Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture. — Landru Guide Us
Actually I'm not calling him a troll because of that. I'm calling him a troll because he doesn't even respond to actual comments of others, but just lambasts, makes derogatory remarks about others and gives strawman-arguments that he thinks others have in their mind. Who cares what people actually write or think? You don't have to respond to what people write. Facts, like that Finnish gun control is far closer to Australia than the US don't matter (or that Finland is a country like Australia that made gun legislation more stricter after a shooting incident). Doesn't matter, Landru has this own created stereotype for anybody that might say anything other than he thinks. A troll wants to rant, insult people and get the people angry. A troll thinks if people get angry, then naturally he has won the argument. Landru is a simple troll, or at least behaving that way.The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. — ProbablyTrue
There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it. — ProbablyTrue
For what it's worth:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
— Mayor of Simpleton
Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.
↪Baden Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.
I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions. — John
“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.
The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.
Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.
On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer
On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer
Nonsense a population of a few million people is plenty big enough to assess average trends. — John
He is probably one of the craziest and most divisive people in this country's leadership at the moment. It's no wonder he thinks more guns are the answer. He's appealing to people's fears, especially their xenophobia.Sheriff Joe Arpaio — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm not so sure it's as much a right wing trope as it is an error all people tend to make with statistics.another rightwing trope — Landru Guide Us
I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.
I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though. — ProbablyTrue
John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp — Cavacava
So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. — Landru Guide Us
I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter. — ProbablyTrue
Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.
People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks
Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.
“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.
The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.
Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.
From the top down... — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional! — Landru Guide Us
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.