Welcome to 'Murica

[Darkwing Duck]

Whee pointless arguments!

Political points against who exactly? To divide who? Those who favor killing people based on religion from those that don't?

What an absurd response.

Political points against other people's ideology. "See, people who aren't religious shoot people." "See, people who are right wing nut jobs shoot people." Seriously, have you read this thread? It's ideological right versus left points with absolutely no discussion on actual solutions.

Divide people into two different camps. Us versus them. Them vs. me. Society against me. It's this cultural, political divide of aggressive ideological arguing that drives people to hate and act agressively.

Last mass shooting was because someone wasn't the right religion. This one was for having religion. Next one will be for not having religion. Last one was a right wing clod. This one is a left wing clod. It's pretty pointless for trying to reduce mass shootings when arguing tired political platform points like MORE GUNS right side and NO GUNS left side.

Can we actually try to find purpose for these shootings and why these people choose this avenue? Happens more here than any other 1st world country. Is that something you're happy with? Is the only solution either extreme side of the two major political party's viewpoint? Only solutions I really see in this thread is "it needs to be the extreme side I agree with and it's only this bad because the other side is getting their way, but we can't change it short of Civil War so woe is America."

Only other things hinting at are gun education, which is a fallacy as I mentioned earlier, or mental illness, which is a red herring.

Best response was one you made a bit ago. Stuff I wouldn't necessarily agree with, but one that's a much better starting point then "Didja see this guy was killing religious people. That means something, right, cause ALL killers aren't religious," which was pretty much the implication made.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm genuinely curious to those many things.

My use of firearms have been two fold. Killing something (hunting), or becoming more proficient at killing something (range shooting).

I can't think of any proficient, responsible use of a firearm that doesn't involve killing something. I mean, I can't think of any use of one as a tool that is more efficient than something else.

He said kill a person. Significant difference between a person and an animal.

hunting isn't just about shooting something, it's a bonding time. I like to shoot trap because it's fun and relaxing. Somehow I don't think shooting flying clay pigeons is training me to kill humans though, unless they're grtting sent flying in the air like a duck.

 

[Jamezz]

He said kill a person. Significant difference between a person and an animal.

hunting isn't just about shooting something, it's a bonding time. I like to shoot trap because it's fun and relaxing. Somehow I don't think shooting flying clay pigeons is training me to kill humans though, unless they're grtting sent flying in the air like a duck.

LOL, I can see it. Human Trapshooting, the new event in the next Olympic Games.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

He said kill a person. Significant difference between a person and an animal.

hunting isn't just about shooting something, it's a bonding time. I like to shoot trap because it's fun and relaxing. Somehow I don't think shooting flying clay pigeons is training me to kill humans though, unless they're grtting sent flying in the air like a duck.

Agreed on bolded (though "significant" difference is what would be debated). Goes back to extreme end of political side I've been harping on the entire thread.

I've also considering in the past revising "killing" to "destroy."

One can bond without the use of firearms, even in an outdoors setting. Don't need a firearm to bond. The use and carrying of one is for the sole purpose of killing what you're after. The above isn't pejorative in any way. It's just fact.

Shooting clay is an interesting nuance. It's mimicking pheasant hunting and the like, which would in my mind put it in the same breath as range shooting (goal is to be more proficient than not).

I find treating firearms as "recreation" as minimizing their lethal purpose. This isn't to be read as not deriving enjoyment for increasing skill. I shoot for purpose.

 

[NAOS]

He said kill a person. Significant difference between a person and an animal.

hunting isn't just about shooting something, it's a bonding time. I like to shoot trap because it's fun and relaxing. Somehow I don't think shooting flying clay pigeons is training me to kill humans though, unless they're grtting sent flying in the air like a duck.

the romantic language language cuts in all directions:

1. A bonding time, organized around a natural human sport

2. The trans-migration of lost and virulent souls; it is natural that they be moved on to the next incarnation

3. Soothed eternity, now that I've avenged the death of my brother.

4. The fallen were just murders; we secured the future for subsequent generations.

5. They are a vile, sinister race; by killing them we are cleansing our realm.



IN OTHER WORDS, save the romantic rubbish. Or, realize that you're just the next clown for believing too strongly in his romanticism.

 

[fishonjazz]

Soooooo are we just going to ignore that this dude was explicitly targeting Christians? Anybody today who is killing people because they don't agree with their belief sets, that's a messed up person.

But wouldn't there be the same number of messed up people in other countries that want to kill a bunch of Christians?

The common denominator in America are guns.
That's what is lacking for the messed up people in other countries.

Mental issues are unavoidable.
Guns on the other hand are avoidable (in some countries anyway)

 

[Miggs]

Soooooo are we just going to ignore that this dude was explicitly targeting Christians? Anybody today who is killing people because they don't agree with their belief sets, that's a messed up person.

Yes, we're ignoring it. No blacks were killed.

Were they?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Still haven't heard what we're banning and why.

 

[gandalfe]

As is often the case, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it best:

"Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people. Fired from guns, brandished by people, who shoot you by accident or on purpose."

 

[fishonjazz]

Still haven't heard what we're banning and why.

Still don't know why you are asking this.
The thread is discussing America and the prevalence of guns in it.

The thread is not a ban guns thread. Dutchjazzer is not around currently.
You will have to wait until he comes back and he will have this discussion that you crave

 

[RandyForRubio]

Still don't know why you are asking this.
The thread is discussing America and the prevalence of guns in it.

The thread is not a ban guns thread. Dutchjazzer is not around currently.
You will have to wait until he comes back and he will have this discussion that you crave

Bruh, half this thread is discussing that we need to ban guns. I'm trying to figure out what they want to ban and why. It's a logical step in this discussion.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Bruh, half this thread is discussing that we need to ban guns. I'm trying to figure out what they want to ban and why. It's a logical step in this discussion.

No, the discussion has been around gun control, not a full ban. Why not discuss which regulations you're willing to accept in order to keep people safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk