What's new
By:

Welcome to 'Murica

As is often the case, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it best:

"Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people. Fired from guns, brandished by people, who shoot you by accident or on purpose."
 
Howard said:
Still haven't heard what we're banning and why.
Click to expand...
Still don't know why you are asking this.
The thread is discussing America and the prevalence of guns in it.

The thread is not a ban guns thread. Dutchjazzer is not around currently.
You will have to wait until he comes back and he will have this discussion that you crave
 
fishonjazz said:
Still don't know why you are asking this.
The thread is discussing America and the prevalence of guns in it.

The thread is not a ban guns thread. Dutchjazzer is not around currently.
You will have to wait until he comes back and he will have this discussion that you crave
Click to expand...

Bruh, half this thread is discussing that we need to ban guns. I'm trying to figure out what they want to ban and why. It's a logical step in this discussion.
 
Howard said:
Bruh, half this thread is discussing that we need to ban guns. I'm trying to figure out what they want to ban and why. It's a logical step in this discussion.
Click to expand...

No, the discussion has been around gun control, not a full ban. Why not discuss which regulations you're willing to accept in order to keep people safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Howard said:
Bruh, half this thread is discussing that we need to ban guns. I'm trying to figure out what they want to ban and why. It's a logical step in this discussion.
Click to expand...

BabyPeterzz said:
No, the discussion has been around gun control, not a full ban. Why not discuss which regulations you're willing to accept in order to keep people safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This.
I think only one person has said that think there should be a ban
 
While you guys were apparently sleeping, 3D printing of guns and ammo happened. Nobody is controlling guns anymore. That totalitarian dream is dead. Not happening.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
No, the discussion has been around gun control, not a full ban. Why not discuss which regulations you're willing to accept in order to keep people safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Umm...I have. In about every thread we've had on this subject. I'm one of the few that actually says something about it. So let's hear it, nobody here is talking specifics. Let's try to do that. What are you suggesting?
 
Howard said:
Is it really that difficult to articulate what change you want? Give me specifics, details, and why you think they'll work.
Click to expand...
I don't have any specifics, or details, or plans that I think would work. I make yogurt for a living.
There are much smarter, more qualified people than me that hopefully can figure out a way for there to be less guns in this country.

It seems impossible to me though.
This thread was just regular folks discussing a problem, not Nobel peace prize winning scientists trying to come up with a solution to save everyone's lives
 
Howard said:
Is it really that difficult to articulate what change you want? Give me specifics, details, and why you think they'll work.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. A wholesale, long-haul change of society. Decrease of violence in general. Peace education, abolishing death penalty, banning civilians from owning weapons, reform of the prison and justice system, investment in mental health, fighting against toxic masculinity, ending poverty. Generally, creating a better, kinder society for all.

These are all related and interconnected. You can't just solve one thing.
 
JimLes said:
Ok, I'll bite. A wholesale, long-haul change of society. Decrease of violence in general. Peace education, abolishing death penalty, banning civilians from owning weapons, reform of the prison and justice system, investment in mental health, fighting against toxic masculinity, ending poverty. Generally, creating a better, kinder society for all.

These are all related and interconnected. You can't just solve one thing.
Click to expand...

What does this mean.
 
Pretty funny stuff


Nm
Had to delete due to swears
 
JimLes said:
Ok, I'll bite. A wholesale, long-haul change of society. Decrease of violence in general. Peace education, abolishing death penalty, banning civilians from owning weapons, reform of the prison and justice system, investment in mental health, fighting against toxic masculinity, ending poverty. Generally, creating a better, kinder society for all.

These are all related and interconnected. You can't just solve one thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with some, not others, but thanks for putting it out there. That's all I wanted.

Could you define a weapon for me? Exactly what are you talking about?
 
JimLes said:
Anything expressly designed with a main purpose of inflicting damage or harm to another human.
Click to expand...

Sooooo...knives, axes, bats, tire irons? Bows and arrows? I mean, I can use a lot of things to inflict damage. Where do you draw the line?

To go along with this thought, what then do we do with the increase of wild animals? That increase would harm the cattle industry (diseases) and various other industries. Eliminate hunting completely? That won't fly with the native Americans. Is anybody allowed to own weapons? Law enforcement, army, etc?
 
Howard said:
Sooooo...knives, axes, bats, tire irons? Bows and arrows? I mean, I can use a lot of things to inflict damage. Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
You missed the part where he said expressly designed.
Axes were designed for chopping wood, bats were designed for hitting baseball's, tire irons were designed for removing tires from automobiles (iirc)

Guns are made for killing things.

Knives and bows and arrows, might fall into the category though. With the difference being the efficiency of killing with those two weapons is much lower than that of a gun
 
Go to Youtube and search for Jim Jefferies gun control and watch the first video that come up. (its about 16 minutes)
Pretty funny, has some swearing though.
 
So i always hear that we have the second ammendment so that if the government were to become tyrannical then we could fight them.
Then i always hear the gun control crowd say that we (regular civilians) would get our butts kicked because the goverment would have the military. The military has guns, tanks, missles, drones, bombs, fighter jets, helicopters, etc.
Then i always hear the gun advocate crowd say that the military would not kill american civilians so that would never happen.
Well if thats true and the military would never kill innocent american civilians then we dont need to worry about a tyrannical government right? If the military wouldn't back the governments play anyway then they are not a threat imo.

Also that comedian made a good point about the whole black market argument. He said that a gun that can be bought in america for 1000 dollars from wallmart would be much harder to find in the black market and would cost 34,000 dollars.
 
Unfortunately Fish the military, like the general public, are made up of individuals and they all have their own opinions.

I'd say there would be a split in the military tbh. Some would and some wouldn't support a hostil take over. But unforgivably there is the ATF, border patrol, FBI, CIA, DHS, DEA, OIG...

But I think in a hostile take over people would need to be armed because law would to to crap and criminals would trive for a time.

Not to mention the obvious battles and need to self protect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top