Americans Must Resign Themselves to Crazy Gunster Massacres

Anybody demanding a living wage, that's who.

 

That would be a matter of poor supply, not training, and all Communist country's did that. "Chairman Mao's thoughts give me four more magazines for the rifle I don't have"

 

So, again with the black and white thinking.

NOTHING is black and white, not even freedom.

Could taking away all guns make things a lot worse rather than better? Possibly. But that is why I am not calling for a total ban on all guns.

Do you have a better idea? One that is not just 'Learn to live with it?'

Just because something is hard doesn't mean you give up.

 

If the Russian people were armed then why didn't they take their own personal firearms?

 

If you aren't going to ban *all* guns then what good do you think it will do to ban *some* guns?

In the 80's when I was an FFL, the police auctioned off seized guns. The most popular were sawed-off .30-30 caliber, lever action rifles followed by .38Spl revolvers. Guess what? The actual kill rate back then was HIGHER than today. The .30-30 carried *far* more wallop than today's 9mm and .380 which is so popular among criminals.

If you ban just some guns then the criminals will just move to a different firearm and all you will have accomplished is disarming law abiding citizens of perhaps the best self-defense firearm they could possibly have!

 

Do all guns kill the same?

Does it take the same amount of effort to learn how to use every type of gun? Do all guns cost the same?

The answer is no.

Maybe you don't understand my view. I'm not trying to stop ALL gun violence. That's just not possible. What I want is to dis-incentivise it. To slow the use of it down. To make it harder. To weed out those killers that just want the easiest method to kill.

And if they move on to other weapons, we can do a cost/benefit at that time as well.

I WANT these people to move on to melee weapons. You cannot kill as many people with a knife or a bat in the same time as you can with a gun. And a pistol cannot kill as many people in the same amount of time as a automatic rifle.

Why do conservative posters, by and large, advocate for no rules? I often hear its to basically weed out the weak. But the people that you consider weak today may be stronger than you one day, and then they may wish they had preached more compassion and kindness.

 

It doesn't take much to learn how to use a .30-30 rifle! It doesn't take much to learn how to load and fire a six shot .38Spl revolver.

Perhaps you didn't bother to read what I told you. The kill rate with a .30-30 is *far* higher than with a 9mm pistol. If the killers want to kill then a .30-30 lever action rifle, sawed off to fit inside a car easily, will do the job just fine.

And here we go down the slippery slope! You honestly think banning .30-30 lever action rifles will fly with *anyone*?

A pistol can fire *MORE* rapidly than a rifle, ANY rifle using a rifle caliber! Do you have even the slightest clue as to why?

You are part of the left that knows nothing and has no intention of learning anything. Your *fear*, a negative emotion, drives everything you do!

Malarky. Conservative posters advocate for RULES THAT WORK! The left, including you, advocate for rules that make you feel as if you are doing something, ANYTHING, with no concern as to whether the rules work or not!

It is the weak that need firearms the MOST! Like my 5'2" wife who would be an easy target for a physically stronger rapist. But *YOU* and the left don't care one iota about her. *YOU* would leave her to the Law of the Jungle. And you think you have the moral high ground? You are delusional!

 

That's an opinion. A greedy elitist opinion but an opinion nonetheless. That is not however the disdain I was pointing out...and THAT is a very real thing based on what Republicans say about anyone making less than themselves.

 

Liberty does have it's costs. Liberals persecute religion and the teaching of virtue in public schools. Parents have gotten away from instilling virtue. Liberal views of morals, secular humanist promotion of situational ethics and moral relativity and the breakdown of the family. These are things that all add to the price of liberty. your own hyper-partisan fanaticism has contributed greatly to the chaos that results in massacres such as these. Guns didn't do it.

 

Wrong! Cars that are used for sport are designed for sport. They don't do well in normal road conditions. And they most certainly be lousy in a mass killing terrorist attack Most are not even allowed on the road, because they might kill people. Stock cars are used in sport, but they are not designed for sport. Guns are designed for killing. If you mean "bullseye" sports, I'm sure they can certainly design a gun that will do the job, but won't be easy to use killing a large number of people. And if they can't... well... sorry... Peoples' lives are more important.

If somebody needs a gun to shoot at a target, or if somebody needs one because their only way to get food is to hunt, all that can be worked out. But it's an idiotic justification for allowing weapons that can be used in mass killings out on the street.

 

Spoken like a true Trumpian. Did you see him today lying about Bob Corker? Exactly like you are lying here. History will remember Trump's legacy.as creating a pack of unapologetic liars to be scorned for posterity.

I have said absolutely nothing about confiscating guns. So if you can't comment without lying, just buzz off.

 

Yes!!!! Exactly!!! That's exactly why I say you have not idea what Marxism is. To Marx, in a communist society, labor becomes "life's prime want". Communist countries' main propaganda theme has been to prove that it doesn't matter that workers get lousy wages in their countries, because it's work itself, not what they get from it, what makes them happy.

Now, this is just a small little droplet of education that you received today. And it's a very very basic one. In communist countries they teach this at kindergarten level (thus my remark that you didn't even reach that level) So next time you feel like saying that Democrats are "Marxists", you will need to keep in mind that you are still faaar away from understanding what the term means.

Oh... and BTW, the phrase did not originate with Marx. Many many writers used it before him. As a matter of fact, the origin of "From each according to his ability" has been traced back to... The Bible.

Just a little "trivia" for you.

 

Wrong again.

You insist on making up positions and arbitrarily ascribing them to me. Which is the definition of "Strawman Fallacy". So I won't elaborate because... what's the use of rebuking arguments that you made up for me?

If you're content with just making all your posts a set of strawman arguments, you can count me out. But if you have the least bit of interest in avoiding them, know this: One sure way of spotting when you are committing (or listening to a) "Strawman Fallacy" is when words are included that amount to "you are advocating...", "you believe...", "you think that...". Anything even remotely similar, unless you can produce a direct quote, is a pretty definite sign of a "strawman".

Oh... and listening to Hannity is not good for you either. I listen to him once in a while. Every time I have, he does exactly the above. I'm sure that's who you learned this from. Just about every phrase to attack liberals starts with something like "Liberals believe that.... ", "Liberals think that..."... and he produces no direct quotes. Same as Rush, Dana and... just about every wingnut political commentator.

Now you know what to listen for...

 

If you're hired to dig ditches or sweep floors do you bring your own shovel or broom? Do American snipers provide their own firearms, (and yes, I realize many of the Elite Services specify theirs.) Some of the Siberians may indeed have brought their own guns as they were really reluctant to be parted from them, but you have to remember this is 1930's Russia, not the present day United States, not everyone was expected to have an arsenal just because they could.

The fact remains that Stalinist Russia made no real efforts to disarm the entire populace, (though it may have indeed disarmed certain oppressed groups, and there were plenty of them) in fact they encouraged people to have guns, in the spirit of being "socialist warriors"

 

Perhaps, but I still bet it takes more time to learn how to use some guns over others.

Sorry, but I don't think you and I are talking about the same guns here.

Are you saying that a standard pistol or this .30-30 can kill the same or greater number of people from the same distance in the same amount of time as the semi-automatic rifle that was used in THIS particular shooting? I don't believe that.

And if it is the case, and you can prove that factually, then that just means we may need to look at those guns as well.

So, what makes your slippery slope (We need to allow everyone to own ANY type of gun) more important than the other side (We need to ban ALL guns)?

True, a pistol can fire more rapidly than a rifle in some situations. But can it hit as accurately from long distances? Is it quicker to reload? Can it spray more than one bullet per pull of the trigger?

And your anger, a negative emotion, drives everything you do, so get off your high horse. You are no better than me.

Funny, there are plenty of ways you can defend yourself from physical harm that don't involve guns, and yet very few Conservatives seem to endorse them. Makes me think they WANT to turn everyone into the Police Officer / Judge / Jury / Executioner.

No, there are plenty of people I would not want to have in those roles.

 

woooooooooooooooosh

You may want to go back and re-read our exchange.

 

And yet another swing and a miss...

 

I don't think you meant to scapegoat, but the fact remains that the mentally ill are rarely perpetrators and frequently victims.

 

FYI, I didn't write the post you're responding to here.

 

Luckily, ONLY angry (whatever that means) white males ever commit violence.

*whew!*

 

The gun is also an equalizer between the weak and the strong

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4124726CCEC998381B084124726CCEC9983&FORM=VIRE

 

What is a psychopath?

How can they be identified?

Can a psychopath - whatever that is, however they might be identified, and by whom - be denied their constitutional rights if they've never committed a crime?

Will you again say I'm drunk for asking these questions, or admit you have no answers?

 

More good guys with guns could have stopped this sooner, yes.

It took the police over an HOUR to get to him, by which time he was already dead.

 

Are mentally ill people "lunatics?"

Who decides who is mentally ill and/or a "lunatic?"

Is, for instance, seeking treatment for depression a sign that one is a "lunatic?"

Please elucidate.

 

"Armed psychopaths?"

How do you know who that's armed is a psychopath?

What is a psychopath?

Are they all armed?

Are they all dangerous/criminal?