LGBT gun rights group sees membership skyrocket

Fear always wins out in these situations. I am not saying the fear
is ‘unjustified’ either. I am just saying fear is always underneath all the ‘2nd Amendment’ arguments. You probably dont see it that way, but thats how i see it.

Anyway, thats almost always how things play out after a big murder — more guns sold, not less.

Course the issue isnt really guns at the moment its “guns that can kill a lot of people real kwik-like.” Blah blah blah

w
v

bnw wrote:

Yes blaming the inanimate object rather than the murderer. Amerika.

Because without the inanimate object the mass killing wouldn’t happen.

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

Yes blaming the inanimate object rather than the murderer. Amerika.

Because without the inanimate object the mass killing wouldn’t happen.

Not true. Just takes a little more thought. Thought. Yes that is the murderer again.

The gun makes it easy. Without the gun it’s too complicated and therefore prohibitive for the majority of mass killers. No semiautomatics means there would be much fewer mass killings.

you make a good point, but take the assault rifle out of the guy’s hands and give him a soft fluffy teddy bear and how many people does he kill then?

i think people are talking past each other right now. oh well.

The national ban on the sale of rifles like the AR-15 and the SIG Sauer MCX expired in 2004, and it hasn’t been renewed.

“But since Newtown, we’ve seen a wave of legislation at the state level, including restrictive new laws in California and Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, we can go on and on,” Winkler says.

Winkler, who wrote a book on the gun control debate called Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, says about half of Americans now live in states where gun laws have tightened significantly the last few years.

There are currently no good studies, or clear data, on whether these state-level gun laws make people safer. The CDC is still prohibited from conducting research on gun violence.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482153718/assault-rifle-bans-find-life-on-state-level

—

InvaderRam wrote:

i think people are talking past each other right now

Well the delusion is that this is a debate that can be “won,” as in, one side is “right.”

That has nothing to do with it. It’s a clash of beliefs.

So just channeling whatever info your sources channel in this effort to be right about this, about that, about one thing or another?

Waste of time. If people interpret things differently they interpret them differently because their core beliefs differ.

It is interesting to see the different narrative spins about the history, for example. That too just ends up being a clash of beliefs.

Or facts about weaponry. Irrelevant. No one is going to get talked into or out of anything.

The only thing that decides this issue is votes.

One side or another musters more votes.

The arguing just generally is the territory of the fanatical devotees. And as we know, there’s no talking to those types about anything. They have their narrative and they aren’t budging. We all do that but the difference is, when the rest of us tire from it and just go and vote, the fanatical devotee is still arguing. As. If. Just. One. More. Comment. Or. Detail. Will. Fix. EVERYTHING.

InvaderRam wrote:

i think the point is that it would make it more difficult. making a bomb would be more difficult. it would be a deterrent.

but again. you make a good point. recognizing and treating mental illness is also very important. accepting people who are different from yourself is also very important.

and i would also argue that those 2 issues are more important than gun control.

i also don’t think buying more guns gets people any closer to solving those other 2 issues. in fact i’d say it’d for sure be detrimental to getting different groups of people to try to understand and accept one another.

but yes. you make some very good points.

Problem is, this is all just trading anecdotes. Fact is, the NRA made it impossible, by law, to do funded research on the effects of banning weapons…in fact virtually all research is prohibited, by law.

Meanwhile it has never been proven that crime goes down with increases in gun ownership. NRA bots will say it has, but no one real and objectively neutral has ever demonstrated it has. It is just a belief.

So either way as in my last post, it’s not about the facts. There are very few “facts” in the discussion. It’s about beliefs.

How many bombings have there been in the USA in the last 10 years.

How many mass shootings.

Oh, and, suicides go up in places with more guns per capita too.

Meanwhile understanding each other better? How are you going to accomplish that? That just puts you in a position where you say a lot of it is mental illness and also prejudices of different kinds—with no real way to fix that right now—AND it’s okay in a world like that to have easy access to powerful weapons?

Sorry IR that does not compute.

You say the world is a dangerous place because of those conditions (hate, mental illness) AND you let heavy-duty weapons circulate easily. That’s like saying we know these buildings are fire hazards AND it’s okay to set off fireworks indoors.

InvaderRam wrote:

huh? when did i say we should circulate more assault rifles. i said buying more guns wouldn’t get us any closer to solving issues of mental illness and intolerance.

i think you misread me?

Probably did misread you.

Sorry!

bnw wrote:

Unless you address what creates the impulse to mass murder you will forever be chasing your tail.

Appropriate counter-slogan.