It would -certainly- be a bad idea to allow citizens to take their pistols into concert halls, in this country..and preventing them from doing so does not violate any rights. I'll go out on a limb, here, and call the Charlie Bronsons of the world mouth-breathers. It's in the best interests, though, of politicians on either side of the issue, to make sure that this is the face of the pro-gun crowd...regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Apparently, some of us just eat that shit right up. Here you go John Q, have another heaping helping of fuck you. Now pull the lever and pay me.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, yes, you're absolutely right,  and black people are obsessed with fried chicken...because it's the first thing that comes to mind.  I'm part of the gun problem, obviously...because guns, thank you for clearing that up.  

Gun owners are part of the problem because they own guns. If people did not own guns then criminals would not need to use guns. People who advocate gun ownership are therefore part of the problem. You can't remove guns from the criminal world without also removing them from law abiding citizens. So by owning a gun you are increasing the number of guns in your country.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can only reply, that you, people like you, and comments like yours...are the -actual- source of the gun problem in this country, insomuch as our inactivity is concerned.  

So people who are against gun ownership in your country are responsible for all the gun massacres are they? How does that work? Or are you saying that they are responsible for the march towards fascism?

Do you really think gun ownership stops a fascist government from taking over? What about a consumerist lifestyle? How has gun ownership stopped your civil liberties being eroded away so far? Has gun ownership stopped the NSA spying on you? Has it stopped corporate lobbying eroding your democracy?

People such as yourself are contributors, yes, because we need people such as yourself to maintain the fiction that we are actually doing something, or even interested in doing something, that might solve the problem we have.  We need people such as yourself to dismiss, without actually addressing, the comments of people who actually -do- want to do something, and demand that the "something" we do actually work. We need people like you, to show other people like you, that it's okay to base ones vote and affiliation on ignorance and tagline. We need people like you, to excuse our politicians for their ineffectivenesss, and allow them to reduce both their own platform and the platform of their opposition to a single line, so as to shed the responsibility they have of providing actual governance.

You, are an unintentional shill. I'm sorry, we're assholes like that, and that's not your fault.

Meanwhile, none of my guns, not a one...and there are many, have ever shot anyone -except myself-...and they never will. So tell me again how I'm contributing?

(November 17, 2015 at 11:57 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: It's amazing how someone can say something like this after a terrible mass shooting in a country with strict gun control. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US people say how we need to ban guns to prevent tragedies like this is the future. Every time.

Are you arguing that countries with stricter gun-control laws don't tend to have lower murder rates? Take a look at this list.

(November 17, 2015 at 11:57 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: The overall murder rate is never brought up. And do you know why that is? Well maybe because it has little affect on the overall murder rate.

Maybe. Do you have data supporting that?

(November 17, 2015 at 11:57 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: It certainly didn't have any affect in England when gun laws were enacted in 1964 and the crime rate when up  or stayed relatively similar throughout the next decade.

Firstly, the Firearms Act you refer to was in 1968, not 1964. Secondly, semi-automatic rifles weren't banned until 1988, and pistols not until 1996.

(November 17, 2015 at 11:57 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: People always make the case 'well look at the low crime rate in Europe' by which of course they mean only western Europe, all of which certainly has low violence but all of which doesn't even have strict gun control. Meanwhile the crime rate in Eastern Europe is sky high with similar gun control laws. On top of that western Europe has always had a lower crime rate than the US, even when their gun laws were similar. These are the facts that most people on both sides of this debate are terribly ignorant of and incidentally the more important and interesting conversation.

I'm not sure why you're pointing this out in a reply to me. I've made none of the points you've imputed above -- not one of them.

I support some controls on gun ownership, and think in certain instances they can help thwart crime. But your expectation that they should eliminate all murders is pretty unrealistic. Hopefully, this clears up for you what it is I'm saying.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 11:57 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: It's amazing how someone can say something like this after a terrible mass shooting in a country with strict gun control. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US people say how we need to ban guns to prevent tragedies like this is the future. Every time.

Are you arguing that countries with stricter gun-control laws don't tend to have lower murder rates? Take a look at this list.

A better argument, Thump, would be that strict guns laws are not the -cause- of low murder rates.  That would be a better argument, because they aren't...or at least no one has managed to establish that they are (and not for lack of trying), while the field of american gun law and gun homicide plainly demonstrates that there is no causal relationship.  Might be different elsewhere, but we don't write other countries laws, and we aren't looking to solve other countries problems by writing laws here.

For data supporting this, you need look no further than the CDC and FBI. One, no longer allowed to research (wtf)..and the other no longer interested in enforcing.....(semi-wtf).

(November 17, 2015 at 12:21 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: You know what I wish. I wish all the people who on this thread are saying reasonable things like 'gun laws don't prevent all shootings' or 'the overall crime rate is what we really need to look at' would say that after mass shootings in the US.

Actually, that's exactly what I do, both here and at another forum where I post. You're welcome.

(November 17, 2015 at 12:21 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Instead it's mostly just crappy emotional arguments and threads every time.

The OP was clearly aimed at pushing an agenda, not creating constructive conversation. It was shitposting, and only a fool would expect anything other than "crappy emotional arguments and threads" after posting it -- especially when you have already shown a predilection for arguing against points I have not even raised.

You can have the last word; this is an idiotic thread and I am not going to waste time bandying words with someone who clearly is aiming for rhetorical points and not substance.

(November 17, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A better argument, Thump, would be that strict guns laws are not the -cause- of low murder rates.  That would be a better argument, because they aren't...or at least no one has managed to establish that they are (and not for lack of trying), while the field of american gun law and gun homicide plainly demonstrates that there is no causal relationship.  Might be different elsewhere, but we don't write other countries laws, and we aren't looking to solve other countries problems by writing laws here.

For data supporting this, you need look no further than the CDC and FBI.  One, no longer allowed to research (wtf)..and the other no longer interested in enforcing.....(semi-wtf).

I certainly don't think that they are always directly linked. I also think that the issue has so many variables that unwinding one of those variables out of the equation is probably impossible. In other words, what works in Wyoming probably wouldn't work in New York, because the cultures are different.

As for not looking to solve other countries' problems here, the OP specifically mentioned another country, so I think it's germane. But as I said in my reply to him above, I'm done in this thread; it's clear he's not interested in decent conversation (with me at least) so I'm not going to waste any more time here ... just wanted to give you the decency of a reply.

1. Because absolutely NO amount of control will stop a determined enemy from breaking the law.

2. Because the law wasn't created to target terrorists

But I got you baby, I -do- want to have that conversation.  I fucking long for it, lol.  I have this strange notion that if we actually had such a conversation, nationally - mind you, we might be able to come up with solutions. I don't think it's impossible to unwind variables, in this one (specific to the us). I could unwind a great one, but it's uncomfortable, lol.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: People such as yourself are contributors, yes, because we need people such as yourself to maintain the fiction that we are actually doing something, or even interested in doing something, that might solve the problem we have.  We need people such as yourself to dismiss, without actually addressing, the comments of people who actually -do- want to do something, and demand that the "something" we do actually work.  We need people like you, to show other people like you, that it's okay to base ones vote and affiliation on ignorance and tagline.

What does that even mean?

(November 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote:  We need people like you, to excuse our politicians for their ineffectivenesss, and allow them to reduce both their own platform and the platform of their opposition to a single line, so as to shed the responsibility they have of providing actual governance.  

Strawman.

Who has been excusing your politicians for being ineffective? Did I say that?

(November 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You, are an unintentional shill.  I'm sorry, we're assholes like that, and that's not your fault.

And you are deluded if you think gun ownership will stop the removal of your civil liberties. I noticed for example that you did not counter my argument in my previous post that they haven't yet stopped the NSA from spying on you or the removal of your rights. So at what point is gun ownership going to be useful in stopping a fascist government from rising up? It's called the thin end of a wedge for a reason you know.

And are you even contemplating that there could be something more important than gun ownership in achieving this? Like for example education.

What would you prefer? An uneducated gun toting population that believes everything its leaders tell it? Or an educated population with strict gun controls? This is not a false dichotomy because if you choose the latter than you admit that education is more important than gun ownership. If your population is educated and politically aware then you don't need guns because politicians can't get away with their lies and selling you out.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meanwhile, none of my guns, not a one...and there are many, have ever shot anyone -except myself-...and they never will.  So tell me again how I'm contributing?

Because by the mere fact of owning a gun you are creating yet one more opportunity for it to be stolen and for it to fall into the hands of a criminal. No matter how careful you are, your house can still be broken into.

Also if law abiding citizens own guns then criminals need to carry them. If law abiding citizens did not routinely own guns then criminals would not need to use them. You're probably thinking that they would anyway but they carry a cost. If the criminal gets caught with it then they are more likely to be sent to jail for a long time. If the criminal needs to use one then it's more likely to result in murder which again increases the chances of being caught and sent to jail.