the Republican debate?
How do these deaths compare to the millions of abortions performed in America?

It never ceases to amaze me how the bleeding-heart crowd shuts their pie hole when it comes to outrage for the blood of the innocent unborn slaughtered daily. Shameful.
 
Very telling that you seem to think those are equivalent "solutions."

And even more telling that the one you seem to think is better isn't the one that restricts guns.

Funny you respond to these tongue in cheek posts of mine, but not the one where I replied to yours saying I'm for expanded background checks.

You're all about the fluff with no stuff. I have you figured out now.
 
I skimmed to see if you answered this question. I for one would like to know the answer.

Hey WWJD, I asked the question because I don't know. I'm in favor of expanding background checks. Why they wouldn't allow background checks at gun shows, or online & private sales is beyond me.
 
Sure, ordinary citizens get priced out. That's kind of the point. If you're trying to reduce the number of gun deaths, you want guns in the hands of as few people as possible. Let the police deal with the criminals instead of us.

Double.... No triple derp.
 
Very telling that you seem to think those are equivalent "solutions."

And even more telling that the one you seem to think is better isn't the one that restricts guns.

You pick and choose what you want to read so that you can paint your bad guy image of poster you disagree with.
 
Funny you respond to these tongue in cheek posts of mine, but not the one where I replied to yours saying I'm for expanded background checks.

You're all about the fluff with no stuff. I have you figured out now.
I may have missed it. I don't recall. So let me be clear: I'm delighted that you favor expanded background checks.

That said, calling me out for failing to respond to a particular comment is pretty lame.
 
I may have missed it. I don't recall. So let me be clear: I'm delighted that you favor expanded background checks.

That said, calling me out for failing to respond to a particular comment is pretty lame.


Well, since you skimmed to see if I answered the question, maybe you can skim and see that I stated I was in favor of expanded background checks, at least seven times in this thread alone. One would think someone is intentionally trying to miss that. If not, good to know.
 
You pick and choose what you want to read so that you can paint your bad guy image of poster you disagree with.
Sorry. You are the one who suggested this false equivalence. I just called you on it. I'm going down the list in this thread giving shit to all the dumb comments. If you don't like it, stop making dumb comments.

Don't worry too much. At some point I'll get tired and will see that there are several more pages of dumb comments and will give up.
 
I would think you'd have an opinion on why the GOP & NRA won't back expanded background checks.

I am neither a republican nor am I a registered member of the NRA. My opinion is the private sale loophole of handguns should be closed for guns over .22 caliber. There should be no regulation for long guns over a 16 inch barrel, even the scary looking military ones. Purchase of 11 plus round magazines for said weapons should require a permit.

As for the Lucas and Huey derps, well, hey stand for themselves.
 
Sorry. You are the one who suggested this false equivalence. I just called you on it. I'm going down the list in this thread giving shit to all the dumb comments. If you don't like it, stop making dumb comments.

Don't worry too much. At some point I'll get tired and will see that there are several more pages of dumb comments and will give up.

I think by now, we both know (especially if you've skimmed the thread and noticed the numerous times I've advocated expanded background checks) that I'm one of the more level-headed posters on the subject of gun control in this thread. The comment you picked up on was done with tongue in cheek. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that and needed me to explain it.
 
I've already explained how the creation of guns is different than drugs. You want alcohol? Set up a small still and you got alcohol? You want a gun, you'll need a multitude of machine presses, grinders, melting furnaces, and the expertise to handle each one. And even then, it would be extremely difficult to fabricate a gun from scratch. The two aren't as relatable as you think.

You want guns, just run them across the border. It's not like it's actually guarded or anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nat Algren
And your opinions on gun control? What are they? Hell, you've done your drive-by hit, why not stay for some substance?

I gave them in the thread I started regarding gun control....Here is what I suggested

Restrict assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and armor piercing ammunition.
Require citizens to show cause for concealed carry permits
Make involuntary commitment to mental health facilities easier to achieve and reopen closed mental institutions.
Require a mandatory 28-day wait to purchase firearms and background checks for all, including purchases from private individuals.
Better screening for risk factors
 
Another thread of anti-gun crazies taking advantage of dead kids to push their agenda. I thought Fred was the only person scummy enough too do this.

That many dead kids is a solid win for your team. You should be doing your touchdown dance, gun nut.
 
That many dead kids is a solid win for your team. You should be doing your touchdown dance, gun nut.

I own one gun, a shotgun. That's not very nutty I guess.

And I find it funny that you think I would be happy for this. The only people happy for a tragedy are the people who can use it to further their cause. There's no other reason to be happy about it.
 
I gave them in the thread I started regarding gun control....Here is what I suggested

Restrict assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and armor piercing ammunition.
Require citizens to show cause for concealed carry permits
Make involuntary commitment to mental health facilities easier to achieve and reopen closed mental institutions.
Require a mandatory 28-day wait to purchase firearms and background checks for all, including purchases from private individuals.
Better screening for risk factors

I agree with everything you said. Personally, I don't like that ordinary civilians are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

These ideas won't fix the problem, because America is full of wackos (both sides) and just an all around angry mentality. But these ideas would most certainly help curtail some of the killings, IMO.
 
Last edited:
We would be ruled by the descendants of King George if it weren't for the crazies.
Different equation entirely.

Speaking libertarian-to-libertarian for the moment, people ought to have the freedom to own, carry and use guns. Unless, that is, a compelling argument can be made for infringing on that liberty. Plus, the infringement must be the least onerous practicable, and less harmful than the condition it intends to correct.

That's basically the same argument that any good libertarian would apply to any freedom.

We wrangle about guns because we have the 2nd amendment. We don't have amendments protecting the ownership or use of other things (with the partial exception of homes). Even though, for example, you could probably make a better argument for protecting vehicles than for protecting guns. Or, in this day and age, protecting internet access.

So . . . the question resolves to these elements, I think. Can a compelling argument be made for infringing the liberty to own, carry and use guns and, if so, are the remedies proposed practicable and minimally intrusive?

Do you think the number of gun-related deaths provides a sufficiently compelling reason? I do. And I don't believe I have ever heard anyone sensibly argue that all these gun-related deaths is not a compelling argument. Can you make that argument?

But even if you agree that the compelling argument criterion has been met, compelling argument to do what, exactly? That's where it gets tricky, imo.
 
Well, since you skimmed to see if I answered the question, maybe you can skim and see that I stated I was in favor of expanded background checks, at least seven times in this thread alone. One would think someone is intentionally trying to miss that. If not, good to know.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of skimming.

I do now see that you said this ONCE prior to my responding to a DIFFERENT comment that got your knickers in a twist.

I don't apologize for failing to compliment you on saying something that is merely sensible.

It's a nice day.

Thank you for noticing it's a nice day.

Thank you for noticing that I noticed it's a nice day.

See how tedious it would quickly get if we had to compliment people for merely being ordinarily sensible?

If it weren't for the gun nuts distorting the conversation, you wouldn't expect me to have commented just because you made a sensible post.
 
I agree with everything you said. Personally, I don't like that ordinary civilians are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

These ideas won't fix the problem, because America is full of wackos (both sides) and just an all around angry mentality. But these ideas wouldn't most certainly help curtail some of the killings, IMO.

Would or wouldn't help curtail some the killings?

I believe it would help, and that is all anyone is asking for at this point. Let's see what does and doesn't work and then build from there. Throwing our hands up and indicating that nothing will eliminate the problem completely so let's do nothing is not an answer most are willing to accept.
 
Would or wouldn't help curtail some the killings?

I believe it would help, and that is all anyone is asking for at this point. Let's see what does and doesn't work and then build from there. Throwing our hands up and indicating that nothing will eliminate the problem completely so let's do nothing is not an answer most are willing to accept.

Sorry, would. :confused:
 
These ideas won't fix the problem, because America is full of wackos (both sides) and just an all around angry mentality. But these ideas wouldn't most certainly help curtail some of the killings, IMO.
Not sure how alleged wackos on the anti-gun side are contributing to the problem of kids (or anyone else) being killed by guns.
 
Apparently you don't understand the concept of skimming.

I do now see that you said this ONCE prior to my responding to a DIFFERENT comment that got your knickers in a twist.

I don't apologize for failing to compliment you on saying something that is merely sensible.

It's a nice day.

Thank you for noticing it's a nice day.

Thank you for noticing that I noticed it's a nice day.

See how tedious it would quickly get if we had to compliment people for merely being ordinarily sensible?

If it weren't for the gun nuts distorting the conversation, you wouldn't expect me to have commented just because you made a sensible post.


Oh that's all fine. I'm still waiting for your first sensible post.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT