Let's Talk About Gun Control

[MeachTheMonster]

Please tell me how you are going to invent a machine that reads people's thoughts and intention. This isn't the Minority Report son.




By all means, share that data here please. The only data you have shown here seems to back up my point.




Please provide me with one person that has said this. I'd like to read their argument.



Yes, it does.



Like what? Every major change, except ONE, to the Constitution has been in favor of granting MORE freedom to the population and guaranteeing more rights. The other one, prohibition, was an absolute failure. You might want to to read up on that.






Are you even reading what you are writing? Britain has absolutely draconian gun laws, and they can't stop the imports of gun. They live on a fukking island.



3 illegal guns? Source? The guns were bought legally. They were stolen from the rightful owner, who has shot dead. A felony was committed prior to her being killed. Nothing short of the minority report would have stopped that.



The big problem is NOT the guns. You have admitted this already multiple times.





Yea, and how many terrorist attacks of that magnitude happened before 9/11 and the resulting legislation was put into place? One? Oh, okay.

You want to talk shyt and play games instead of having a real conversation. When important points are made you deflect, and mock the seriousness of the situation. Nobody said anything about mind control or minority report. America has a problem with legal guns being turned into ilegal guns if you don't think we should make steps to prevent that then I don't know what to tell you.

Keep your guns and your ignorance and nothing will ever change in this country.

 

[Type Username Here]

in some ways, they also have tighter regulation

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case of the shooting yesterday, how would have tighter regulations played role? The mother bought the weapons legally. She didn't commit any crime. The worst crime she might have committed was neglecting the health of her child. How can you possibly foresee that?

It seems that the more information that comes out, the more your arguments seem to be reduced to the emotional outburst that they are.

It's going to be really interesting if it turns out that this tragedy occurred with two handguns, and not this AR15. Considering that most of the kids were shot "execution" style, it wouldn't really make a difference if it was a rifle or a handgun.

 

[88m3]

@Type Username Here

 

[Type Username Here]

You want to talk shyt and play games instead of having a real conversation. When important points are made you deflect, and mock the seriousness of the situation. Nobody said anything about mind control or minority report. America has a problem with legal guns being turned into ilegal guns if you don't think we should make steps to prevent that then I don't know what to tell you.

Keep your guns and your ignorance and nothing will ever change in this country.

Deflect?

You just have admitted in this thread:

1) There are other factors aside from guns that makes the problem in America different.

2) The person who did was mentally ill

3) That while guns are banned in Britain, a fukking island, they still come in illegally.

You have admitted the above.

 

[Type Username Here]

@Type Username Here

And? It's tragic.

It's a violent act by a disturbed human being.

It doesn't mean I'm going to let my emotions get in the way of reason. If you want to do that, by all means it's your right.

I learned my lesson in the last 12 years about exchanging rights for the illusion of safety.

 

[88m3]

And? It's tragic.

It's a violent act by a disturbed human being.

It doesn't mean I'm going to let my emotions get in the way of reason. If you want to do that, by all means it's your right.

I learned my lesson in the last 12 years about exchanging rights for the illusion of safety.

You want to gloss over my posts and logic entailed why is that?


I don't see how guns=safety


Do you want people to die senselessly?

 

[Type Username Here]

You want to gloss over my posts and logic entailed why is that?


I don't see how guns=safety


Do you want people to die senselessly?

No, I don't want people to die senselessly.

But I don't want to give up my rights because people die senselessly. When you choose to live in an open and free society, tragedies will happen when people take advantage of such openness.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Deflect?

You just have admitted in this thread:

1) There are other factors aside from guns that makes the problem in America different.

2) The person who did was mentally ill

3) That while guns are banned in Britain, a fukking island, they still come in illegally.

You have admitted the above.

And none of that means we shouldn't try to control guns better. In fact it means we should try harder. Retards, guns in Britan and societal issues are all arguments for gun control not against

 

[daze23]

In the case of the shooting yesterday, how would have tighter regulations played role? The mother bought the weapons legally. She didn't commit any crime. The worst crime she might have committed was neglecting the health of her child. How can you possibly foresee that?

again, this thread is about gun control in general. she may have committed a crime in how she stored the weapons, but I don't know the exact laws of her state, nor exactly how he got the guns from her. and like I said:

it's funny how you assume everyone is gonna ignore your post, and then you gloss over my response. and then look how rude you are to me saying shyt like "people/types like you". did I say anything to warrant that?

for the record I never said anything about him buying the weapons himself (I'm not sure about other people). in fact, I've been staying away from the actual story since there seems to still be a lot of confusion

like i said, it seems that info could be used in an argument for all out gun control. what steps exactly could be taken to prevent this sort of thing in the future. the mother could have locked up the guns better, but maybe she did and crafty son figured out how to get them. regardless it seems hard to enforce how people store their weapons in their home. should we just say "oh well, this was unpreventable"? I don't think that's very helpful. his mother did buy the guns legally (again, I'm not ready to get attached to any of the "facts" in this case yet, so I'll just say that's an assumption), and if she didn't own those guns, he couldn't have stole them from her (could he have gotten them some other way? perhaps...). this is very similar to the argument about how many 'illegal guns' were once purchased legally and then stolen. sure, it would be great if everyone properly stored their weapons, but that's just not reality

It seems that the more information that comes out, the more your arguments seem to be reduced to the emotional outburst that they are.

stop it dude. you're not doing yourself or your argument any favors by trying to frame people's arguments like this

 

[Type Username Here]

And none of that means we shouldn't try to control guns better. In fact it means we should try harder. Retards, guns in Britan and societal issues are all arguments for gun control not against

You have been calling people names throughout this whole thread. Not once, under your own control, have you supplied a source with any valid data to back up your argument.

You have admitted in this thread:

1) While other countries have stricter gun laws, their violence is higher.
2) While other countries have significant per capita gun ownership, there doesn't seem to be any significant gun violence
3) That there seems to be social and economic issues that distinguishes between these countries (and not the guns themselves)
4) That Britain, which went way beyond if what you were previously advocating in this thread, still has homicides and illegal weapons come through the ports and into their streets.


Your entire argument just stinks of emotional outburst, and understandably so. It was an absolutely tragic event. All of these school shootings are.

 

[daze23]

Derailing for Dummies

You're Being Overemotional

It is very likely that the whole reason the Marginalised Person™ in question is debating with you is because they’ve made a conscious decision to speak out about these issues, despite the pain and heartache it can often cause them.
Therefore, the “you’re being hostile” bomb can often lead to an increase of anger and/or hurt. Sometimes it just leads to greater emphasis and exasperation in the argument.

It really doesn’t matter, because you can still use it against them by accusing them of being overemotional. You may wish to use the word “hysterical” instead. “Hysterical” is also a word laden with negative connotations, so it’s particularly effective. Using this one in discussions with women is highly advisable, as the opinions and feelings of women have historically been denied as mere “hysteria”, but it works against almost anyone. A great one to use with women as well is to ask them if they’re “PMSing”. Yes, it’s an oldie but a classic.

If you need more variety, some more handy argument winners involving speculating as to people’s neurotypical status: ask them if they’re “neurotic” or “schizo” for example. Implying people have mental health issues is a great way to dismiss their concerns; it’s also insensitive to people with actual mental health issues!

After all, proper “intellectual” discussions always involve detachment and rationality. What is “rationality”? It’s a way of approaching emotional matters devoid of sentiment, particularly prized by Privileged People® as it enables a continuing inequity of power that favours them: after all, if they aren’t emotionally attached to the topic by way of Lived Experience©, it is easier for them to be “rational”.

 

[Type Username Here]

Derailing for Dummies

You are being over emotional. You are making a judgement and plea solely based on your reaction to yesterday's events.

You are advocating by-passing the Constitution and constitutional processes without providing one single shroud of proof, data, or meaningful observation. It's all personal anecdotes and images that appeal to emotions and not rationality.

 

[Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson]

guns dont kill peeple blas wit guns kill peeple.

 

[daze23]

You are being over emotional. You are making a judgement and plea solely based on your reaction to yesterday's events.

You are advocating by-passing the Constitution and constitutional processes without providing one single shroud of proof, data, or meaningful observation. It's all personal anecdotes and images that appeal to emotions and not rationality.

I was posting in this thread before yesterday's events (and once again, this thread is not about "yesterday's events")

since you want to keep pushing it, can you show me exactly where I've been "over emotional"? and where I advocated "by-passing the constitution"?

 

[88m3]

I was posting in this thread before yesterday's events (and once again, this thread is not about "yesterday's events")

since you want to keep pushing it, can you show me exactly where I've been "over emotional"? and where I advocated "by-passing the constitution"?

You have a false consciousness






It's pretty clear tuh doesn't want to sit at the big boy table on this issue.