Jump to content

Yay, GUNS!


ydoaPs

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You stated my sentiment on guns applied equally to nuclear weapons. I in no way mischaracterized what you said. 

What I posted is in black white for anyone to read. There is no point is debating it. I find it hilarious your response has shrunken down to something entirely superfluous and off topic.

 

The crux of my responses to you have been that entering political discussions from a compromised position has repeated failed. When bargaining the price of something it is stupid for a person to lead off with the absolute most they are willing to pay. Rather one leads off with a price significantly less and are negotiated up. For decades now those who seek change to gun regulations have led off discussion by asking for minimum then end up walking away with nothing. I feel it is time for a stronger approach. Lead off by asking for everything, the maximum everyone in the room can imagine, and then negotiate down from there. Perhaps then the minimum can be achieved rather than nothing at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

e.g. they are repeating, and spreading around, NRA slogans..

Okay, last time I'll make this point. IMO it is counter productive to make over the top statements, such as implying that gun owners have been brainwashed. As a gun owner, why would I be interested in negotiating with someone who is being intellectually dishonest by suggesting I've been brainwashed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Okay, last time I'll make this point. IMO it is counter productive to make over the top statements, such as implying that gun owners have been brainwashed. As a gun owner, why would I be interested in negotiating with someone who is being intellectually dishonest by suggesting I've been brainwashed?

I thought it was a form of better negotiating?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What I posted is in black white for anyone to read. There is no point is debating it. I find it hilarious your response has shrunken down to something entirely superfluous and off topic.

Yes, by all means minimize what I said to something superfluous, hilarious, and off topic, rather than trying to understand why I think your statements are counter productive in the larger debate.

Quote

The crux of my responses to you have been that entering political discussions from a compromised position has repeated failed.  bargaining the price of something it is stupid for a person to lead off with the absolute most they are willing to pay. Rather one leads off with a price significantly less and are negotiated up. For decades now those who seek change to gun regulations have led off discussion by asking for minimum then end up walking away with nothing. I feel it is time for a stronger approach. Lead off by asking for everything, the maximum everyone in the room can imagine, and then negotiate down from there. Perhaps then the minimum can be achieved rather than nothing at all. 

You and those like you would make great members of the Tea Party. You are eating your own.

You can't even avoid alienating people like me who are in favor of gun control, simply because it is your way or the highway. How are things going to progress when you start this with the people who don't want gun control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I know you can be sent off to war at the ripe old age of 18, but Raider has mentioned how many 10 yr olds he knows that own a gun.
And while I realize it is best to train youngsters in their use , if they're going to have a gun, is there any justification in letting children have guns ?

3

The majority of the people living where I do will ultimately start hunting at some point. 

So, it's better to teach them how to use them while they're young, then trying to tell a know it all teen how to use it later.

If it's second nature by the time they're 12 to always practice safe gun use, then it's less likely an event of pointing the rifle at someone and pulling the trigger will happen(as did this summer that I mentioned in a previous post). I personally believe if the kid had been raised around guns, and had the same thing drilled into him every single time access to the gun was available, he wouldn't have had an accident.

 

Additionally, it's not like the kids are toting the guns around at school. They're typically kept locked up and they're "theirs" but they never use them unless someone is watching. As in their parents. And when they do get out the gun, same rules are constantly repeated the entire time.

They're taught how to hold the gun with two hands so you don't drop it, never to carry it with your finger on the trigger, always point it at the sky when carrying it, etc.

Gun safety is practiced. The justification is that they get used to the guns before they use them.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Having a car is very useful. If people didn't have access to personal transportation the whole economy would suffer. One still needs to be the right age, pass a test, have insurance, and be licensed to drive. Everyone isn't legally able to drive. People with very medical conditions, previous DUIs, and so on are not allowed to drive. Something being useful doesn't automatically mean everyone should have unlimited access.

The problem with your form of debate is you always assume it's either your way entirely, or completely against you.

In no way or form did I say they should have unlimited access. You've focused on only one part of my argument.

It's like saying:

Random person: You said, "they should have unlimited access"

When actually I said, "In no way or form did I say they should have unlimited access."

 

 

 

You're absolutely right. I did say it. But you also took it out of context. And context matters.

Previously I stated semi-automatic weapons should be hard to get, regulated, and you should be required to have background checks and mental fitness exams.

You've completely dropped that statement, in exchange for quoting only a portion of my argument and telling me that just because they're useful doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated.

 

You've made up an argument for me that I didn't say. That's not helping anything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You and those like you would make great members of the Tea Party

Going into the  2010 midterms Democrats had the majority of the House and Senate well as the White House. In large part to the Tea Party Republicans took control of the House and gained 5 seats in the Senate. Today Republicans control every branch of govt. If not for the Tea Party the supreme court would be majority democrat nominated judges at this point. The Tea Party has been wildly successful at achieve goals conservatives care about.

 

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You can't even avoid alienating people like me

What have I proposed that alienates you? I have said everything should be on the table for negotiation. Why does allowing everything on the table for debate alienate you; it is actually the more inclusive way to do it. Insisting on starting from a compromised position alienates everyone that wants more. Seem best to lay all grievances out. 

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The majority of the people living where I do will ultimately start hunting at some point. 

So, it's better to teach them how to use them while they're young, then trying to tell a know it all teen how to use it later.

Swap out hunting for driving and what's the difference. Should we buy cars for 10yr olds and start teaching them to drive because they are going to drive one day anyway and when they are teenagers it will be too difficult to teach them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Going into the  2010 midterms Democrats had the majority of the House and Senate well as the White House. In large part to the Tea Party Republicans took control of the House and gained 5 seats in the Senate. Today Republicans control every branch of govt. If not for the Tea Party the supreme court would be majority democrat nominated judges at this point. The Tea Party has been wildly successful at achieve goals conservatives care about.

 

What have I proposed that alienates you? I have said everything should be on the table for negotiation. Why does allowing everything on the table for debate alienate you; it is actually the more inclusive way to do it. Insisting on starting from a compromised position alienates everyone that wants more. Seem best to lay all grievances out. 

Swap out hunting for driving and what's the difference. Should we buy cars for 10yr olds and start teaching them to drive because they are going to drive one day anyway and when they are teenagers it will be too difficult to teach them? 

I was allowed to drive cars at ten, motorcycles a few years later, off road of course but I drove them... I was taught to drive by responsible adults who limited my access but allowed me to learn. responsible adults seem to figure rather importantly into raising children. 

I hate to say it but at least some of these shootings seem to be, at least on some level, the result of a lack of responsible parenting to some extent... 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I apologize for barging in but as a non US/Canada citizen who used to live in the US for 3 years as a kid I have a story that might be semi-relevant:

I was 13-16 living in Michigan close to Detroit in a small town, republican town but I wasn’t aware of that at the time (kudos for being semi-aware to @Raider5678) So I was already assimilated after 10-12 months in the US, other kids accepted me as their own. After 2 years I was basically indistinguishable from the natives. So me and my buddy George had a thing for RC cars and blowing things up (teenagers) Georgie had an older brother who got us 2 pounds quality gunpowder at the mall and I used it to build bombs out large CO2 cartridges in my garage. It was me, 2 pounds of millitary grade gunpowder, bunch of large CO2 cargridges, some water proof wick, goggles in a garage - the whole shebang which you normally see in an 80’s movie. I managed to not get myself blown up which obvioulsy was a great possibilty, I built the charges and we used them...one of them at George’s house, we blew up his fathers tree by drilliing it at placing the charge inside the hole. Typical early teenage moron stuff. The crux of the story is...why the hell were we able (me and George) to get our hands on 2 pounds of fast burning, ammunition grade gunpowder at the age of 13 in a middle class small town. We did get in trouble when we detonated a charge in a lake...a bunch of fish died and the police came. That is my contribution to this thread. Oh...and maybe, just maybe... if there is less weapons easily available there will be less incidents? Doesn’t it come down to letting go of some of the rights that we have to prevent horrible things happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, koti said:

Doesn’t it come down to letting go of some of the rights that we have to prevent horrible things happening?

Precisely. Many, however, would prefer to let horrible things continue than to surrender any rights. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These 'negotiations' are nuts.
We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy.
Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away...
People are dying because of easily accessible guns.

Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths.
And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem.

I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

These 'negotiations' are nuts.
We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy.
Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away...
People are dying because of easily accessible guns.

Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths.
And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem.

I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?

The worse it gets, the more they think they need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Precisely. Many, however, would prefer to let horrible things continue than to surrender any rights. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

It's a sad day when those who scream the loudest about their rights being violated have the least regard for the rights to life and liberty of the victims and their families.

The rights of the individual should never be greater or lesser than the rights of the group. In America, that's gone out the window.

Selfishness prevails.

Although resources are not the issue with guns, a tragedy of the commons is occurring nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

These 'negotiations' are nuts.
We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy.
Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away...
People are dying because of easily accessible guns.

Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths.
And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem.

I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?

 I say no more right now, how do we keep this from happening? Give me a way to take the guns from 350 million people? Do you persecute other wise innocents, knock down walls of every dwelling in the USA, more importantly stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes?  How do you take guns from criminals. Is it worth turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals? Accidental shootings by trained police officers is not uncommon, do you take their guns away? 

How does me turning in my shotgun save little kids? If a criminal does attack me, and it does happen with some regularity, I guess I can feel satisfied that when the criminal is gone the police can try to catch who did it after me and mine are buried?   

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

What about keeping our shotguns and rifles with five rounds max magazines and giving up all others?

I could go for that but it would be very difficult to do this, personally I have given up all my handguns and now only keep shotguns.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

It is, indeed, a self-reinforcing cycle. 

'self-reinforcing', that's what I was looking for. :)  Yes, it's got the same inbuilt momentum as drug addiction; the worse it gets, the more you need. A lot of people can't see the forest for the trees any more.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away...
People are dying because of easily accessible guns.

And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem.

Yes, yes and yes. You've given me some pause to reconsider some things I've said about your comments in the past. I've been overly harsh,  my apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, I think that was brought up earlier in the thread.

So was the intellectual dishonesty of comments like this

 

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure that if you asked them just before they accidentally backed over their child with their car and killed them, that people would give up their cars right now.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll keep my guns.

But feel free to keep hammering it in the hope that it convinces those who are not able to understand the difference.

 

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem.

It's worse than that. The fact that they think they need a gun " to protect yourself from all the others who have guns" says a lot about the cause of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

“My friends and fellow citizens, your guns are not protecting you. Your guns are killing our kids.”

Moon, Zapatos, and I, have all said we need stricter gun control laws.

I don't want to be rude, but I would appreciate it if you stopped associating us with the death of children.

 

 

Also, I thought I read somewhere in this thread that guns were used in a lot of suicides. Not sure who said it, but I'd also like to point out guns are not a correlation to suicide rates, nor attempts. France and Germany both have 1/3rd the number of guns per person, and more than twice the amount of suicides per 100,000 people. Suicide is a whole other issue.

 

 

 

 

Also, addressed to everyone.

It seems to me EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. here is in favor of better gun control laws.

Does anyone dispute this?

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.