Shootings this past week

OGEvilgenius said:
Turkey banned guns for the Armenians. Slaughtered 10 million.

Mao banned guns for all. Slaughtered almost 80 million.

Stalin banned guns for all. Slaughtered over 20 million.

Should I go on? The Chinese, who according to your State Dept are your #1 military threat, are supporting the banning of weapons in the US as well. Doesn't that strike as an odd contradiction?

Governments were responsible for over 400 million murders last century, conservatively. So obviously the smart thing is to give government all the firepower. It always works out so well.
Click to expand...

refer to my sig image
 
UncleBuck said:
oh, and the mental illness blame game in this case is utter bullshit. my wife informed me of this today at length while on the road. aspberger's won't even be recognized in the next release of the DSM (DSM-V). it will be ranked somewhere in the autism spectrum. there is nothing about that spectrum, or autism in general, that makes one likely to be a mass murderer. although i wouldn't be opposed to mandating a mental health evaluation from a competent individual as a barrier to owning a firearm. hell, more business for my wife's profession.
Click to expand...
How is a WaffleHouse waitress qualified to give a mental heath evaluation? She married you, how good her judgement be?
 
358941.gif



Christmas present?
 
cannabineer said:
BadDog, your naked list conceals something that is very distasteful to me: the utterly false idea that pro-gun folks value the lives of the slain less than the antis do. It's good propaganda however, since even though the ratio of deaths or injuries prevented by gun owners very probably is a multiple of the deaths you've listed ... there's no way to prove it.

But that does not excuse you from insulting the morality of gun owners. cn
Click to expand...


cannabineer, I really enjoy reading your posts. You are one smart mofo, and I agree with most of your thoughts. You do kinda lose me here, though. In one breath you're offended at the (non) mention of the gun owners lack of morality, but in the next breath you strike down ANY attempt at mitigating this problem as a thinly veiled effort to take your guns away.

You want it known that these gun deaths truly bother you, but you are not willing to even be inconvenienced in the slightest when it comes to potential gun safety/control legislation.
 
st0wandgrow said:
cannabineer, I really enjoy reading your posts. You are one smart mofo, and I agree with most of your thoughts. You do kinda lose me here, though. In one breath you're offended at the (non) mention of the gun owners lack of morality, but in the next breath you strike down ANY attempt at mitigating this problem as a thinly veiled effort to take your guns away.

You want it known that these gun deaths truly bother you, but you are not willing to even be inconvenienced in the slightest when it comes to potential gun safety/control legislation.
Click to expand...

I am willing to be inconvenienced. i have no problem with licenses for carry, for example. However I also know that there are forces in this land seeking to deny that the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right.

If you can guarantee me that the spirit of the 2nd will be observed ... that my rights to own, carry, buy, sell, operate ... any firearm are specified and guaranteed, i will be flexible.

But for now i see myself in a fight for the simple survival of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Think I'm kidding? Look at the "Dissents" portion of the appended Wiki entry.

I am keenly interested in mitigating the problem. But the problem is not "too many guns" in my estimation. The apparent fact that I am working uphill to defend the morality of gun ownership ... in a nation that expressly guarantees that right ... shows me where the battle lies. Job 1 imo is to reverse the demonization of the gun in both media and culture ... and ask who is driving it and why.

BadDog's un-annotated list is a good example of that culture, and to me that is part of the problem. My opinion.

Thank you for the compliment! cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Turkey banned guns for the Armenians. Slaughtered 10 million.

Mao banned guns for all. Slaughtered almost 80 million.

Stalin banned guns for all. Slaughtered over 20 million.

Should I go on? The Chinese, who according to your State Dept are your #1 military threat, are supporting the banning of weapons in the US as well. Doesn't that strike as an odd contradiction?

Governments were responsible for over 400 million murders last century, conservatively. So obviously the smart thing is to give government all the firepower. It always works out so well.
Click to expand...


There are a number of flaws in this argument. No one can say how many fewer would have been slaughtered had guns not been banned in the situations you describe. No one can say how effective those gun bans actually were and finally, it is most commonly stated by the gun folk that banning guns will do no good at all, yet, according to your argument, they did so much good that they enable a government to slaughter millions.

Finally, you seem to be comparing those countries and their governments with our country and our government - hardly a valid comparison at all.


Banning guns may well have had nothing what so ever to do with those slaughters.
 
canndo said:
There are a number of flaws in this argument. No one can say how many fewer would have been slaughtered had guns not been banned in the situations you describe. No one can say how effective those gun bans actually were and finally, it is most commonly stated by the gun folk that banning guns will do no good at all, yet, according to your argument, they did so much good that they enable a government to slaughter millions.

Finally, you seem to be comparing those countries and their governments with our country and our government - hardly a valid comparison at all.


Banning guns may well have had nothing what so ever to do with those slaughters.
Click to expand...

To make this claim, don't you need to (tentatively, in keeping with the subjunctive) presumptively valuate an armed populace's effect on a government's actions at zero? cn
 
canndo said:
There are a number of flaws in this argument. No one can say how many fewer would have been slaughtered had guns not been banned in the situations you describe. No one can say how effective those gun bans actually were and finally, it is most commonly stated by the gun folk that banning guns will do no good at all, yet, according to your argument, they did so much good that they enable a government to slaughter millions.

Finally, you seem to be comparing those countries and their governments with our country and our government - hardly a valid comparison at all.


Banning guns may well have had nothing what so ever to do with those slaughters.
Click to expand...

It's a lot harder to shoot someone who is returning fire. While the bans may have been enforced for reasons other than "To prevent armed resistance.", it's chief result is that you now have a barrel full of fish and the gov. is the only one with a gun. They may not have banned guns just so they could round people up and shoot them, but it definitely works out to the same thing in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top