So this is what we are expected to learn
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
The brady campaign is known throughout this country for just trying to shovel pure fear on the gun debates.
As far as I can tell, fear is used on both sides. "Guns kill, get rid of them" vs. "Without a gun, your beloved ones will get raped and killed...".
-
@ammoQ said:
"Without a gun, your beloved ones will get raped and killed...".
I have not seen this from the pro gunners that I have seen/quoted. Maybe some really right wing camps that are just as bad as the brady campaing in reverse.
The only place I have heard this is from morbius, and he was basically joking, and exaggerating to counter the "You don't need a tank and an RPG" retards.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Everyone argues bad people shouldn't have guns. Well they are not allowed to. The restrictions have a few loopholes, and they are being worked on everyday.
However, taking them away from good people is just stupid, and that is what you cannot seem to get your head around. And you also like to avoid that argument by stating obvious points every post.
I would actually argue that the anti-gun lobby is responsible for the loopholes to a large degree. They are so focused on wide-spread bans, getting ride of CCW and on useless safety measures like chamber indicators and built-in locks that they have held up an reasonable attempts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Essentially, they are so anti-gun that they think all individuals are dangerous and have refused to see the distinction, meaning that a lot of sane measures have been avoided in lieu of ridiculous laws that only affect law-abiding citizens. I'm not arguing that there isn't room for improvement in our laws. I think there needs to be a higher bar for getting a gun in some cases, but fewer restrictions on people who are "cleared".
However, these are fine details and nobody is arguing those here, this discussion has simply been about whether law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry guns in self-defense. I think we've pretty clearly shown that they should be. When it comes to things like assault weapons, waiting periods and all that, there is little point arguing those here since the vast majority of the people we are arguing with are completely ignorant of our gun laws to begin with. Also, they are arguing for complete bans which I think any reasonable individual can conclude are ineffective at stopping criminals and actually increase the number of gun crimes committed because citizens can no longer defend themselves.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
The only place I have heard this is from morbius, and he was basically joking, and exaggerating to counter the "You don't need a tank and an RPG" retards.
I'm not even sure I actually said you would be raped and killed without a gun, but I was obviously exaggerating if that was the case. I made the point several times that if someone did enter my home with the intent to rape and kill my loved ones, I would feel completely pathetic if I was unable to stop that simply because I was afraid of lawful gun ownership. I should also point out once again that I currently have no guns in my house and no CCW permit. I am going through the process, but since I am a law-abiding citizen it takes some time. Without a gun, though, I have not ever been the victim of a crime and no on in my family has either. My point was simply if I was in a position where I was going to become the victim of a crime, you can be damn sure I'd want a gun to defend myself.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm not even sure I actually said you would be raped and killed without a gun, but I was obviously exaggerating if that was the case.
Yeah, I think you made the original point in jest and it was taken way out of context. So agreed, I never truly saw you actually say this.
-
@DOA said:
I'm sorry but I just don't trust JohnQPublic to carry a weapon. And I sure as hell don't trust some beaurocrat to decide who's responsible and who's not.
I'm sure your government allows police officers, military, and the privileged elite to carry firearms; so yes, the bureaucrats are deciding who's responsible enough to be armed and they are your oppressors.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@ammoQ said:
"Without a gun, your beloved ones will get raped and killed...".
I have not seen this from the pro gunners that I have seen/quoted. Maybe some really right wing camps that are just as bad as the brady campaing in reverse.
The only place I have heard this is from morbius, and he was basically joking, and exaggerating to counter the "You don't need a tank and an RPG" retards.
So morbius [i]can[/i] joke and exteggerate but [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/8805/166760.aspx#166760]when i joke[/url] and/or exteggerate [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/8805/166760.aspx#166760]I'm stupid[/url] and I don't know what else? wow, you're mind must work really...... [i]interesting[/i]
Also, I like the way you change to rules to fit your arguments from time to time, I didn't a notice sign anywhere that stated the discussion only involved a few states that have assault weapons banned, while you stated that in one of your previous posts.
-
@dtech said:
stated the discussion only involved a few states that have assault weapons banned,
Jesus fucking christ you are fucking stupid.
The argument is NOT ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS AT ALL.
Got that? Do you understand?
Your complete and total lack of understanding of anything going on in this thread is amazing.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Jesus fucking christ you are fucking stupid.
The argument is NOT ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS AT ALL.
Got that? Do you understand?
Your complete and total lack of understanding of anything going on in this thread is amazing.
So you think McDonald's should start including 80mm artillery with Happy Meals, huh? If you don't trust McD's to get your order right why should trust them to decide who is "sane" enough to own a device who's only purpose is murdering innocents? What is it with you Americans and your parochial, violent cowboy culture? Next time a public school gets mortared I want you to remember that this is your fault because you said children should be armed with explosives.
-
-
So what [b]is[/b] this threat about? Afaik this threat has been floating around "guns should be banned". I think that if you show an average citizen a picture of an assault weapon and ask "is this a gun?" he or she will respond with yes. Thus my conclusion is that this threat indeed [b]does[/b] concern assault weapons.
But please tell me what your opinion is. And I think the letters are large enough for me to read WITHOUT USING CAPS.
-
@dtech said:
So what is this threat about?
Why don't you read the thread? And then you might know.
Because you are way off right now.
-
@dtech said:
I think that if you show an average citizen a picture of an assault weapon and ask "is this a gun?" he or she will respond with yes.
Other things the average citizen will call guns:
Are we talking about these, too?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@ammoQ said:
"Without a gun, your beloved ones will get raped and killed...".
I have not seen this from the pro gunners that I have seen/quoted. Maybe some really right wing camps that are just as bad as the brady campaing in reverse.
The only place I have heard this is from morbius, and he was basically joking, and exaggerating to counter the "You don't need a tank and an RPG" retards.
Of course no-one said it exactly like this, I exaggerated the message. But all those "what if..." statements, plus the comparison of a gun to a first aid kit, could lead to the impression that such an event is likely to happen. (I.e. more likely than a winning a lotto jackpot or dying of prostate gland cancer). There are some rough areas in the world where such crimes happen regulary. But for those of us living in a more peaceful spot of the world, driving carefully, always using a seat belt in the car and regulary going through a heath check are by far more likely to increase our live expectancy.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dtech said:
So what is this threat about?
Why don't you read the thread? And then you might know.
Because you are way off right now.
I [b]started[/b] the thread and have read all-but-a-few of its post. So far I remember a lot of screamin, some side-path about someone calling all of the dutch pussies and blaming the current generation for their grandparent not resisting a military force ten times as large and a lot of yes-no about guns. You didn't answer my question.
-
@ammoQ said:
could lead to the impression that such an event is likely to happen.
I would say people saved by CCW 1.5 million times a year is enough, and that is with a very small percentage of the populace taking part in CCW.@ammoQ said:
There are some rough areas in the world where such crimes happen regulary.
I cannot speak for Austria (mostly because no one cares at all about Austria -- AMIRITE GAIS???) but most of the other countries like England and Netherlands should have more to fear as their violent crimes and home invasions continue to rise. All the relevant data has been posted for that.
-
@dtech said:
You didn't answer my question.
And I won't. You can learn some reading comprehension and try and voice a logical argument, or just STFU.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to me. You look like a fool proceeding the way you are.
