patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

patrick.net's 40 proposals »

10,739 registered users, 1 online now: Ceffer

Profile of a gun prohibitionist

By Vaticanus   2013 Jan 9, 10:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   1 link   7,927 views   52 comments   watch (1)   share   quote  

Which Diane do we believe, the one who wants to ban some guns and gun paraphernalia (a list of superficially defined "assault" weapons), or the one who apparently wants to enforce an outright confiscation?

« First     « Previous     Comments 13-52 of 52     Last »

13   Kevin   2013 Jan 20, 1:38pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

Yes it does matter, A LOT....

Welcome to democracy. If you'd rather live in a country where people with different beliefs than you don't have any influence on the law, try living in Saudi Arabia.

Call it Crazy says

Go take a look at the FBI data...

Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

14   StillLooking   2013 Jan 20, 1:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

Vaticanus says

Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

Exactly!!

Even today, only 2/3 of murders are by guns, why aren't people screaming out about the other 1/3?? Are those other murders considered O.K.??? Just wondering....

......"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]"

This assumes that many of the so-called suicides are not actually murders. We have about thirty thousand people killed by guns every year. How can all these be properly investigated?

15   Robert Sproul (2/2 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 20, 11:46pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

Here- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Please educate yourself about the facts of this issue. People manage to murder each other without firearms.

What is more difficult is protecting your self from violence without them.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
From this report:
"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. "

16   Ironman (137/145 = 94% civil)   2013 Jan 21, 12:31am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Raw says

It could be because until guns were invented no one has been able to murder 20 kids in 20 seconds. Don't you think our laws should change along with changing technology?

OK, following that logic.. Until cars were invented, we didn't lose approximately 100 people a day in car crashes...

So, laws against cars should be changed too....

17   Moderate Infidel   2013 Jan 21, 2:20am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I'm all for stricter car and traffic laws. It should be way harder to get the privilege to drive. All cars should have a breathalyzer deactivation system to prevent drunk driving. Making owning an automobile more difficult would result in more efficient public transportation. There are way too many vehicles on the planet and it is only going to get worse.

18   Kevin   2013 Jan 21, 3:34am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Its not a "fact" that any o those things are inherently weapons. A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

19   Ironman (137/145 = 94% civil)   2013 Jan 21, 3:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

Its not a "fact" that any o those things are inherently weapons. A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

Well, you're stretching it again.... anything can be used as a weapon, even a 2x4 piece of wood. Some items work better then others.

In it's most basic form, a gun was designed to send a hunk of lead from point A to point B.... it's a very simple concept.

A sword was designed to cut something.

Now I would agree that if you actually wanted to kill somebody, a gun would be more efficient then using a sling shot. So it makes sense that if you were hell bent on killing, you will use the easiest "tool" available. But as we have seen, if a gun wasn't available, killers have used other tools, including hammers...

But, going back to a previous question I asked, out of the 300 million firearms in the country, how many "hunks of lead" were fired in training, at a gun range, for sport or competition or hunting in the course of a week versus how many "hunks of lead" were fired to specifically kill someone?

I'm still waiting on that answer......

20   Kevin   2013 Jan 21, 10:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

An automobile is designed for transportation. Using it to kill or injure someone is using it in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose.

A firearm is designed to kill (or at least injure). Using it to kill or injure someone is using it as intended.

That's the difference. It's what makes a weapon a weapon in the first place.

"sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact. Nobody was sitting around going "man, we have these targets. Now we just need something to hit them with!"

21   David Losh   2013 Jan 21, 10:56am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

"sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact.

Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

Now where the lethal aspects of guns came in was during the Civil War when wholesale slaughter was commited by weapons, then we had the revolver, and Winchester to wipe out huge swaths of people.

So really guns are the short timers in the art of war, and now they have been religated behind smart bombs, nukes, and even chemicals.

The fire arms today really are more for sport than weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has glamorized guns as a way to settle scores, seek vengence, or for protection. That glamour is really what should be changed.

I personally don't carry a gun, and haven't for years. I pay attention out on the street, and do have a baseball bat for home protection. If any one is really interested in revenge taking away the guns won't change that.

There are a lot of ways to kill that are even less personal than a gun.

22   Kevin   2013 Jan 21, 11:06am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

David Losh says

Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

What the hell are you talking about? Those are still uses that squarely qualify as "weapons".

Early firearms had bayonets because they weren't very good at killing people. They were still designed as weapons to hurt.

"ATTACKING" walls and hulls isn't a "tool". It's a WEAPON. The idea that the cannon was invented for anything other than a weapon of warfare is ridiculous.

Gun powder isn't a firearm. Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.

23   Ironman (137/145 = 94% civil)   2013 Jan 21, 11:15am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.

Is that what Timothy McVeigh told you??

24   David Losh   2013 Jan 21, 11:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

Gun powder isn't a firearm.

You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

You're saying guns weren't for sport, but yes they were, and are. It's the new nifty thing.

What I actually mean by your blind spot is that you are glossing over the glamour of guns in our society. The American Revolution, as opposed to the French Revolution, the Civil War, the Wild West, Prohibition, and Viet nam, complete with the radical movement that, yes, included guns, and bombings.

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

No, you have to address the root problem rather than the tool.

25   HEY YOU (3/3 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 21, 12:12pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

26   Kevin   2013 Jan 21, 2:58pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

David Losh says

You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

David Losh says

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

27   JodyChunder   2013 Jan 21, 4:07pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

Alongside bagpipes and women named Bobbi Jo.

28   David Losh   2013 Jan 22, 12:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

Kevin says

David Losh says

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

The problem is we have a government heavily invested in manufacturing military weapons. Colt doesn't just come up with an AR 15 because hunters will use it. The AR 15, is a cheaper version of the M 16 which has been replaced with the M 4. So there are thousands of surplus military weapons in the system that we export.

You're not looking at the business of war, or how the United States government itself justifies an armed society.

We could maybe make a discussion about how when our police force changed from revolvers to Glocks they escalated the need for criminals to increase the capacity of the weapons they had.

It's a vicious circle, but if our government really wanted to do something they would address the escalation of violence rather than the weapons.

29   FortWayne (28/29 = 96% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 12:41am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

30   FortWayne (28/29 = 96% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 12:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

HEY YOU says

They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

You have to remember your history. Our government had no problem when they could to order executions or imprisonments of those who they found very inconvenient.

Guns make that task a lot more inconvenient forcing government to act more cautions and more humane in order not to spark violence.

31   Kevin   2013 Jan 22, 2:19am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

David Losh says

Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

The primary use for guns is to kill things. Soldiers, hunters, home defenders. Target practice is a secondary use (and its practice for killing things!)

The primary use for fertilizer and airplanes is not to kill things.

Thats a huge difference.

David Losh says

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

No, I haven't. Check my post history.

32   FortWayne (28/29 = 96% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 2:25am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

robertoaribas says

get some education in thinking.

Having gun rights is not up to a debate, it's a right.

And education in thinking, that does sound very soviet communist.

33   FortWayne (28/29 = 96% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 3:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

robertoaribas says

So, whenever you want to quit being an idiot, feel free to actually join the adults

You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

34   David Losh   2013 Jan 22, 4:30am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

To blow stuff up, and blow holes in stuff.

You have that blind spot about war.

Nukes started as some do good salvation, now they are a weapon of very mass destruction.

The gun was refined from a cannon.

The projectile isn't relevant.

I'll also say again that the gun, rifle, or cannon have been around a very short time in the big scheme of things, and is very possibly obsolete.

Kevin says

David Losh says

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

No, I haven't. Check my post history.

I have read your comments. If there is a point other than guns bad I'm missing it.

35   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 4:31am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

Your such a fucking moron! How do you expect to have a conversation!

36   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 4:32am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

Get off you high horse you suck and so do your anti gay, pro gun opinions.

Another foolish racist bigot.

37   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 4:34am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

robertoaribas says

are you really that clueless? that incapable of debating even say background checks on gun buying, that you have to go this route? if so, you should quit posting for a while, and get some education in thinking.

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

38   Tenpoundbass (104/104 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 4:42am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

They are the same dim witted son of a bitch. He's very angry at me, because I got him fired twice. When he was paid to come here and attack conservatives. He's an internet political schiel but sucks at it. He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan. Which is where his posts always end up, just a big ole shit slinging angry protest stink.
I would challenge him to post one thought out post that didn't involve him railing against someone. No I'm not talking about coherence here, just anything even if I didn't agree with he has to say.

Pathetic moron, lunatic. The dim fuck every time he posts in my threads I dislike him then delete. His dislikes goes up while his post count goes down. It gives me great pleasure to delete them.

If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

39   lostand confused (18/18 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 4:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.


That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

40   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 5:04am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

because I got him fired twice

Delusional fool. I am self employed unlike you.

41   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 5:05am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

He's an internet political schiel

You know nothing, as usual.

42   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 5:05am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan

Have you looked in the mirror, BIGOT!

43   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 5:06am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.

Back to work with you. You employed slave.

44   Robert Sproul (2/2 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 22, 7:01am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

robertoaribas says

NOTHING that Obama proposes will interfere with your or my right to own guns. Nothing.

But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

45   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 22, 7:05am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Robert Sproul says

But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!

46   thomaswong.1986   2013 Jan 22, 11:39am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Thedaytoday says

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.

47   FortWayne (28/29 = 96% civil)   2013 Jan 23, 12:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

lostand confused says

That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.

48   David Losh   2013 Jan 23, 1:29am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Thedaytoday says

Your such a fucking moron!

Thedaytoday says

Another foolish racist bigot.

Thedaytoday says

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others

Thedaytoday says

Delusional fool.

Thedaytoday says

You know nothing

Thedaytoday says

BIGOT!

Thedaytoday says

Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.

Thedaytoday says

That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!

Did you just high jack this thread with insults?

49   Tenpoundbass (104/104 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 23, 1:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

He's allowed to do it, it's OK he's a Lawyer for Politicofact.com.
This is how THEY roll.

50   Kevin   2013 Jan 23, 1:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

lostand confused says

That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.

I heard Hitler liked to eat meat and drink water.

51   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 23, 1:59am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

If the shoe fits

David Losh says

Did you just high jack this thread with insults?

52   Thedaytoday   2013 Jan 23, 2:00am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

thomaswong.1986 says

Thedaytoday says

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.

How are those balloons?

« First     « Previous     Comments 13-52 of 52     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to republicans