There are 120 guns for every 100 Americans

PostmodernProphet said:
your opinion carries no value.....just like the feeble crap you try to foist in everyone as debate......
Click to expand...

Another lie. It's valuable enough to make you spit out Satan's cock long enough to respond to me.

4pz8v9.jpg
 
BartenderElite said:
I support the 2nd amendment, and the right to own a gun.

But there is something wrong w/ America. Gun ownership has a near-religious devotion among some segments of the population. We hear "God, guns & gays" from voters in some regions, and for many, it is the top voting issue. Every small regulation or background check is a "slippery slope." The NRA refuses to postpone or move a large event that is taking place within days of a devastating shooting in a nearby location.

Like Trump support, it's a bit of a cult, and always a battle for those who are believers. The government is just an entity that wants to "grab their guns."

We're unique in the world in this respect. The 2nd country on the list has half the guns per capita that America does.

We're a gun nation.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment does not place a limit on the number of guns one may own, dummy.
 
BartenderElite said:
People always say the bolded. Is it true?

How do we know?

Is it a total coincidence that we lead the world in gun ownership by a significant margin - and we also lead the world in gun violence by a significant margin? Do other countries not have similar issues w/ mental health?

It seems like there is only one variable in the equation, and it's getting harder to deny.
Click to expand...

It is in every democrat controlled shit hole city.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's an irrelevance. Guns aren't the problem, crazy people, criminals, and such are.
Click to expand...
As I've pointed out before, on the morning of December 14, 2012, on opposite sides of the globe, two young men coincidentally both went off the deep end and tried to kill as many people as they could.

The situations were eerily similar. Both involved deranged young men with a history of mental trouble and physiological issues. Both started with an attack on an older woman and then moved to an elementary school. Both targeted little kids as young as six.

The one big difference is what weapons were involved, and that ended up making all the difference in the world for the 28 people who died in Sandy Hook. In the other case, guns were hard to come by in the culture, so the attacker armed himself with a knife. As a result, not a single person was killed. Most were able to run away -- there's only so many people you can stab before a room clears. Those he did wound were all able to recover, because he was subdued before he could inflict any mortal wounds.

There isn't a sane person in the world who believes Adam Lanza would still have managed to kill over two dozen people if he'd been running around with a knife, and there isn't a sane person who believes Min Yongjun would somehow have failed to cause even a single fatal wound if he'd been armed with a Bushmaster XM15 rifle and ten magazines of 30 rounds each.
 
Mina said:
As I've pointed out before, on the morning of December 14, 2012, on opposite sides of the globe, two young men coincidentally both went off the deep end and tried to kill as many people as they could.

The situations were eerily similar. Both involved deranged young men with a history of mental trouble and physiological issues. Both started with an attack on an older woman and then moved to an elementary school. Both targeted little kids as young as six.

The one big difference is what weapons were involved, and that ended up making all the difference in the world for the 28 people who died in Sandy Hook. In the other case, guns were hard to come by in the culture, so the attacker armed himself with a knife. As a result, not a single person was killed. Most were able to run away -- there's only so many people you can stab before a room clears. Those he did wound were all able to recover, because he was subdued before he could inflict any mortal wounds.

There isn't a sane person in the world who believes Adam Lanza would still have managed to kill over two dozen people if he'd been running around with a knife, and there isn't a sane person who believes Min Yongjun would somehow have failed to cause even a single fatal wound if he'd been armed with a Bushmaster XM15 rifle and ten magazines of 30 rounds each.
Click to expand...

I understand your logic but disagree with the concept of punishing everyone because of the actions of a few. That's tyranny by those who think they know best.

You know, just like banning abortion and gay marriage; authoritarian assholes who seek to push their views upon others by force; either physical or legal.

It's the 21st Century yet our politicians are using 19th Century logic to "control the masses".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I understand your logic but disagree with the concept of punishing everyone because of the actions of a few. That's tyranny by those who think they know best.
Click to expand...

This isn't about punishing everyone. It's about sparing people the punishment caused by crazy people.

I think the concept is probably one people instinctively grasp if you just increase the destructiveness of the weapons in question. Pretty much everyone will draw a line somewhere. Should everyday people be able to own heavy machine guns? How about surface-to-air missiles? Howitzers? Unlimited amounts of high explosives? Sarin gas? Weaponized anthrax? Atom bombs? Hydrogen bombs?

At some point in that progression, if people are being honest, nearly everyone is going to say "woah, wait, I draw the line before that." Nearly everyone will insist the right to bear arms shouldn't include THOSE arms. They may try to draw some distinction based on the usefulness of the weapons for personal/militia defense or the ability to target the weapons narrowly. But if they were truly honest with themselves, they'd admit that it really comes down to destructiveness: just how much mass murder do you want conveniently at hand for any random nut-job?

Where we disagree isn't truly on the fundamental principles, but just our risk aversion when it comes to mass murder. I think most Americans draw that line before the AR-15. Some draw it earlier, like at the line between a six-shot revolver and a semi-automatic pistol with 20-round magazines. A few draw it later, somewhere between fully-automatic rifles and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons (not many people are going to like the idea of any sociopath with ten thousand bucks being able to stand just outside an airport and down a 747 full of civilians.
 
Mina said:
This isn't about punishing everyone. It's about sparing people the punishment caused by crazy people.

I think the concept is probably one people instinctively grasp if you just increase the destructiveness of the weapons in question. Pretty much everyone will draw a line somewhere. Should everyday people be able to own heavy machine guns? How about surface-to-air missiles? Howitzers? Unlimited amounts of high explosives? Sarin gas? Weaponized anthrax? Atom bombs? Hydrogen bombs?

At some point in that progression, if people are being honest, nearly everyone is going to say "woah, wait, I draw the line before that." Nearly everyone will insist the right to bear arms shouldn't include THOSE arms. They may try to draw some distinction based on the usefulness of the weapons for personal/militia defense or the ability to target the weapons narrowly. But if they were truly honest with themselves, they'd admit that it really comes down to destructiveness: just how much mass murder do you want conveniently at hand for any random nut-job?

Where we disagree isn't truly on the fundamental principles, but just our risk aversion when it comes to mass murder. I think most Americans draw that line before the AR-15. Some draw it earlier, like at the line between a six-shot revolver and a semi-automatic pistol with 20-round magazines. A few draw it later, somewhere between fully-automatic rifles and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons (not many people are going to like the idea of any sociopath with ten thousand bucks being able to stand just outside an airport and down a 747 full of civilians.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You think banning abortion, gay marriage or anything else "for the good of society" is a good path for us?

Most people are stupid and/or chickenshits. They can't "do the math" so they fear it. Fear of the Unknown is an all too common problem for them.

IMO, our nation should focus on mental illness and preventive medicine for the mind.

FWIW, I always love the atomic bomb argument. It's like the "marry your cat" argument when the RWers were whining about gay marriage. LOL

https://www.healthline.com/health/understanding-and-overcoming-fear-of-the-unknown
The psychological term for fear of the unknown is “xenophobia.” In modern usage, the word has evolved to mean the fear of strangers or foreigners — but its original meaning is much broader. It includes anything or anyone that’s unfamiliar or unknown.

Researchers define fear of the unknown as the tendency to be afraid of something you have no information about on any level. For some people, fearing the unknown can go a step further.

If you feel intensely upset and anxious when you encounter an unknown or unfamiliar situation, you may have developed a state of mind called “intolerance of uncertainty.” This means uncertain circumstances feel unbearable to you.


https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts-about-american-schools/2019/01
There are 130,930 public and private K-12 schools in the U.S., according to 2017-18 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Here’s how they break down:

All: 130,930
Elementary schools: 87,498
Secondary schools: 26,727
Combined schools: 15,804
Other: 901
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Most people are stupid and/or chickenshits.

IMO, our nation should focus on mental illness and preventive medicine for the mind.1
Click to expand...

1. Absolutely correct, and it's much easier for you to have empathy than it is for me.

2. You have been opposed to the deprivatization of healthcare from day one.
Stop pretending you give a fuck, Dutch.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
1. Absolutely correct, and it's much easier for you to have empathy than it is for me.

2. You have been opposed to the deprivatization of healthcare from day one.
Stop pretending you give a fuck, Dutch.
Click to expand...

1. There's hope for you yet.

2. I have no idea WTF that means.

6i5p3b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top