Gun control myths and info

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Really? You have to take a driving test to get a license with your picture on it and you have to register your car annually. They don't do that for guns.

I wrote that half tongue-in-cheek, side commentary. But yeah dude, with all the nutters on the roads? There's a reason it's the number one complained about pet peeve.

 

[Getting Traded]

I wrote that half tongue-in-cheek, side commentary. But yeah dude, with all the nutters on the roads? There's a reason it's the number one complained about pet peeve.

I never agreed with you more on anything ever ... Utah drivers are out of control.

 

[Jazzmix]

To me, as european, listening to the guys against guns control is like listening to some jungle people claiming that cannibalism is their tradition and there is no reason they should renounce it. It s a state of mind you just can't reason with. You treat constitution like a Bible, and second amendement like the words of Holy Spirit. I have impression that in that madness of denying the obvious someone will eventually come with the idea to legalise automatic weapons as the best solution against the mass shooting because it's clear good guys lack more firepower to stop the bad ones.

 

[Stoked]

To me, as european, listening to the guys against guns control is like listening to some jungle people claiming that cannibalism is their tradition and there is no reason they should renounce it. It s a state of mind you just can't reason with. You treat constitution like a Bible, and second amendement like the words of Holy Spirit. I have impression that in that madness of denying the obvious someone will eventually come with the idea to legalise automatic weapons as the best solution against the mass shooting because it's clear good guys lack more firepower to stop the bad ones.

Lmfao

 

[Gameface]

To me, as european, listening to the guys against guns control is like listening to some jungle people claiming that cannibalism is their tradition and there is no reason they should renounce it. It s a state of mind you just can't reason with. You treat constitution like a Bible, and second amendement like the words of Holy Spirit. I have impression that in that madness of denying the obvious someone will eventually come with the idea to legalise automatic weapons as the best solution against the mass shooting because it's clear good guys lack more firepower to stop the bad ones.

An automatic weapon would be a completely inferior weapon for a person to use to stop a single threat.

For one, the risk of hitting innocent people would be MUCH greater.

The ability to aim while firing in automatic mode is significantly reduced. So to target accurately while being able to fire quickly a semi-auto handgun or rifle would work far better.

 

[Stoked]

An automatic weapon would be a completely inferior weapon for a person to use to stop a single threat.

For one, the risk of hitting innocent people would be MUCH greater.

The ability to aim while firing in automatic mode is significantly reduced. So to target accurately while being able to fire quickly a semi-auto handgun or rifle would work far better.

Shh! You cannibal.

 

[Jazzmix]

An automatic weapon would be a completely inferior weapon for a person to use to stop a single threat.

For one, the risk of hitting innocent people would be MUCH greater.

The ability to aim while firing in automatic mode is significantly reduced. So to target accurately while being able to fire quickly a semi-auto handgun or rifle would work far better.

Man, I was just being sarcastic, you dont need to explain that to me.

 

[Gameface]

Man, I was just being sarcastic, you dont need to explain that to me.

I was having a little fun there.

 

[fishonjazz]

An automatic weapon would be a completely inferior weapon for a person to use to stop a single threat.

For one, the risk of hitting innocent people would be MUCH greater.

The ability to aim while firing in automatic mode is significantly reduced. So to target accurately while being able to fire quickly a semi-auto handgun or rifle would work far better.

Since when do gun nuts care about facts or common sense.

I would guess that there are plenty of simple folks who simply believe that auto>semiauto so give the good guys autos.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

Since when do gun nuts care about facts or common sense.

I would guess that there are plenty of simple folks who simply believe that auto>semiauto so give the good guys autos.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

"Gun nuts" know a lot about guns and their characteristics. I mean I'm not talking about mass shooting fetish types, or military special forces wannabes who want to live out some gun fight fantasy.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. who know A LOT about guns. They own guns, they shoot guns, they read about guns, they are HIGHLY skilled with guns. They consider themselves very responsible gun owners.

You can call these people "gun nuts" but they are much more than that. Good or bad, they exist. Their point of view is meaningful and legitimate. To ignore them as we march towards the possibility of "common sense gun legislation" means that no legislation will happen. It's really that simple.

 

[Stoked]

Since when do gun nuts care about facts or common sense.

I would guess that there are plenty of simple folks who simply believe that auto>semiauto so give the good guys autos.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Caught yourself in a trap you usually avoid. Generalities.

 

[Jazzmix]

"Gun nuts" know a lot about guns and their characteristics. I mean I'm not talking about mass shooting fetish types, or military special forces wannabes who want to live out some gun fight fantasy.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. who know A LOT about guns. They own guns, they shoot guns, they read about guns, they are HIGHLY skilled with guns. They consider themselves very responsible gun owners.

You can call these people "gun nuts" but they are much more than that. Good or bad, they exist. Their point of view is meaningful and legitimate. To ignore them as we march towards the possibility of "common sense gun legislation" means that no legislation will happen. It's really that simple.

There are also many people who care about wild animals, know a lot about them, keep them at home treating well and responsibly yet I think you will agree not everyone should be allowed to keep a tiger in his backyard. There are laws which discourage people from getting the exotic animals which could be of danger for themself and people around them.

 

[Stoked]

There are also many people who care about wild animals, know a lot about them, keep them at home treating well and responsibly yet I think you will agree not everyone should be allowed to keep a tiger in his backyard. There are laws which discourage people from getting the exotic animals which could be of danger for themself and people around them.

So, instead of generalities, what specific ideas do you have?

Confining the discussion to generalities leads nowhere. Let’s widen the scope

 

[Safetydan]

So, instead of generalities, what specific ideas do you have?

Confining the discussion to generalities leads nowhere. Let’s widen the scope

I agree with him that society is better off without them.

Its important that this establishing principle be agreed upon before moving forward with proposals and solutions. I agree with you too. Like you said, just saying that they suck doesn't solve the problem.

But still, a lot of people still disagree that guns are a net negative on modern society.

 

[Stoked]

I agree with him that society is better off without them.

Its important that this establishing principle be agreed upon before moving forward with proposals and solutions. I agree with you too. Like you said, just saying that they suck doesn't solve the problem.

But still, a lot of people still disagree that guns are a net negative on modern society.

You are right they do. And those two sides are unlikely ever agree on that specific point. But that doesn’t mean we should stop delving I to other areas to improve. Not that you’re implying such a thing.

Guns won’t leave American society short of confiscation and my thoughts on what happens then are well known.

I just get tired of reading another version of the same generalized point.

 

[Safetydan]

You are right they do. And those two sides are unlikely ever agree on that specific point. But that doesn’t mean we should stop delving I to other areas to improve. Not that you’re implying such a thing.

Guns won’t leave American society short of confiscation and my thoughts on what happens then are well known.

I just get tired of reading another version of the same generalized point.

Good post. Agreed.

 

[Jazzmix]

So, instead of generalities, what specific ideas do you have?

Confining the discussion to generalities leads nowhere. Let’s widen the scope

I am responding with generalities because I see people here who try to convince everybody that the arguments against free posession of arms are myths. They think that the law to carry the arms are of general benefit to the society.
If that thread was named "how to solve the guns problem" I would be writing differently. I do not see any miracoulous solution. Of course it would have to be confiscation and I imagine that it s unrealistic. But I think the first step in finding a solution is trying to change people's mentality. First step in solving any problem is admitting that you have it.

 

[Stoked]

I am responding with generalities because I see people here who try to convince everybody that the arguments against free posession of arms are myths. They think that the law to carry the arms are of general benefit to the society.
If that thread was named "how to solve the guns problem" I would be writing differently. I do not see any miracoulous solution. Of course it would have to be confiscation and I imagine that it s unrealistic. But I think the first step in finding a solution is trying to change people's mentality. First step in solving any problem is admitting that you have it.

Most of America admits their is a problem. But a significant portion does not think complete removal of guns is the answer. Feel free to keep beating that horse but you’ll be stuck exactly where you are on that point instead of making progress.

Just my .02

 

[Jazzmix]

Most of America admits their is a problem. But a significant portion does not think complete removal of guns is the answer. Feel free to keep beating that horse but you’ll be stuck exactly where you are on that point instead of making progress.

Just my .02

Ok. Got your point and respect it.

 

[lauriandres]

Since when do gun nuts care about facts or common sense.

I would guess that there are plenty of simple folks who simply believe that auto>semiauto so give the good guys autos.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Doesn't all the high end military grade automatic rifles also support semi-automatic mode so if you are like a Wilhelm Tell with a civilian AR-15, then you can also use a military grade assault rifle without problems assuming the semi-auto mode is enough for your purpose?