First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply More Gun Control Is Needed! After The Ohio Attack ???
1470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4 days ago
i was busy with online shopping so i didn't pay attention to the news for the past few days

Ohio State University Student Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hRScE-lbA

OSU Attacker Facebook Rant Investigated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRsAbScMzm4

Weapons of choice in this domestic terror attack were knife and car

not sure how guns had anything to do with it but if they want to go that route...how about looking at it this way then

if you look at these terror attacks closely.. you will notice the common thing that all these terrorists/psychos used in their attack

can you guess what it is ?



so.. um.. maybe we should have some sort of control - background checked required as well ?

it will help prevent these attacks no ?


how about knife control? pressure cooker control ? etc.. more control is needed after each attack right? what's next? i can't even go to home depot or some appliance store without show my ID too ?

it looks like they are treating the side effects but not the cause of the problem.


8494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 4 days ago , edited 4 days ago
One can inversely say "Why not Nuke Control?" Which many nations exercise. I don't think it is a good argument. Some people draw the line at guns, and there are several convincing criteria for doing so, namely the purpose of a tool and lethalness. Is it that hard to comprehend? We already banned bomb making, something I consider sensible measure, why can't I use your argument, saying "We banned bombs, why not knives?" I believe it is called "Slippery Slope" and a bit of a Strawman to assume everyone wants to ban guns entirely.



And another things, cars are already subject to several regulation not afforded to guns, including registration and competence testing. If we do so for cars, why not guns?

Note, I generally support gun rights as of now, I know nothing about the supposed loopholes, which should be closed even if they are not being exploited on a large scale if that were the case, but I just dislike bad arguments.
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / San Diego, Califo...
Offline
Posted 4 days ago , edited 4 days ago
The subject is a extremely EXTREMELY sensitive.
However the whole "I need a gun because he has one" mentality seems quite off.
It all derives from what society guns are raised from. (I.E Sweden, Japan Etc Etc)

I honestly have little to no problem with American Gun Laws. It's just the social support that comes with it.
It is easier to buy a gun than to seek out medical treatment because of how expensive it is.
It is cheaper to buy a bullet than to buy proper medication.

I agree with the advocates that states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But why is there little to no healthcare infrastructure to actually assisting the people doing the shooting sprees and to prevent it from happening it in the first place?

But that's is just my opinion in the whole mess.
8494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 4 days ago

GenericMochi wrote:

The subject is a extremely EXTREMELY sensitive.
However the whole "I need a gun because he has one" mentality seems quite off.
It all derives from what society guns are raised from. (I.E Sweden, Japan Etc Etc)

I honestly have little to no problem with American Gun Laws. It's just the social support that comes with it.
It is easier to buy a gun than to seek out medical treatment because of how expensive it is.
It is cheaper to buy a bullet than to buy proper medication.

I agree with the advocates that states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But why is there little to no healthcare infrastructure to actually assisting the people doing the shooting sprees and to prevent it from happening it in the first place?

But that's is just my opinion in the whole mess.


One of my main gripes would have to be what you said. A lot of these people oppose such plans as being overly intrusive and costly. I don't support Obamacare but the tirade against this supposed "Creeping" socialism espoused by Crowder and friends has got to end. Since when is mental health a luxury?
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / San Diego, Califo...
Offline
Posted 4 days ago , edited 4 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GenericMochi wrote:

The subject is a extremely EXTREMELY sensitive.
However the whole "I need a gun because he has one" mentality seems quite off.
It all derives from what society guns are raised from. (I.E Sweden, Japan Etc Etc)

I honestly have little to no problem with American Gun Laws. It's just the social support that comes with it.
It is easier to buy a gun than to seek out medical treatment because of how expensive it is.
It is cheaper to buy a bullet than to buy proper medication.

I agree with the advocates that states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But why is there little to no healthcare infrastructure to actually assisting the people doing the shooting sprees and to prevent it from happening it in the first place?

But that's is just my opinion in the whole mess.


One of my main gripes would have to be what you said. A lot of these people oppose such plans as being overly intrusive and costly. I don't support Obamacare but the tirade against this supposed "Creeping" socialism espoused by Crowder and friends has got to end. Since when is mental health a luxury?


I agree with you on your views on Obama Care. I personally don't support Obamacare. The fact is that Obamacare isn't universal. Instead, it locks people in many of the worst features of the private insurance system and forces citizens to pick up the tab. However it was a half step into the right direction in moving towards a completed Universal health care system i.e ACA.

Posted 4 days ago

GenericMochi wrote:

The subject is a extremely EXTREMELY sensitive.
However the whole "I need a gun because he has one" mentality seems quite off.
It all derives from what society guns are raised from. (I.E Sweden, Japan Etc Etc)

I honestly have little to no problem with American Gun Laws. It's just the social support that comes with it.
It is easier to buy a gun than to seek out medical treatment because of how expensive it is.
It is cheaper to buy a bullet than to buy proper medication.

I agree with the advocates that states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But why is there little to no healthcare infrastructure to actually assisting the people doing the shooting sprees and to prevent it from happening it in the first place?

But that's is just my opinion in the whole mess.


I need a gun because when seconds count, the police are minimum tens of minutes away. Not that such situations arise just this side of EVER, but then we return to that old adage of "better to have it already when you need it."

With all of these "mass shootings" the first thing that ends it is the good guy showing up with a gun.

But cmon...easier to buy a gun than get healthcare? What the hell planet are YOU on? You should stop listening to the news stations that told you those lies.

Oh right, didnt our resident Kenyan utter those words?


Infrastructure....

full stop, gotta get there lawfully and constitutionally, and Obamacare does neither.

It is both unconstitutional, and not constitutionally ratified.

Its dead in the water, end of story. Centralized Healthcare is the worst thing that could ever happen to healthcare in the USA.
qwueri 
16420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4 days ago
Number of fatalities in this attack: 1. The attacker. You really sure you want to start comparing this with when an attacker has a gun?
15467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

One can inversely say "Why not Nuke Control?" Which many nations exercise. I don't think it is a good argument. Some people draw the line at guns, and there are several convincing criteria for doing so, namely the purpose of a tool and lethalness. Is it that hard to comprehend? We already banned bomb making, something I consider sensible measure, why can't I use your argument, saying "We banned bombs, why not knives?" I believe it is called "Slippery Slope" and a bit of a Strawman to assume everyone wants to ban guns entirely.



And another things, cars are already subject to several regulation not afforded to guns, including registration and competence testing. If we do so for cars, why not guns?

Note, I generally support gun rights as of now, I know nothing about the supposed loopholes, which should be closed even if they are not being exploited on a large scale if that were the case, but I just dislike bad arguments.


"And another things, cars are already subject to several regulation not afforded to guns, including registration and competence testing. If we do so for cars, why not guns?" This sentence is so ignorant of current gun laws in the U.S. I don't know where to begin... oh, here. be a gun holder and have fun with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

heh "simple".
8494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 4 days ago

Kelgair wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

One can inversely say "Why not Nuke Control?" Which many nations exercise. I don't think it is a good argument. Some people draw the line at guns, and there are several convincing criteria for doing so, namely the purpose of a tool and lethalness. Is it that hard to comprehend? We already banned bomb making, something I consider sensible measure, why can't I use your argument, saying "We banned bombs, why not knives?" I believe it is called "Slippery Slope" and a bit of a Strawman to assume everyone wants to ban guns entirely.



And another things, cars are already subject to several regulation not afforded to guns, including registration and competence testing. If we do so for cars, why not guns?

Note, I generally support gun rights as of now, I know nothing about the supposed loopholes, which should be closed even if they are not being exploited on a large scale if that were the case, but I just dislike bad arguments.


"And another things, cars are already subject to several regulation not afforded to guns, including registration and competence testing. If we do so for cars, why not guns?" This sentence is so ignorant of current gun laws in the U.S. I don't know where to begin... oh, here. be a gun holder and have fun with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

heh "simple".


I'm not implying Guns are without regulation, but rather to poke a hole in his argument to compare guns and cars. I find that even if you did compare them, it would be an intentional ignorance of car regulation, and as you helpfully provided, the amount of regulation on guns.

I even admitted my ignorance about the loopholes many people confess are leading to these deaths. Give a poor guy a bone, will ya?
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 4 days ago , edited 4 days ago

AnimeAddictANN69 wrote:

i was busy with online shopping so i didn't pay attention to the news for the past few days

Ohio State University Student Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hRScE-lbA

OSU Attacker Facebook Rant Investigated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRsAbScMzm4

Weapons of choice in this domestic terror attack were knife and car

not sure how guns had anything to do with it but if they want to go that route...how about looking at it this way then

if you look at these terror attacks closely.. you will notice the common thing that all these terrorists/psychos used in their attack

can you guess what it is ?



so.. um.. maybe we should have some sort of control - background checked required as well ?

it will help prevent these attacks no ?


how about knife control? pressure cooker control ? etc.. more control is needed after each attack right? what's next? i can't even go to home depot or some appliance store without show my ID too ?

it looks like they are treating the side effects but not the cause of the problem.




Oh stop would you. Every time we have another tragedy you all come out of the woodwork trying to prove your agenda to the masses. How about instead of screaming about more gun freedom or more gun control we all show a little bit of respect to the victims and not use this tragedy for personal gain? Wouldn't that be a little more decent? We can all discuss gun control to our hearts content at a later time. Show a little respect for those who were injured. Thank goodness nobody was killed which is a fact that I could use to prove my side of the argument if I so wished but this is not the time or the place in my opinion. How about we just wish all of the victims a speedy recovery instead? This argument isn't going anywhere and we can pick it up again tomorrow.
2998 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Online
Posted 4 days ago
Eh, if people want to kill people they'll find a way either way, guns just make it easier to kill more people in a shorter amount of time.

15467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Kelgair wrote:



KR *snip*.


I'm not implying Guns are without regulation, but rather to poke a hole in his argument to compare guns and cars. I find that even if you did compare them, it would be an intentional ignorance of car regulation, and as you helpfully provided, the amount of regulation on guns.

I even admitted my ignorance about the loopholes many people confess are leading to these deaths. Give a poor guy a bone, will ya?


I'm happy to give you a bone in this regard, so long as you don't mind my additional response http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=227


Posted 4 days ago
I love how people ignorantly talk about loopholes at gun shows, as if there are not FFL requirements there, they make it like there's a gun orgy going on and its all free love that's spread around with casual abandon.
Gets It.
24666 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Online
Posted 4 days ago

TheOriginalStraynge wrote:

Oh stop would you. Every time we have another tragedy you all come out of the woodwork trying to prove your agenda to the masses. How about instead of screaming about more gun freedom or more gun control we all show a little bit of respect to the victims and not use this tragedy for personal gain? Wouldn't that be a little more decent? We can all discuss gun control to our hearts content at a later time. Show a little respect for those who were injured. Thank goodness nobody was killed which is a fact that I could use to prove my side of the argument if I so wished but this is not the time or the place in my opinion. How about we just wish all of the victims a speedy recovery instead? This argument isn't going anywhere and we can pick it up again tomorrow.


I think this post pretty much summarizes the vast majority of my comments for this thread.
The only difference I'd include is that there's no compromise on either side, so it's a debate that's never-ending. It's on par with abortions and other typical "socio-political" topics. At least show some respect for those who were injured. I know neither side are the type to concede their point, just that there are times and places for such a pointless discussion (as it's a zero-sum debate).
8494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 4 days ago

Kelgair wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Kelgair wrote:



KR *snip*.


I'm not implying Guns are without regulation, but rather to poke a hole in his argument to compare guns and cars. I find that even if you did compare them, it would be an intentional ignorance of car regulation, and as you helpfully provided, the amount of regulation on guns.

I even admitted my ignorance about the loopholes many people confess are leading to these deaths. Give a poor guy a bone, will ya?


I'm happy to give you a bone in this regard, so long as you don't mind my additional response http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=227




I rather that you kept your rudeness to yourself.

Another thing I find faulty in this discussion is instead of making an argument and posting supporting statistics and such, you are posting opinion pieces you happen to agree with, without going the extra mile to actually sift out key elements, but expecting me to sift through and read them myself. Not that I don't, but I just want to have a debate and discussion regarding these sorts of things. I am genuinely interested as of now. :(

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.