What's new
By:

Gun Control

Stoked said:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...

Ugh spare me the paranoid Mumbai jumbo. Because everywhere there's been gun regulation there has been a dictatorial uprising. Or an alterior motive besides not wanting to get shot in a mall, on a street, etc.
 
Sneakers said:
Ugh spare me the paranoid Mumbai jumbo. Because everywhere there's been gun regulation there has been a dictatorial uprising. Or an alterior motive besides not wanting to get shot in a mall, on a street, etc.
Click to expand...

But it is a very real possibility. Plus it is simply my right wether you like it or not.
 
Sneakers said:
Ok then I'm not in favor of banning what you technically refer to assault rifles. I'm interested in banning weapons that meet the criteria I mentioned. It should be obvious we aren't talking about the same thing. Don't get lost in the details.
Click to expand...

The problem is that everything except muzzle-loaders, pump-action shotguns and bolt action rifles meets your criteria. So all revolvers, all pistols, many rifles legitimately used in hunting (as a little bit of a side note, AR-15s are regularly used to hunt coyotes, but semi-automatic rifles can and are used to hunt deer as well as semi-auto shotguns used to hunt birds).

So you want to ban 90% or more of the guns people own today.
 
Sneakers said:
No, America suddenly becoming a Naziesque fascist state is not a very real possibility. That's called paranoia
Click to expand...

Says you. There are plenty of people who think it's far more likely to happen than getting killed in a mass shooting. And they (we) think your sudden urge to ban guns is the real paranoia.
 
Gameface said:
The problem is that everything except muzzle-loaders, pump-action shotguns and bolt action rifles meets your criteria. So all revolvers, all pistols, many rifles legitimately used in hunting (as a little bit of a side note, AR-15s are regularly used to hunt coyotes, but semi-automatic rifles can and are used to hunt deer as well as semi-auto shotguns used to hunt birds).

So you want to ban 90% or more of the guns people own today.
Click to expand...

I already said how naive my gun understanding is. Surely if I was enacting any sort of plan I would take a closer look and have all the information, like what you're providing, in front of me and cognizant in my mind. So don't try and snowball me.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Says you. There are plenty of people who think it's far more likely to happen than getting killed in a mass shooting. And they (we) think your sudden urge to ban guns is the real paranoia.
Click to expand...

You're right, there are plenty of irrationally paranoid people.

A fascist uprising is more likely than another mass shooting? I like how you call it a sudden urge, as of it was brought on by absolutely nothing.
 
Sneakers said:
I already said how naive my gun understanding is. Surely if I was enacting any sort of plan I would take a closer look and have all the information, like what you're providing, in front of me and cognizant in my mind. So don't try and snowball me.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to snowball you. I'm providing information. I feel like we're on the verge of new and improved gun regulations that are based on Myths, half-truths and outright lies. I'd like to do my small part to inform the supporters of these new measures of the ineffective, illogical and damaging effects these measures will have.
 
Sneakers said:
You're right, there are plenty of irrationally paranoid people.

A fascist uprising is more likely than another mass shooting? I like how you call it a sudden urge, as of it was brought on by absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

A tyrannical government stripping away my rights and freedoms is FAR more likely than me getting killed in a mass shooting.

Substitute "me" for "you" and it's equally true.
 
Dude. You. Are. Paranoid.

And yes while the odds of me, or you getting murdered in one of these massacres is statistically low. Replace the pronoun with "loved one" and the odds increase, albeit by very little. Replace "loved one" with "acquaintance" and the odds go up more. Replace acquaintance with "child" and now we're talking bigger odds here. Replace child with "innocent person" and I'd say that yes, definitively, the odds of an innocent person being murdered in a shooting massacre is higher than the US government suddenly trying to take over. This isn't just about protecting my own ***. It's the general principle.
 
Sneakers said:
Dude. You. Are. Paranoid.

And yes while the odds of me, or you getting murdered in one of these massacres is statistically low. Replace the pronoun with "loved one" and the odds increase, albeit by very little. Replace "loved one" with "acquaintance" and the odds go up more. Replace acquaintance with "child" and now we're talking bigger odds here. Replace child with "innocent person" and I'd say that yes, definitively, the odds of an innocent person being murdered in a shooting massacre is higher than the US government suddenly trying to take over. This isn't just about protecting my own ***. It's the general principle.
Click to expand...

Okay, so then you admit the chances that you, your loved ones, and anyone you've ever met, being shot in a mass shooting, are pretty minimal. Yet you're pushing this draconian regulation to strip people of their rights and freedoms, in order to supposedly reduce the already minimal chance of it happening.

And you have the nerve to say I'm the paranoid one, lol.

The government has been stripping away rights and freedoms for some time now. If you think it's unlikely to happen, while it's happening and been happening for years, you're much worse than paranoid.

One could even make the argument that you're actually part of the problem, since you're here promoting the degradation and stripping of constitutional rights, and somehow acting like it's any of your business what products I keep in my own home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top