• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Virtually no one is for "an outright ban on firearms".

What a total red herring.

This. People are asking for reasonable discussion on weapons better suited for a battlefield.

See McChrystal's remarks that rj noted earlier...that guy has seen all manner of warfare and is a military hard-head. If that guy has an opinion then it carries more weight than us average joe's.

I mean really, what is a person gonna do, stand on a hill-side with their entourage and match the oncoming M60's with an "arsenal" of rifles?"
 
Last edited:
This. People are asking for reasonable discussion on weapons better suited for a battlefield.

See McChrystal's remarks that rj noted earlier...that guy has seen all manner of warfare and is a military hard-head. If that guy has an opinion then it carries more weight than us average joe's.

I mean really, what is a person gonna do, stand on a hill-side with their entourage and match the oncoming M60's with an "arsenal" of rifles?"

A lot of gun nuts really believe they can band together with other gun nuts a la Pat Swayze and C Thomas Howell in Red Dawn and paint each other up and hide and plant booby traps and wear down a superior fighting force.
 
This. People are asking for reasonable discussion on weapons better suited for a battlefield.

See McChrystal's remarks that rj noted earlier...that guy has seen all manner of warfare and is a military hard-head. If that guy has an opinion then it carries more weight than us average joe's.

I mean really, what is a person gonna do, stand on a hill-side with their entourage and match the oncoming M60's with an "arsenal" of rifles?"

Big Brother comes from the sky. No amount of assault rifle fire from a Super Pretender X-5000 with zooms scope is bringing down that drone.
 
I'm convinced that the people that are extremely anti-gun in almost every conceivable/rational circumstance have:

1) Never been confronted with a real life threatening situation where a personal firearm would have either helped protect them or deescalated the situation

2) Very little knowledge about guns and have probably never used one in a formal or informal setting

0 for 2. And I'm coming for yerr guns!
 
Seeing the large, poignant pic of Gabby Giffords in this morning's Wall Street Journal... You can't help but be drawn in and have compassion. Her face has a "light" and her resolve is pretty remarkable. You wonder "how many more 'wounded dignitaries' (James Brady and now Gabby) will have to work this circuit for some very basic and sane measures?"
 
A lot of gun nuts really believe they can band together with other gun nuts a la Pat Swayze and C Thomas Howell in Red Dawn and paint each other up and hide and plant booby traps and wear down a superior fighting force.

They are being responsible by preparing to take care of themselves and their family.
 
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-th...etails-of-noah-pozners-killing/#ixzz2I0uklguO

I spent over an hour with Veronique; she talked me through her experience on December 14 and the days that followed. Her story was filled with moving and harrowing details: her dream of wandering an abandoned building calling out for Noah, her meeting with President Obama at a vigil at the local high school and her decision to get a tattoo of angel wings and Noah’s name the day after his death. The details that stuck with me the most — and the details which I felt most conflicted about putting in print — were Veronique’s descriptions of the damage to her son’s body. He was shot 11 times; she told me that his jaw and his left hand were mostly gone.

There were certain things Veronique wanted for Noah’s funeral. She felt that his body had suffered too many indignities already; she was adamant that he not be autopsied. She wanted him to be buried with a Jewish prayer shawl and with a clear stone with a white angel inside — an “angel stone” — in each of his hands. Veronique was only able to put the stone in his right hand because the left was “not altogether there,” she told me, crying for the first time in our interview. She asked the funeral director to put the other one in the left hand spot. “I made him promise and he did.”


Veronique told me that Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy visited her in the funeral home, and she brought him to see Noah’s open casket. I asked her why it was important for her and for the governor to see Noah’s body. “I needed it to have a face for him,” she said. “If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him.”
 
The basic reality is those who think there is a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of gun confiscation are delusional and living in a bizarro world. The only people crazier than are the ones that think their weapons can stop the government.

The reality is their position protect criminals and crazies.
 
no, you missed the point of the post (and so did BBD). The point is that if even police, who have more extensive gun training and handling experience than 99% of the population can't keep their firearms anymore secure than your average "responsible" gun owner--there have been 3 accidental police shootings since this thread was started two weeks ago, and those are just the ones posted. So I think we may need to start questioning whether the concept of "responsible gun ownership" is possible in the first place. It admittedly got lost in my disdain for police, but I'll say it again:

humans are not responsible gun owners. the species has proven itself too capricious to be continually disseminating things like firearms. our nature based on primordial instincts makes 100% safe gun use 100% of the time impossible. IM(well supported)O, if you are a human, you cannot responsibly own a gun 100% of the time.

Now you're free to disagree on what constitutes "responsible" practices and what don't. But you can't try to argue that such practices are always implemented cause they aren't.
 
Last edited:
For at least 4 generations and probably further back w/ research, my family has owned guns and never had an accident or had one stolen or committed a crime.

Pretty sure people can be responsible with guns.
 
and yes we do disarm cops. in many countries without gun problems cops carry tasers and peper spray and rubber bullets, and batons, only a very few live rounds are at the station and even fewer on actual officers on duty.
 
For at least 4 generations and probably further back w/ research, my family has owned guns and never had an accident or had one stolen or committed a crime.

Pretty sure people can be responsible with guns.

same, but when speaking in generalities, people are not responsible gun owners. In de jure sure, people can be responsible with guns. This thread proves in de facto that they aren't consistently enough that we should allow them in civil society. most developed nations agree with me.
 
For at least 4 generations and probably further back w/ research, my family has owned guns and never had an accident or had one stolen or committed a crime.

Pretty sure people can be responsible with guns.

anecdotal evidence
 
DoDo never responded to my query about why it might be that the demographic most exposed to guns and gun violence - black people - are most supportive of gun control. So I'll answer my own query. Gun violence is barbaric and horrible. The post above about what happened to Noah Pozner is an example. Cast in its absolute most favorable theoretical light, private gun ownership is a necessary evil to protect the owner against other people with guns (or if you're paranoid, the government). It is not a positive good. I don't find it surprising at all that people who live in neighborhoods plagued by gun violence support laws to keep the guns away from the bad guys, instead of being forced themselves to partake in the necessary evil of living armed and afraid.

The people most supportive of gun rights - older, white, rural males - are the people who are least likely to be the victim of any sort of crime.
 
As a species, humans can't be responsible 100% of the time with anything. Your logic leads to a conclusion we should ban automobiles, bunson burners, skydiving, or anything else inherently dangerous.

Absolutely, that's why it comes down to a matter of syncing our definitions with words like "responsible," and to first agreeing on values, priorities, and what constitutes reasonable risk. I thought about mentioning that in the post but I thought it was pretty hard hitting and so I didn't wanna dilute it with that additional digression. but I agree with your logic there.

You wanna know something Junebug? virtually every developed country has universal healthcare. So will the U.S.
You wanna know something else? virtually every developed country has either a ban or severe restrictions on firearm manufacture and distribution. So will the U.S.

Sometimes conservatives kill me cause they have no understanding of historical trends or the progression of the human condition. Your fighting a losing battle. You guys fight losing battles on everything. Immigration, abortion, religion, small government (not to be confused with representative govt.), climate change, justifying unilateral pre-emptive wars, and somehow you guys think guns keep people safe. you're all batshit crazy, and provided pacificist movements across the globe can get the security council members to multilateral disarmament, in 500 years you conservatives are not going to like how the world looks.
 
Last edited:
From Rulz's facebook:

One of the most notorious Nazis was Josef Mengele. He had a particular fascination with 'experimenting' on Jewish children - especially twins.

He would separate twins into different buildings. Then he would slowly, slowly torture one twin, the other twin would be monitored for signs of distress, to see if they picked up on their sibling's pain by 'telepathy'.

AND YOU WANT TO BAN MY ASSAULT RIFLE.........

WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER !
 
As a species, humans can't be responsible 100% of the time with anything. Your logic leads to a conclusion we should ban automobiles, bunson burners, skydiving, or anything else inherently dangerous.

and the other difference is, in all those activities you listed, the consequences when those things go wrong are generally not the mass murder of dozens of youngsters. with skydiving for example the only causality if you're not responsible is yourself.
 
Back
Top