Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-27-2012, 04:51 PM   #16
thesummerqueen
Junior Member
 
thesummerqueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 52
Then I don't understand where the discrepancy of understanding happened.

In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.
~ Albert Camus
thesummerqueen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 07:02 PM   #17
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Probably around the time you tried to equate guns and drugs.

I still maintain that more regulation on guns (which, by definition would bring down the number of guns in circulation) would significantly decrease illegal guns on the market.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:39 AM   #18
ILOVEJESUS
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
How is the gun debate hanging in the states at the moment? I hear Piers Morgan is getting a battering for stating certain gun nuts to be idiots, and the bible to being flawed etc. Any chance of some control?

A theist is just an atheist with a space in it.
ILOVEJESUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:24 AM   #19
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
Gun control? No.
Self control? Nope.

Shit, half the time even the remote control is missing.

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:35 AM   #20
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Summerqueen,

Let's step back for a moment from the topic of "guns" and be a little more specific.

How do you feel about semi-automatic assault rifles?
High-capacity magazines?
Gun-show loopholes on background checks?

These are the topics that are pretty much up for discussion right now. Naturally, right-wing lunatics hear "maybe we shouldn't sell semi-automatic assault rifles" as "ZOMG NObama wants 2 take ALL UR GUNS!!!!!!!11!!1one!!"

It's completely pointless to have a discussion about "guns" with no further specificity. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that anything will ever happen to handguns or hunting rifles, no matter where anyone stands on that issue. So let's talk about what's important. What are your feelings on those three topics?

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 04:57 PM   #21
Noodle
Member
 
Noodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 161
It's a thing again. All the Facebook comments I read are really pissing me off so I thought I could come here for some sanity and people who can have an honest conversation.

I don't even have very strong feelings about this topic, but I do have strong feelings about illogical arguments. One of them that my idiot brother uses is that if we take people's guns, people will just use knives, cars, and baseball bats to kill each other, so we shouldn't bother with controlling guns. If people want to kill each other, they'll find a way. It won't make any difference, so why limit our freedom to own firearms?
Noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 06:00 PM   #22
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,580
Welcome back!
As a non-American outside observer, I find your "freedom to own firearms" to be well past its sell-by date.
In 1792 when the infamous 2nd Amendment came into force, the newly formed country had no standing armed forces to protect the security of the newly established states.
The controlling powers judged that regulated armed civilian militias would provide security - hence the need for civilians joining said militias to be suitably armed - hence the 2nd amendment. Moving on 226 years, now possessing the largest armed forces in the history of the known universe, why the fuck do you need militias to protect the security of your states? The 2nd amendment has been an unnecesary sack of shit for a couple of centuries, despite what the politicised Supreme Court may have judged.
Time to repeal and get with the rest of the civilised world don't ya think?

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 06:26 PM   #23
Noodle
Member
 
Noodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 161
Thanks for the welcome.

My brother would say that we need firearms to be able to fight a tyrannical government. Like in Venezuela, the people can't fight the police because they don't have guns. He's an anti-government conspiracy theory nut.

Even if the US government did turn tyrannical, I wonder if the people having some firepower is worth all the dead kids.
Noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2018, 06:29 PM   #24
Noodle
Member
 
Noodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 161
As for the "well what about knives?" idea, if knives are so deadly, you can use them instead of guns to fight the government. I'm also baffled by people who claim to be knowledgable about guns who don't seem to understand how deadly and easy they are compared to attacking someone with a knife.
Noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 09:10 PM   #25
Noodle
Member
 
Noodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 161
Quote:
JerryJohn wrote View Post
I truly have no issue with gun control to the means which will make society comfortable; background checks, waiting periods etc.

That said I am a Republican, and NRA member.

I do believe gun control really doesn't improve crime rates by guns for the State of Illinois which I have read (and I stand to be corrected) has the most strict gun control laws but yet a very high rate of deaths by guns.

I do believe I have the right to arm myself. Sadly it seems criminals can always get their hands on guns no matter what the gun laws.

I truly don't know what the answer is.

These are a few simple thoughts of mine.

What do you believe?

JJ
I do think making guns harder to get would reduce deaths from guns. The pro-gun crowd would say gun control violates the 2A. But most people seem cool with limiting the 2A in some way. I don't know anyone who's cool with private citizens owning nukes, tanks, grenades, or rocket launchers. I think most people agree it should be limited, we just disagree to the extent.

Gun control advocates would say the gun violence is so bad in Chicago because their laws don't stop people from going to neighboring states to buy guns and then bring them back to Chicago. We need national laws for them to work.

If guns were banned outright, which is not something I support, I think only the most wealthy and well-connected criminals would have guns. Like drug dealers and what not. I could be wrong about that, though. The US is much bigger than other developed countries with longer boarders, so it might be easier to smuggle in illegal guns. I don't think little Billy from down the street is gonna go get a black market gun to shoot up your kid's school, though.
Noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 08:20 AM   #26
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,580
1. Remind me again - why is a 1792 decision to defend State security via civilian militia in any way relevant in 2018?

2. Why do you allow wealthy special interest groups (eg: The NRA) to 'buy' politicians to protect their interests?

3. Where in your constitution is the express clause that allows armed civilians to remove a tyrannical government?

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 08:47 AM   #27
Noodle
Member
 
Noodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 161
1. It's not really, but gun people seem to cling to it like Christians cling to the Bible. Personally, I think it could be helpful to repeal the 2nd Amendment so that we can treat gun ownership like a privilege rather than a right.

2. That's a huge problem in the US right now. It's basically legal bribery. I saw a chart somewhere that claimed any particular bill in Congress has a 30% chance of becoming law and public opinion/the will of the people has almost no effect on that figure. Now if you can put some money behind it or rich people want it, it's much more likely to pass.

3. I don't think there is one, but I think the pro-gun crowd base that interpretation on the American Revolution and some stuff the founders said like, the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and what not. I know six-year-olds can be bossy, but I'm not sure that's what the founding fathers meant.
Noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 09:08 AM   #28
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Noodle wrote View Post
It's a thing again. All the Facebook comments I read are really pissing me off so I thought I could come here for some sanity and people who can have an honest conversation.

I don't even have very strong feelings about this topic, but I do have strong feelings about illogical arguments. One of them that my idiot brother uses is that if we take people's guns, people will just use knives, cars, and baseball bats to kill each other, so we shouldn't bother with controlling guns. If people want to kill each other, they'll find a way. It won't make any difference, so why limit our freedom to own firearms?
My favorite response is, that mass stabbings are much less deadly than mass shootings. When some asshole drove a car into a crowd of protesters, only one person died. Baseball bats are the same thing. A person in good health can run from and/or dodge knives, cars, and bats. Or a person can be overcome without much loss of life by large enough opposition. But if the person has a gun, it's tough to dodge bullets and impossible to outrun them. Even if people in a larger enough group decide to try to overcome a shooter, there will be a decent amount of lives lost.

For cars, we have driver's licenses with tests and tickets the right to drive revoked if the person proves reckless enough. Why not do the same thing with guns?

And finally, if people are just going to find a way to kill other people, why not let everyone just have atomic bombs? I mean, they're going to find a way to kill someone anyway, why not just make easier to them?

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational