Gun Control

[commando]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I said nothing indicating I thought the holocaust was anything less than probably the worst human tragedy in history.  
 

Your exaggerated responses are getting tiresome. 

he assumes everyone is for total gun bans.   fact is most of us here own guns and don't want to give them all up.   we want things like universal background checks, maybe bans on certain types of guns, and maybe some magazine capacity limits.    but we are the bad guys so here we are.

 

[DefenderAO]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I said nothing indicating I thought the holocaust was anything less than probably the worst human tragedy in history.  
 

Your exaggerated responses are getting tiresome. 

But I support kids being killed...smh.  Ad hominem laziness.

 

I want sociopaths treated.  You want some guns.  Others want all guns.  

 

One deals with the source.  The other deals with means.   

 

We have been at a stalemate for a bit.   

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

I support kids being killed...smh.

Where have I said that?

[DefenderAO]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where have I said that?

I support or the trite "you're fine with."  Maybe not you, but multiple have tried that route to evoke some response.   I'd screen cap a history but I'm limited to two kB attachments.  

 

Thank you for not going there.  I would not say you (or others) embrace, or are good with, sociopaths shooting others.  It's all lazy.  

 

We still find a stalemate.  Though, I have said it would be interesting to hear reform policies that would a. actually curb the violence remembering pistols in urban areas cause more deaths than any other arms type and b. not lend itself to some subversive intent towards confiscation.  

[DefenderAO]

49 minutes ago, commando said:

he assumes everyone is for total gun bans.   fact is most of us here own guns and don't want to give them all up.   we want things like universal background checks, maybe bans on certain types of guns, and maybe some magazine capacity limits.    but we are the bad guys so here we are.

 

The latest shooter was being tracked/watched etc.  How would any proposal above have prevented her from killing?

 

I went overly hyperbolic, posted some pics of extremists stating they wanted to kill "Christcucks" while holding AR patterned rifles, and said detain and interview/investigate them.  It was met with an appropriate amount of personal liberty and un-Constitutional challenge.  

 

My point in doing so - they had guns and are making unveiled threats at a certain group.  And none were arrested unless they acted out.  What, short of drastic measures, would've saved lives?

 

Using the mag limit example, do you think a sociopath, having access to a drum mag or 30 round mag, will give second thought to using one before a spree?  Or do you intend the next 50 years to be safer through enforcement?  Because in that scenario, only the law-abiding would consider compliance.  

[commando]

33 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

The latest shooter was being tracked/watched etc.  How would any proposal above have prevented her from killing?

 

I went overly hyperbolic, posted some pics of extremists stating they wanted to kill "Christcucks" while holding AR patterned rifles, and said detain and interview/investigate them.  It was met with an appropriate amount of personal liberty and un-Constitutional challenge.  

 

My point in doing so - they had guns and are making unveiled threats at a certain group.  And none were arrested unless they acted out.  What, short of drastic measures, would've saved lives?

 

Using the mag limit example, do you think a sociopath, having access to a drum mag or 30 round mag, will give second thought to using one before a spree?  Or do you intend the next 50 years to be safer through enforcement?  Because in that scenario, only the law-abiding would consider compliance.  

if kentucky did background checks on everyone that bought a gun they might have caught him.....but they only do checks when you apply to conceal carry.  

 

mag limits"   why make it easier for someone to get extended magazines?   or are you saying nothing will work so why even try?

 

 

[DefenderAO]

1 minute ago, commando said:

if kentucky did background checks on everyone that bought a gun they might have caught him.....but they only do checks when you apply to conceal carry.  

 

mag limits"   why make it easier for someone to get extended magazines?   or are you saying nothing will work so why even try?

 

 

Did she have a background that would've been flagged?  I don't know much about her past just that she was already in a system(s) yet still was roaming around able to shoot innocents.

 

So, you implement a magazine ban/limit.  Are the criminally-minded in your line turning their stuff in?   Many law-abiding will/might.  The ones part of the 99.9999999% of America that would never conceive of going on a shooting spree.

 

Realistically, the chance you have for impact is years down the road as there are simply less of them around.   The ones that have them are the "Shall not be infringed" group, and the criminals with access to an underground market of anything they want.  

 

 

[RedDenver]

19 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Too much world history of mass death after disarmament for my standards. 

You've given one example of the Holocaust but don't acknowledge that the people having guns wouldn't haven't really changed history. There's many examples of people with guns getting killed.

 

Seems like you're just talking yourself into being mad at some "others" to avoid considering the actual problems associated with mass gun ownership. And using words like "filth" to describe groups you disagree with is just propaganda used to dehumanize the "others". Given the large number of posts in such a short time, I'm a bit worried that you're working yourself up to something. Please talk to someone and not just post on an anonymous message board.

[DefenderAO]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You've given one example of the Holocaust but don't acknowledge that the people having guns wouldn't haven't really changed history. There's many examples of people with guns getting killed.

 

Seems like you're just talking yourself into being mad at some "others" to avoid considering the actual problems associated with mass gun ownership. And using words like "filth" to describe groups you disagree with is just propaganda used to dehumanize the "others". Given the large number of posts in such a short time, I'm a bit worried that you're working yourself up to something. Please talk to someone and not just post on an anonymous message board.

Projection at its finest. To. A. T. 
 

 

Nice example of moral relativism for you. “Don’t call things filth. You can’t tell me my truth is wrong. But, you’re wrong.  You’re…mad!”

 

I’ve got my talking point for the seemingly tired Holocaust example. Thanks for providing a take not based on reality, but one that fits your narrative. 
 

Also, please tell me the irony is not lost on you. I propose a hypothetical that could’ve saved lives. You’re dismissive of its efficacy. Then, when challenged on your assertions or proposals?  Unhinged. 
 

Your post wins the day. 
 

 

[commando]

i still don't know what AO thinks might help the problem.    heck...i am not sure what he thinks the real problem is.   the target has moved so many times it's hard to keep track.   my best guess is that we need more guns, more morality, and fewer dems 

[RedDenver]

57 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Projection at its finest. To. A. T. 
 

 

Nice example of moral relativism for you. “Don’t call things filth. You can’t tell me my truth is wrong. But, you’re wrong.  You’re…mad!”

That's not at all what I said. I never said you can't say those things or call my truth wrong. Believe whatever you want, but if you're going to post about them for other people to read, then expect to get challenged on them. Using terms like "filth" when referring to a group of people is indeed dehumanizing. And you didn't use "filth" to describe "things" unless you consider progressives to be things, which is even more problematic.

57 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

I’ve got my talking point for the seemingly tired Holocaust example. Thanks for providing a take not based on reality, but one that fits your narrative. 

My take is entirely based in reality. But you continue to make statements that over the course of history people who have had their guns taken away resulted in mass deaths, but have given only one example. And that example is based on pure speculation.

57 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Also, please tell me the irony is not lost on you. I propose a hypothetical that could’ve saved lives. You’re dismissive of its efficacy.

Uh yeah, something that's not likely to have changed anything is actually unlikely to have saved lives. Not really anything ironic about this, but feel free to think so if it makes you feel better.

57 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Then, when challenged on your assertions or proposals?  Unhinged. 

You aren't really challenging my assertions or proposals so much as stating the same things over and over. And your manic posting combined with dehumanizing terms is what makes me concerned, not anything in regards to my own beliefs or thinking.

57 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Your post wins the day. 

Literally everything in that post was wrong. Congrats on that.

 

Maybe take a break from posting so much.

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's not at all what I said. I never said you can't say those things or call my truth wrong. Believe whatever you want, but if you're going to post about them for other people to read, then expect to get challenged on them. Using terms like "filth" when referring to a group of people is indeed dehumanizing. And you didn't use "filth" to describe "things" unless you consider progressives to be things, which is even more problematic.

My take is entirely based in reality. But you continue to make statements that over the course of history people who have had their guns taken away resulted in mass deaths, but have given only one example. And that example is based on pure speculation.

Uh yeah, something that's not likely to have changed anything is actually unlikely to have saved lives. Not really anything ironic about this, but feel free to think so if it makes you feel better.

You aren't really challenging my assertions or proposals so much as stating the same things over and over. And your manic posting combined with dehumanizing terms is what makes me concerned, not anything in regards to my own beliefs or thinking.

Literally everything in that post was wrong. Congrats on that.

 

Maybe take a break from posting so much.

His entire posting history is a montage of wanting to make a point, so he goes out and finds the most extreme or weird example and tries to act like it's affecting all of us and destroying America and our kids.

[DefenderAO]

45 minutes ago, commando said:

i still don't know what AO thinks might help the problem.    heck...i am not sure what he thinks the real problem is.   the target has moved so many times it's hard to keep track.   my best guess is that we need more guns, more morality, and fewer dems 

I’ll give you a bullseye. Treat sociopaths’ mental illnesses.
Solve the root issue.  The inanimate objects don’t do anything by themselves. The mentally insane do. 

[ZRod]

9 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

I’ll give you a bullseye. Treat sociopaths’ mental illnesses.
Solve the root issue.  The inanimate objects don’t do anything by themselves. The mentally insane do. 

So why can't I have a bazooka then? I'm not a sociopath or diagnosed as mentally ill.

[sho]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So why can't I have a bazooka then? I'm not a sociopath or diagnosed as mentally ill.

You actually can get a bazooka legally.   Just have to do a lot of paperwork and it's highly regulated....so it can be done (both the highly regulating and getting crazy a$$ weapons)