Again, 'Murrica. How Many More

[Mermaid]

I disagree CL, I liken this sentiment to demanding that tampon use can only be discussed when a woman isn't menstruating.

I don't think it shouldn't be discussed, it just feels exploitative to have it be the first thing brought up when this happens. Almost like you're using it to further your political stance. I mean, can't we just have like... one day to unite in our common sadness and think about the lives that were taken? Rather than immediately start thinking about/fighting about political issues? Just my opinion.

Thank you so much. I feel this way, too. It made me sick to my stomach to see the immediate bickering about guns and liberals and STUPID shit while actual, real people were injured and DYING.

Perpetuating the division between the left and the right isn't going to do a mother fucking thing to help, and is only making matters worse. Divided we fall and all that.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So you just want to pass a lot of useless word salad to add to all of the previous BS written by idiots just to give the impression that you're doing something.  Did you work for Moses?  He thought a lot of silly rules would lead to perfection.  He was wrong and so are you.  

Anyone can kill anyone for any reason or for no reason at any time by any means.  When Samson killed a thousand armed men with the jawbone of a donkey they didn't pass laws banning donkey jawbones.

Yeah, probably not the most cogent argument to make on an atheist message board,

Boru

The point being that even though those folks thought that laws would solve all of their problems they were still able to draw the line, unlike modern Americans who want 10 million laws covering everything imaginable and unimaginable.  You can bet your ass that if someone killed a thousand people with a donkey's jawbone the clowns would pass a law outlawing the possession of donkey jawbones.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can bet your ass that if someone killed a thousand people with a donkey's jawbone the clowns would pass a law outlawing the possession of donkey jawbones.

The primary difference being that there aren't 300 million donkey jawbones floating around the US, many of them in the hands of unstable, dangerous people.

Look, we get it. You can kill people with knives, bricks, metal piping, all manner of things. But when was the last time someone walked into a conference room and killed/wounded 40 people with a brick? Your cases aren't remotely parallel. Tighter gun regulation isn't going to stop people killing people - nothing will do that. But it might make the wholesale slaughter of innocent people a little harder to accomplish.

Boru

[CapnAwesome]

So you just want to pass a lot of useless word salad to add to all of the previous BS written by idiots just to give the impression that you're doing something.  Did you work for Moses?  He thought a lot of silly rules would lead to perfection.  He was wrong and so are you.  

Anyone can kill anyone for any reason or for no reason at any time by any means.  When Samson killed a thousand armed men with the jawbone of a donkey they didn't pass laws banning donkey jawbones.

People already have as many guns as they want, with barely any regulations. That hasn't made the murder rate go down, has it? The argument that people will defend themselves against attackers is stupid. We already have as many guns in the hands of everyone who wants them, that doesn't stop the crime rate from going up. Maybe putting more effort into mental health in this country would help too, there has to be fucking something. I'm tired of your pejoratives too.

Although I don't think having guns is the cause of it (the most likely cause is an aging populace) the murder rate in the US is at an all time low.

[Minimalist]

The primary difference being that there aren't 300 million donkey jawbones floating around the US,

There's a lot of horse's asses floating around though.

[Minimalist]

And of course, it goes without saying....

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/senate...orists-buy

Senate Republicans Vote To Let Terrorists Buy More Guns

Let's hear from the ammosexuals about why the senate has saved their fucking precious rights.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

[Cyberman]

"Ammosexuals" Delicious!

[rexbeccarox]

Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

What would being a "willing victim" entail, exactly?

ETA: And Min, I'd really like an apology for your strawmanning of me earlier.

[Cyberman]

Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

No, I believe people have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force.