SkyDivingDeacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,515
- Reaction score
- 1,575
I believe there are way more people then you think who are #1 and #2 and far fewer people then you think you are "extremely anti-gun in almost every conceivable/rational circumstance".
Most people you're arguing against believe the same things that you say you believe in your post.
I've heard very few people talk about just rebooting the AWB. That said, I don't know what your point admitting that the weapons were obtained legally, but saying that changing the definition of legal would have no effect. If someone can't legal obtain weapons that make it easy to kill many people at a time, it would become harder to obtain those weapons which would act as a deterrent. If a mentally ill person can't just get it from a family member or Wal-Mart or the gun show last week, how hard are they going to try to get it?
I don't think you know what you really believe. You want to be anti people who aren't as involved with guns as you are, yet you believe many of the common sense solutions that we do to the point that you contradict yourself.
You say "damn weapon of destruction" then a few sentences later, say that trying to define what such a weapon is "won't solve shit".
Just embrace common sense and work with people who may not love guns like you but want us all to live in a safer society.
I don't follow your post, really. It's probably all of the run-on sentences and everything, but it's just hard to digest. Also, your counter arguments suggests that my post confused you. For example, ..."If a mentally ill person can't just get it from a family member or Wal-Mart or the gun show last week, how hard are they going to try to get it?"
What are you talking about? They're probably going to try pretty f'ing hard. This is my point. There is no system in place to check for mental illness when someone goes and buys a gun. They check for felonies. So, an Adam Lanza, who clearly had a mental illness, can go into a gun store (not in CT or a handful of other states, but most of them) buy a gun, buy a shit ton of ammo, and go bonkers and kill a bunch of people and absolutely no whistles or bells would have gone off leading up to his hypothetical rampage. NPR had a big session on it Friday this week, and the gist was that basically the entire system is broken. You can't talk about gun control and gun laws without addressing this, but it seems like most everyone who is anti-gun just wants some kind of law put in place to solve all of our problems a la Europe/Canada. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example of why that just won't work. This is also what I'm arguing about; the fact that a group of politicians or a new law can/can't solve the problem at hand. I don't think they/it can, and clearly they/it haven't/hasn't been able to.
And I would not use such a generous word as 'most' when describing the people I'm arguing against agreeing with the same things I've said so far. And being really/extremely anti-gun IMHO, is a symptom of #1 and #2 so I agree with you that there are more people in those categories than being 'extremely anti-gun.' How couldn't there be? What's frustrating is the people that mock someone else's right to have a gun and use it properly and I would say that the vast majority of posts (albeit an internet message board of course) are doing just that.
Also, this comment is confusing..."That said, I don't know what your point admitting that the weapons were obtained legally, but saying that changing the definition of legal would have no effect. If someone can't legal obtain weapons that make it easy to kill many people at a time, it would become harder to obtain those weapons which would act as a deterrent..."
Again, look at the Federal Assault Weapons ban. Gun manufacturers simply changed the way guns looked/folded/loaded, etc... and boom, it's not a gun outlawed by whatever stupid law Congress decided to pass. And, to the best of my knowledge, you can buy weapons directly at a gun show from someone with a FFL license without needing a FFL or Class III and totally side-step this issue (even prior to the 2004 sunset period) of not being allowed to have XYZ gun. The point being, if someone wants to buy a really destructive gun, they can. If another law is passed, gun manufacturers will just side-step it again, which is what led to my post about defining what was/wasn't legal as the wrong attitude.
Also, saying that you think that I don't think I know what I really believe is pretty condescending. I'm pretty sure that I know what I believe. I also don't 'love' guns as you suggest. And I also don't see a lot of common sense from people on the other side of this argument. Ideas of mandating everyone to purchase a safe, or only being allowed to hold 10 bullets in a magazine instead of 20/30 just seems like the entirely wrong approach to me. It's probably because it hasn't worked so far...
Last edited: