Jump to content

Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?


BigSqwert

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most people are hypocritical, get used to it.

 

Why cant I have hookers, drugs and gambling?

 

It goes both ways.

 

(edit)

 

Which is why this argument bores me, because its basically playing chess against myself. Although I do truly believe that less guns more drugs is a better society. Go figure.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 04:06 PM)
GMAFB, let's reduce the number and availability of guns and where they can be carried while loaded so that we don't have more "overreactions" like this.

 

You yourself said you'd rather go down shooting, damn the statistics and any 'mistakes' or flawed judgement be damned

 

Because defending myself in life or death situation is TOTALLY the same as shooting a guy at a Little Ceasars because I have to wait 5 minutes for a pizza. I love how you've turned anyone with a gun into a crazed lunatic that can go off at any moment. Let's ignore the fact that there are 300+ million guns and tens of millions of gun owners out there, let's focus on the less than 1% that does stupid s***.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people are hypocritical, get used to it.

 

Why cant I have hookers, drugs and gambling?

 

It goes both ways.

 

(edit)

 

Which is why this argument bores me, because its basically playing chess against myself. Although I do truly believe that less guns more drugs is a better society. Go figure.

Awww look, its trolling now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:23 PM)
You've obviously never been the victim of a violent crime. Don't worry, if you live in Chicago or frequent other gun-free zones you will be.

I've also never been shot over pizza. Though i suppose it would have been better if they were both armed, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:38 PM)
Because defending myself in life or death situation is TOTALLY the same as shooting a guy at a Little Ceasars because I have to wait 5 minutes for a pizza. I love how you've turned anyone with a gun into a crazed lunatic that can go off at any moment. Let's ignore the fact that there are 300+ million guns and tens of millions of gun owners out there, let's focus on the less than 1% that does stupid s***.

Yes, let's focus on the people who end up harming or killing others because of their easy access to guns.that is the point.

 

Less guns = less gun violence, meaning you have less things to defend yourself against in first place.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:11 PM)
Yes, let's focus on the people who end up harming or killing others because of their easy access to guns.that is the point.

 

Less guns= less gun violence, meaning you have less things to defend yourself against in first place.

I'm not sure this is true. It's less guns in the hands of the wrong people=less gun violence. How we accomplish this is the real question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:24 PM)
I don't think it is all that different. Alcohol related deaths outnumber gun related deaths so why is one OK and not the other?

 

Alcohol requires a second step to be dangerous. A bottle of beer is not dangerous. Being drunk is not dangerous (there is a limit here, sure). Being drunk AND driving is dangerous. Being drunk AND wielding a gun is dangerous. People have been drinking beer for about as long as human civilization has existed.

 

Guns are a relatively new invention and particularly, the modern semi-automatic weapon is new -- significantly, it post-dates our constitution. It is rather difficult, comparatively, to use a gun for mere private use. Every time you fire a weapon, there is significant risk. Nobody sits at home on the weekend and fires off their gun, there's almost no place you can live in which it makes sense for you to fire your gun in your home or on your property. This is why you have to go to a club (or Little Caesar's apparently) to shoot your gun. This is why if you go to a gun range and someone unconsciously waves their gun around, everyone in the place ducks for cover.

 

Becoming drunk and dangerous requires a series of calculated decisions and, often, neglect on part of your peers. A gun becomes dangerous the second you're near it. This is why you have to take a class in the state of IL to legally own a firearm or hunt. One unconscious pull of a trigger can be the death of somebody. If I'm simply demented or perhaps even just angry to an unprecedented extent, I can use the gun out of malice and kill people, perhaps many people. There aren't many good uses for alcohol in that situation, save self-medication.

 

They're both dangerous, but they're totally different. One's function is death -- it can be avoided and in most cases is, thanks to so many conscientious gun owners like myself. However, when it functions properly it kills or performs an action that would be lethal if pointed in the right place. Beer's function, primarily, is a beverage and its original use was a matter of nutrition. It was a way to eat barley. You can have too much, which is bad like most things. You can then drive, which is yet another calculated decision that is separate from your drinking too many beers. We should also add that the maximum lethality of a drunk driver is not all that impressive compared to the well-armed gunman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:02 PM)
Via less guns in the hands of everyone. You don't know who the "wrong person" is until they're shooting someone over crappy pizza or loud music or taking their mother's guns and killing 26 people. We don't have pre-cogs.

 

I think we can all agree that a focus of new gun-related legislation should be new or better ways to get guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. The easiest way to narrow these people down is figuring out who has guns illegally and getting those illegal guns off of the market and destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree to that entirely because "people who should have guns" isn't usually a well-defined or even a even possible to be pre-defined group.

 

Any good gun policy will netted need to be multi-faceted to address the different issues of straw purchases, overall availability and the lethality available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALCOHOL KILLS YOURSELF, CIGARETTES KILL YOURSELF, DRUGS KILL YOURSELF

 

GUNS KILL OTHER PEOPLE

 

will you stop with the ridiculous fallacious arguments???

Cigarettes supposedly kill other people, which is why liberals again decided they just knew better and told people how to run their businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:28 PM)
Cigarettes supposedly kill other people, which is why liberals again decided they just knew better and told people how to run their businesses.

*sigh* good point. bad example. they do kill other people.

 

the main crux of my argument remains.

 

guns kill other people who DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen. not so with drugs etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:23 PM)
ALCOHOL KILLS YOURSELF, CIGARETTES KILL YOURSELF, DRUGS KILL YOURSELF

 

GUNS KILL OTHER PEOPLE

 

will you stop with the ridiculous fallacious arguments???

It is not ridiculous. Alcohol kills when it impairs the driver and he hits someone. Alcohol is not a danger except in this person. Guns only kill people in the hands of the wrong person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:31 PM)
It is not ridiculous. Alcohol kills when it impairs the driver and he hits someone. Alcohol is not a danger except in this person. Guns only kill people in the hands of the wrong person.

so you agree that people don't kill people, guns kill people? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:30 PM)
*sigh* good point. bad example. they do kill other people.

 

the main crux of my argument remains.

 

guns kill other people who DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen. not so with drugs etc

?

 

Sure they do. Drugs cause the direct and indirect deaths of all kinds of people.

 

Guns, booze, narcotics, cigarettes...they all are similar in that society seemingly tolerates them or tries not to (but they exist anyways due to extraordinary demand) and they cause harm to innocent people, directly and indirectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...