The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Ummagumma]

Why do you continue to rely on red herrings to support your position? You make the rest of us who want to enjoy gun ownership rights look absolutely terrible. Please, for all our sake's, stop. None of us want you as the posterboy for our rights.

This is a refreshing change. Kudos to you, motiv-8.

[Ciabhán]

Of course not, but I am guess the vast majority of people who buy assault rifles to "protect themselves" are at very low risk for being attacked in their home. My point is this mentality is either hypocrisy or paranoia, take your pick.

Honestly I don't disagree with you. Not only are they generally overkill but they are mostly ineffective in the hands of the types of idiots who would think they were neccessary. However as I've previously stated I'm not against a ban on assault rifles. The problem I have with it is that one will pass, people will consider that the victory they were looking for and none of the real issues will ever be fixed. Rifles(hunting, plinking, assault, etc) are responsible for something like 300 deaths(intentional and accidental)per year. About eight-hundred people a year are beaten to death with bare hands. Going by the statistics we should be banning fists(note I said fists not hands, make a fist without a license find yourself arrested...) over assault rifles.

I'm all for adding a stipulation for mandatory training, continuing training at that, and more effective enforcement of existing laws(especially in standardising the reporting of involuntary commitment for the nutters). The above combined with an improvement in education systems and the mental health care systems would do far more to lessen the problem than banning ALL firearms entirely.

[Whukid]

Why do you continue to rely on red herrings to support your position? You make the rest of us who want to enjoy gun ownership rights look absolutely terrible. Please, for all our sake's, stop. None of us want you as the posterboy for our rights.

I was simply asking if we should outlaw things that make you seem paranoid, since that's apparently a bad thing

[motiv-8]

I was simply asking if we should outlaw things that make you seem paranoid, since that's apparently a bad thing

This doesn't even make sense. What am I paranoid about, exactly? If anything, I'm paranoid that too many people start thinking your fallacy-inundated rants are indicative of how most of us feel about owning guns, and use you as the reason to try to take them away. Seriously, stop sabotaging us.

[Whukid]

This doesn't even make sense. What am I paranoid about, exactly? If anything, I'm paranoid that too many people start thinking your fallacy-inundated rants are indicative of how most of us feel about owning guns, and use you as the reason to try to take them away. Seriously, stop sabotaging us.

That bold part. It's the important line. For some reason, gun owners are paranoid. Why? I don't know. I'm not paranoid of anything, and apparently you're not paranoid, so I'm not sure where the notion comes from. Even if we were paranoid, why would it be a bad thing to the point of outlawing things people use to be paranoid with?

[Mithridate]

That bold part. It's the important line. For some reason, gun owners are paranoid. Why? I don't know. I'm not paranoid of anything, and apparently you're not paranoid, so I'm not sure where the notion comes from. Even if we were paranoid, why would it be a bad thing to the point of outlawing things people use to be paranoid with?

Laugh or cry... laugh or cry

I think you should start writing a statement, go something else for an hour then come back and read what you responded to and then what youve written. With luck, there shall be improvement!

[Whukid]

Laugh or cry... laugh or cry

I think you should start writing a statement, go something else for an hour then come back and read what you responded to and then what youve written. With luck, there shall be improvement!

You're right;

Why should you have the right to determine whether or not I can be paranoid? Why should the government get a say in how well I prepare for natural or social disasters? If guns are the trademark of a paranoid mentalcase, shouldn't more extreme forms of "prepping" be outlawed too? For example, if you have a bunker, you're obviously hiding something you don't want prying eyes to see..

[Mithridate]

That did it, im laughing

[MathiasOfAthens]

Oh .... Black man says something about the southern town he grew up in. Chattanooga, TN, debate over. You won Whukid.

[Whukid]

That did it, im laughing

So because Motiv-8 harbors a grudge because I called him out on US military doctrine awhile ago means we can't argue anymore?

This was starting to get good though. I was about to roll out that society has been using the "within reason" clause to oppress the gay community and enforce racial segregation for decades until the very recent progressive push on social politics. There's no reason whatsoever someone can't be paranoid and chose to arm him or herself accordingly

[MathiasOfAthens]

So by your logic, everyone is secretly training for NASCAR? I mean, let's be honest here; who hasn't gone fast on an interstate at 1AM or out on some forsaken country road. It must mean we all have a secret, burning desire to oust Dale Earnhardt Jr.

lol. No by my logic I clearly ing said you train to drive a car safely. I didnt say Safely at high speeds or as safe as a nascar driver... as a safe driver or to begin with just to learn how to operate a car. I didnt say at high speeds.

[Whukid]

lol. No by my logic I clearly ing said you train to drive a car safely. I didnt say Safely at high speeds or as safe as a nascar driver... as a safe driver or to begin with just to learn how to operate a car. I didnt say at high speeds.

So can you not also train to use a gun safely without the express purpose of becoming an assassin? The point of your original comparison was to demonize gun owners and prove that the only purpose of owning a gun is to kill things, and that's just not true; 147 million Americans own firearms (probably more after December and the highest it's ever been), yet the murder rate in the US has reached a 50 year low. If the only reason people bought firearms was to kill eachother, that statistic should be quite different.

[Mithridate]

Keep going Whukid, i bet someone somewhere appreciate it.

[motiv-8]

So because Motiv-8 harbors a grudge because I called him out on US military doctrine awhile ago means we can't argue anymore?

Eh? You mean where you openly advocated the killing of civilians because "war is war" and I pointed out that in the real world, according to actual US military CoIn doctrine, civilian casualties are to be avoided at all costs and in fact were in both Afghanistan and Iraq, most famously in Fallujah where we evacuated almost all the population before beginning our assault? Why in the world would I harbor a grudge about educating you? And why is this relevant to the fact that you are bizarrely comparing firearms to sprinklers and cars? This is all highly unusual.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's quite idiotic to compare cars to guns. I don't understand why is there even a conversation over it...

[motiv-8]

It's quite idiotic to compare cars to guns. I don't understand why is there even a conversation over it...

Because they both, like, totally can kill people, so, like, they're totally the same thing. Also lightning and gila monsters, THEY KILL PEOPLE SO THEY'RE JUST LIKE GUNS! YOU HAVE TO BAN THEM TOO IF YOU BAN GUNS!

Duh.

[Whukid]

Eh? You mean where you openly advocated the killing of civilians because "war is war" and I pointed out that in the real world, according to actual US military CoIn doctrine, civilian casualties are to be avoided at all costs and in fact were in both Afghanistan and Iraq, most famously in Fallujah where we evacuated almost all the population before beginning our assault? Why in the world would I harbor a grudge about educating you? And why is this relevant to the fact that you are bizarrely comparing firearms to sprinklers and cars? This is all highly unusual.

The discussion where we were talking about how Syria doesn't have the money to train its troops to the same degree as we train our or use equipment even close to what we use and employs the same tactics we did during Vietnam (coincidentally, when we used equipment that the Syrians are just getting their hands on now), yes.

The last part isn't completely true. I was asking what the limits were to banning an inanimate object because paranoid mental cases enjoy stockpiling them. If you can't own a gun for defense, why should you be allowed to operate a car that goes 120mph or purchase a Shipping container for the sole purpose of burying it into the ground due to an irrational fear of society grinding to a halt?

So what if you think the world is going to end, it doesn't mean you have any less right to defend your household than someone like myself.

[Whukid]

It's quite idiotic to compare cars to guns. I don't understand why is there even a conversation over it...

Because cars kill people, and there are safer alternatives to driving with such dangerous vehicles. Last time I checked, Drunk cyclists killing schoolchildren wasn't exactly a thing. (back to the inanimate objects debate)

[Ciabhán]

The thing is Whukid everyone understands the point but it's been made already and the horse has been beaten into a puddle of glop. The inanimate object is not responsible we get that. There are however better and fresher arguments that can be made.

It would be better in fact if you want to equate vehicles and firearms to suggest a similar mandatory training to recieve a license to buy firearms. This license will also be reviewed periodically and will require one to have had a certain amount of hours of continued training to renew. Anyone who can currently legally purchase a firearm and attends the training gets a license. No one is disenfranchised unless they choose to be by not attending the training. It would only apply to newly purchased firearms. Currently owned firearms would be grandfathered and you need do nothing if you do not intend to purchase any.

[Simon Cashmere]

There are good arguments for gun ownership, but unfortunately the gun lobby for whatever reason is represented by people who are not good at presenting a logical argument. Like Alex Jones. There are the odd university professor who supports gun control, but CNN or NBC would never have them on their shows to make a rational case for gun ownership. They just invite the crazies on to say, see, these gun people are all wackadoo crazy da coconut.