Yes, I'm back again. I keep going inactive and coming back for some reason.
Anyways, I've been increasingly involved in debate and discussion over politics, and the thing that intrigues me the most is firearms. How can a group that claims to be so fervently "pro-life" become pro-death when it comes to any sensible firearms legislation?
I love how the Australian comedian Jim Jeffries absolutely destroys any argument for guns. You should go watch it on YouTube.
His points can be summarized as follows:
1. Nobody really cares about home security or self defense, they only like guns. None of them buy new high-tech padlocks or install secure doors or find efficient non-lethal methods of protecting themselves. They just like guns. It's not about defense, it's about these fun little machines that look cool but can kill.
2. More guns will not solve gun violence. More guns will mean more gun violence. Adding more problems in no way will lead you to a solution.
3. The government has weapons far beyond what any citizen can access legally. They also have trained forces who have killed and will kill again. Using your little AR 15 to stop a cruise missile aimed towards your head is completely futile.
4. Gun control worked in Australia. In the 10 years before they banned the guns, there were 16 massacres. Since then (1996) there hasn't been a single massacre.
So why do these people decide to stay indoctrinated? The NRA is one of the scariest lobbyists out there. The NRA not only has donations from crazy paranoid conservative nuts, they also get money from firearms corporations.
Anyways, I would personally argue that firearms only instill fear and make it feel like a war zone. Any civilized intelligent human being would use rational discourse to solve a problem. These are not civilized, not intelligent, and their ability to have empathy is far from human. Just think about it: these people would rather have children die at schools than have their toys taken from them.
Sick inhumane bastards.
Anyways, I've been increasingly involved in debate and discussion over politics, and the thing that intrigues me the most is firearms. How can a group that claims to be so fervently "pro-life" become pro-death when it comes to any sensible firearms legislation?
I love how the Australian comedian Jim Jeffries absolutely destroys any argument for guns. You should go watch it on YouTube.
His points can be summarized as follows:
1. Nobody really cares about home security or self defense, they only like guns. None of them buy new high-tech padlocks or install secure doors or find efficient non-lethal methods of protecting themselves. They just like guns. It's not about defense, it's about these fun little machines that look cool but can kill.
2. More guns will not solve gun violence. More guns will mean more gun violence. Adding more problems in no way will lead you to a solution.
3. The government has weapons far beyond what any citizen can access legally. They also have trained forces who have killed and will kill again. Using your little AR 15 to stop a cruise missile aimed towards your head is completely futile.
4. Gun control worked in Australia. In the 10 years before they banned the guns, there were 16 massacres. Since then (1996) there hasn't been a single massacre.
So why do these people decide to stay indoctrinated? The NRA is one of the scariest lobbyists out there. The NRA not only has donations from crazy paranoid conservative nuts, they also get money from firearms corporations.
Anyways, I would personally argue that firearms only instill fear and make it feel like a war zone. Any civilized intelligent human being would use rational discourse to solve a problem. These are not civilized, not intelligent, and their ability to have empathy is far from human. Just think about it: these people would rather have children die at schools than have their toys taken from them.
Sick inhumane bastards.
