Reply With Quote
I think he is questioning your ability as a hunter.
Bow Hunting anyone?
This is not about feelings at all to me. Can you point to one specific thing I said that was based on feeling? You keep saying it's about feeling, I don't know wtf you're talking about. YOU are the one who has an emotional attachment to your AR, which as I've stated shouldn't be legal. Why? They are excessive and over-qualified for basically any situation a regular citizen has a need for. The 1% statistic might as well be .001, it doesn't matter. I don't advocate rights based on statistics I advocate rights based on inherent reason. And there is no inherent reason to own an AR15.
I think he is questioning your ability as a hunter.
Bow Hunting anyone?
You know, if I have to repeat my self over and over then this is a waste of time. I hate people who waste my time, therefore I'm out.
So the guns on a battleship are guns.
You know what he is saying. Shotguns are used for birds and would be fine by Mingus I would think. So what are you doing with a shotgun in NYC? Pigeons are that tasty?
Guns just shoot projectiles I would think. So you can't carry an ICBM. But a grenade launcher is ...
I actually find guns fascinating but don't own one. Is there some piece of sanity we can possibly arrive at besides guns are guns?
I have and hunt with a compound bow. Paper plates at 65 yards all day.
You feel they are excessive and over qualified and want your feelings to regulate another citizens rights.
And just to make sure I am clear with your line of thinking you are not against all rifles just AR15s correct?
So this Ruger is all good in your book correct?
Is this rifle excessive?
Those bird shotguns murder more people than the scary black rifles he wants banned.
I'm also fascinated by them and enjoy building them as much as I do shooting them. And I don't see what is wrong with saying a gun is a gun because it is. A gun shoots a projectile, the human behind it decides where and when.
So a grenade launcher is a gun.
I understand that.
And I have trouble getting all salty with people who know a lot more about things I am interested in. But the places you would tend to have shotguns would be rural. So can you see some way to at least limit the availability in crowded urban areas? Like a bar in NYC.
Suppose you knew the government had the ability to outlaw and take all shotguns, yet you know,and I know, I want to eat those tasty dove and quail. What could we do to persuade the government to allow us to continue to shoot these tasty Avians? Just suppose, cause the NRA can't handle suppose, but on a silly board we can suppose. What could be done to reduce the numbers of these weapons where they don't belong?
Last edited by pgardn; 10-02-2015 at 09:12 PM.
You are losing me manatee. Just ask me your question straight up.
I am the Walrus.
Nevermind.
You have to admit this is rich coming from you. It's been well established you're a wildly emotional man incapable of applying logic and reason when it comes to discussing guns.
i do admire the way you've repackaged my emotional monicker into this "feels" Shtick and labeled it your own.
"The United States ranks about ninth compared to countries in Europe in terms of either the rate of these mass public shootings or the fatalities from them," he said.
"The thing you have to take into account to some extent is a lot of these European countries are a lot smaller. You know 4 million, 8 million, you may have 40 million people, Germany maybe 80 million.
"But we're over 320 million people and so you have to kind of adjust a little bit for the population differences. If you take Europe as a whole, there's not a big difference in the per capita rate of mass public shootings compared to the United States."
You add value to discussions here and there, tonight is not one of those times. I'm sorry you felt the need to log in and express your emotions towards me.You have to admit this is rich coming from you. It's been well established you're a wildly emotional man incapable of applying logic and reason when it comes to discussing guns.
i do admire the way you've repackaged my emotional monicker into this "feels" Shtick and labeled it your own.
Since when?
the only people who dont live at home are homeless tbh
Rob is always in transit between business meetings. 5 star hotels become mundane enough to cause paranoia and illusions of grandeur.the only people who dont live at home are homeless tbh
Julie Annie bag reverses his stand
After Oregon Shooting, Rudy Giuliani Bashes Obama on Gun Control
If you were ever moved to search for Rudy Giuliani’s integrity, you might start at Fox News.
That is where, in an interview on Friday morning, he let loose a gusher of right-wing drivel about gun rights. His argument would have been senseless and repellent anytime, but it was particularly grotesque coming the morning after yet another gun massacre, in Oregon, and coming from a former moderate Republican mayor who once understood the deadly toll of unregulated guns, and knew that gun laws needed fixing.
He was asked his reaction to President Obama’s weary, angry call on Thursday for an end to the slaughter.
“I think the president has very little knowledge of what causes crime or how to reduce crime,” Mr. Giuliani said. “The reality is gun control laws control the behavior of legitimate people. People who rob stores, people who rob banks and people who are insane and want to go ahead and murder don’t follow the gun control laws.”
He went on: “It’s the behavior of people, it’s not the guns.”
That’s not what he used to think.
In 1993, he joined those calling for a national system of gun licensing, “with stringent but realistic criteria.”
In 1998, he proposed a law to require New York City gun owners to buy trigger locks.
And in 2000, he said New York would file a federal lawsuit seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages from gun companies as compensation for the injuries and deaths caused by their products. The Times headline: “Giuliani Joins the War on Handgun Manufacturers.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/taki...n-gun-control/
4 Pro-Gun Arguments We're Sick of Hearing
Thursday's mass shooting is sure to be met with the usual arguments for why we can't do anything about gun control
1. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
This is a fantastic argument for those who can't tell the difference between one death and a dozen. Absolutely, a murderer can often kill one person or two with a knife before being stopped. But to really rack up those mind-blowing death counts – to make sure that many lives are destroyed and families ruined in the space of five or 10 minutes – you need a gun. If all you care about is apportioning blame and declaring that someone does or does not have murderous intent, then by all means, claim a knife and a gun are equivalent weapons. For those of us who are more worried about preventing unnecessary deaths than merely acknowledging the hate that resides in some people's hearts, however, the sheer amount of damage a gun can do is reason to limit who can get their hands on one.
2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.
It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.)
3. "But, mental health!"
Opponents of gun control love bringing up the problem of inadequate mental health care after a shooting. This is strictly for deflection purposes, as there is no indication that Republicans will ever work on meaningful reform for our mental health systems – which, it's true are woefully inadequate. It's an issue that only matters to them in the immediate aftermath of a shooting – then it's forgotten, until there's another shooting. Rinse, repeat.
Also, the "mental health" gambit, in this context, is always vague. What exactly is the plan? Round up everyone with a mental health issue and put them under lock and key? That amounts to 1 in 5 Americans, the vast majority of whom have no violent tendencies. Will we have some kind of extensive mental health registry? A lot of Americans who struggle with mental health are undiagnosed, though, and putting them on a government list that restricts their rights is not a great inducement to get a diagnosis. There are a lot of shooters in this country, so we have some pretty good data on mass shooters. And that data shows there's no reliable way to tell who is going to go off like this, and only 23 percent of shooters have a diagnosis. Even if all of those individuals got gold-star treatment, the system would only stop a few shooters.
4. "Second Amendment, baby."
Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2
We gotta do something at some point. All of these people doing mass shootings seem to be getting their weapons through legal channels. So getting a gun legally is so easy in our country that any crazy piece of can do it. That needs to change. You should have to undergo psychiatric evaluations. Not have a family history of psychotic behavior. Prove that you're actually responsible enough to own it. Have to go through more than a one-day class in gun safety.
Yeah, i know criminals will always get guns. So the what. Those people want guns to do criminal-related things, street crimes, not shoot up schools. I doubt awkward beta uprising guy knew very many people that had access to illegal weapons, much less any that would trust his weird looking ass enough to sell him one.
With his mother, smartass.the only people who dont live at home are homeless tbh
It was a Zionist plot.
anti-gunners argue like people can just walk in to stores and buy bazookas and M-16s...
lol !!!!
so the shooter was a anti black, white supremacist, athiest. sounds like a lot of ST posters.
i wonder if he was a spurs fan
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
