Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asherian Command wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
All of those measures are rife with opportunities for someone to have their civil rights trampled.

Sheesh, even having a registration list is asking for it to be abused.

Explain how being on a list can be abused. I am on many governments lists. Registration for my vehicle, voting registration, licenses and certificates.

At what point does the abuse begin?

A while ago, and it sparked outrage.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

An outside source being idiots has what to do with the government abusing lists?

Perhaps because the government had a list put together that ended up making people targets, regardless of who misused it? It's not really hard to see that.

Targets of what? And would anyone care if it was made public "This person owns a gun." Like it would be like "this person owns a hummer." or "This person owns a Mini-Van." At that point who cares? Okay so you have a gun, your on a list which gives you the benefit of "If my gun is stolen it can be returned because of the item number." Or helk if it is lost or damaged you have insurance for it. etc. ITs for security and its also a personal benefit as well.

Its not a "Big brother knows who owns guns and who doesn't."

It would also allow for survey people to see the wide range of opinions and have a more accurate census of how many people in the us owns a gun. Thats not scary at all.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/01/13/house-identified-on-ny-papers-gun-map-burglarized-and-the-robbers-went-straight-for-the-guns

LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Perhaps because the government had a list put together that ended up making people targets, regardless of who misused it? It's not really hard to see that.

That's an issue of implementation, not of existence. It's not really hard to see that.

Really the dick part of it isn't that a list exists it's that a newspaper decided to publish the list with a map for flimsy reasons that reek more of "feth gun owners" than anything useful which is the newspapers fault not the government's. And as absurd as the defense of that rather dickish move is, there is a point to some of it. Houses, land, vehicles, and any number of other things that are "valuable" or "make people targets" are also matters of public record. No one jumps out to defend sex offenders from being publicly listed for all to see time served or not. Why should firearms licensing be granted exception simply because gun owners don't like it? I don't like my credit being determined by third parties I have no say in and whose methods are fundamentally cryptic, but that's the world we live in. I'm not sure there's a solid argument for making license/permit holding some special exemption.

You realize you just lumped gun owners in with sex offenders, right?

Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
All of those measures are rife with opportunities for someone to have their civil rights trampled.

Sheesh, even having a registration list is asking for it to be abused.

Explain how being on a list can be abused. I am on many governments lists. Registration for my vehicle, voting registration, licenses and certificates.

At what point does the abuse begin?

A while ago, and it sparked outrage.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

An outside source being idiots has what to do with the government abusing lists?

Perhaps because the government had a list put together that ended up making people targets, regardless of who misused it? It's not really hard to see that.

So a mistake was made and now we can never ever take that risk again?

Once again:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/01/13/house-identified-on-ny-papers-gun-map-burglarized-and-the-robbers-went-straight-for-the-guns

If this sort of gak can happen, imagine what OTHER things could happen with something as simple as a registry. The number of electronic devices in my house isn't collated on a data sheet for everyone to access, so why should any other valuables? Especially valuables that are in high demand on the black market.

So if a car is stolen, we should no longer have to register our vehicles?

Did someone break into your garage bypassing all other valuables simply to get said car? Don't be obtuse.

Honestly if it's that easy for the general public to get vehicle registration info, I'm all for vehicle registration lists being abolished too. It's a gak idea to have information like car listings and gun listings easily available to the public, I'd hazard a guess that it'd cause a big increase in thefts of such items.

A big part of the security of my valuable collectable vehicle is simply not many people know it's there. Obviously neighbours and friends and whatnot do, but the whole bloody country doesn't know.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did someone break into your garage bypassing all other valuables simply to get said car? Don't be obtuse.

Are you really going to say that has never happened?

There's a difference between someone seeing an unlocked car outside someone's house and some top dollar chop shop sending a repo crew to specific houses to get Lamborhinis. Once again, don't make false equivalencies to foster to your political viewpoints.

I don't pretend the government is incarcerating law abiding gun owners, don't pretend that people wouldn't take advantage of a weapon registry.

Why does anyone think Federal registration is possible or legal? When you register your car it’s in a state database not a national one. There is no Federal DMV or Federal voter rolls etc, it’s all done at the state level that’s how federalism works.

A majority of states already have exceptions to the Federal age minimums for firearms ownerships. Plenty of states allow minors to own guns with parental permission or as transfers. Some states have no age limit at all for long guns.

States can try to set up firearm registries, Connecticut tried to set up an “assault rifle” registry after Sandy Hook and it’s failed to become a complete and accurate list to this day and Connecticut hasn’t even tried to enforce it.

Maybe Florida will pass some kind of firearm registration law we’ll see but Congress is unlikely to pass such a thing anytime soon.

Canada tried to implement a national registry and it was so unpopular that it was abandoned.

The Federal government operates the No Fly List and they have made numerous mistakes with it and refused to fix them.

The Federal government maintains the database of NSA surveillamce and has illegally misused it on multiple documented instances.

It is also much more difficult to steal a car as you'd require either A: The key, or B: The ability to properly hotwire. If it's in the garage they'll need to get it open as well.

There's also the issue that going in the criminals know you are armed, and as a result their actions may be far more hostile as a result. If a criminal goes in knowing you have guns, there is the possibility they will be far more willing to quickly take down people rather then attempting the old "Smash and grab"

Guns also can be quite lucrative to sell, given some prices as well.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.

sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.

I hold you and your ilk as complacent in every school shooting because you put these poor kids into environments where there are few people trained and equipped to protect them.

There was an armed deputy on the compass at the Florida shooting. He purportedly had said he never actually encountered the shooter.

The idea that you need to have armed security guards in school is ridiculous.

Look at Israeli schools...

I can't tell whether or not your original post was meant to be sarcastic/snarky, but if it was meant to be serious and you think this is legitimately a compelling argument...you're wrong on so many levels.

Only 1 guard? Makes my point there were few (in this case exactly 1) people trained and equipped, doesn't it.

And my point is exactly as serious as sirlynchmob blaming all gun owners for each school shooting. If folks like him didn't force our kids into unsafe environments it wouldn't be an issue.

You're the one putting your kids in unsafe conditions, you brought a gun into the house, and greatly increased their chances of getting shot.

You need to let go of that nonsense that more guns makes us safer, if that was in anyway true the US would be the safest place on earth. Yet clearly it's not. As gun ownership rises so do the mass shootings and all other gun crimes.

My kids, while at home, are as safe as you can be on a rural property. We (myself, wife, and Son2) have all used guns to kill poisonous snakes which were in areas where they endangered us or our animals. I've used them to kill other predators (coyotes and feral dogs for example). In over 30 years no one on my property has had a negligent discharge or any accident with a fire arm. My storage solution works for my family.

There is no proof a rise in gun ownership causes more mass shootings. In fact, as gun ownership has risen violent crime has decreased except in certain cities. Correlation does not equate to causation. Even you are smart enough to know this.

In this particular shooting, a trained and armed guard at each entrance to the school stops the even from occurring. Is that The Answer to preventing all school shootings? Nope, I don't claim it is, but your insistence that millions of law abiding citizens are directly responsible for every school shooting is just fething stupid. That attitude guarantees that the millions of law abiding citizens will correctly tell you to feth yourself when you come up with your solutions which 1: never would have actually prevented the event and 2: the solutions themselves are not legal.

I fail to see what a list of gun owners would do to prevent someone from killing a legal gun owner and taking their weapons ala Sandy Hook. Also, throwing around "Mental Illness" as a bar to owning guns is hopelessly, laughably vague. Schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, what exactly are you talking about? And if someone takes medication, do we still not let them have guns? If someone overcomes their depression or whatever, they then have to go to a court to prove they should be able to exercise their rights again?

As if mental illness isn't stigmatized enough.

Legislation should not be based on emotion. It should also only be enacted if there is a chance to accomplish it's goal. I have yet to hear any suggested form of legislation short of full confiscation that would meaningfully change the number of gun deaths in the US, which is unworkable for a number of reasons and would still likely take decades to show any results regardless.

 Asherian Command wrote:

While also disallowing people from buying a ton of ammo all at once without reasoning or a work order or something. (IE good reason)

Define 'good reason' and how you put a system in place to verify a 'good reason' exists.

For example, bulk ammo is cheaper. When I shoot, I go through several magazines from each gun I take out, so can easily blow through 500-1000 rounds each time I shoot. Why should I be forced to buy ammo in boxes of 20 rounds when a crate of 1000 is a lot cheaper? What purpose does that serve?

If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.


But....

When it becomes time to discuss registration lists, they really enjoy lumping cars, ladders, and guns together, because they are just equivalent consumer products. Right? Right?

Any list maintained by the government can and will be abused.

Hell even the 911 and law enforcement organizations can be misused, a la "swatting".


Police routinely raid the wrong homes while serving warrants. No, I don't think I want such paragons of capability to know what I own, whether it be an Xbox or a gun.

The point still stands that all of us are less likely to die in a violent manner than ever before in history. Despite these horrific instances of crimes.

You cannot stop the evil of humanity.

Legislation isn’t the issue. It’s culture. The question that needs to be asked is not “how do we stop the guns being in peoples hands”, because 1) it won’t happen any time soon and 2) anything short of “no guns at all ever” would change much. Even if you had a UK or Japan style system where gun permits required lots of proof of need and training I would bet a large number of the people who currently own guns in the US would go through that process and continue as they are, only moaning bitterly every few years when it needs renewing.

Gun ownership is not low in the UK because of laws but culture. It’s not that difficult to get a shotgun in the UK, and the prime issue with getting a rifle is having somewhere to shoot as there are few rangers, which is not an issue in the US. It’s culture. People don’t generally hunt, and even target shooting is viewed with suspicion by many people.

The question that needs to be asked IMO is why people are driven to attack schools and why they use a gun for it. My guess would be the status of the gun in some places and an attitude of machismo and belief in “might is right” that pervades some cultures within the US. I think some gun laws are symptomatic of this, but not the cause.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

 CptJake wrote:


For example, bulk ammo is cheaper. When I shoot, I go through several magazines from each gun I take out, so can easily blow through 500-1000 rounds each time I shoot. Why should I be forced to buy ammo in boxes of 20 rounds when a crate of 1000 is a lot cheaper? What purpose does that serve?

Easy: control and awareness by the authorities.

Back when I competed at the national level I burned through tons of rounds. I know for sure the cops were aware and asked to the shop and people at the club. I'm sure available info was gathered.

No red flags were raised, so I did not receive a friendly visit at home to double check, but I know of people who did (one who had guns stolen from him twice).

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

Mitochondria wrote:
I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.

Ladders are useful tools. The point of them is to allow you to reach places you couldn't reach unaided. Their fundamental purpose is peaceful. Cars are inefficient means of transportation and a society absolutely should be structured so as to minimise the amount of cars needed. It's safer and more efficient to have a robust system of public transportation. Cars, nonetheless, are meant for transportation. A gun is inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder because it was designed to kill people. A gun is a weapon. You can fall from a ladder or run someone over with a car but those are incidental events arising from the nature of physical reality and not something intended when the items in question were first invented. We're not talking about school ladderings here, are we?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

No I haven’t, I’ve been deliberately specific and what wouldn’t convince me agree to specific proposals like repealling the 2nd amendment and become a proponent for confiscation guns from people. If you think I’ve stated an absolutist position that nothing could convince to support any type of additional firearm regulation laws then you’ve either mistaken me for a diffeeent poster or misread my posts.

 Steve steveson wrote:


The question that needs to be asked IMO is why people are driven to attack schools and why they use a gun for it. My guess would be the status of the gun in some places and an attitude of machismo and belief in “might is right” that pervades some cultures within the US. I think some gun laws are symptomatic of this, but not the cause.

I've always believed that it's the attitude people have towards guns that is the problem. Gun ownership may be at an all time high, but respect for guns is at an all time low. Just look at how many people refer to their guns as toys, and you'll understand what I mean.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
All of those measures are rife with opportunities for someone to have their civil rights trampled.

Sheesh, even having a registration list is asking for it to be abused.

Explain how being on a list can be abused. I am on many governments lists. Registration for my vehicle, voting registration, licenses and certificates.

At what point does the abuse begin?

A while ago, and it sparked outrage.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

An outside source being idiots has what to do with the government abusing lists?

Perhaps because the government had a list put together that ended up making people targets, regardless of who misused it? It's not really hard to see that.

Targets of what? And would anyone care if it was made public "This person owns a gun." Like it would be like "this person owns a hummer." or "This person owns a Mini-Van." At that point who cares? Okay so you have a gun, your on a list which gives you the benefit of "If my gun is stolen it can be returned because of the item number." Or helk if it is lost or damaged you have insurance for it. etc. ITs for security and its also a personal benefit as well.

Its not a "Big brother knows who owns guns and who doesn't."

It would also allow for survey people to see the wide range of opinions and have a more accurate census of how many people in the us owns a gun. Thats not scary at all.

Home invasions and burglaries are kind of a thing, in case you didn't know.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.

sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.

I hold you and your ilk as complacent in every school shooting because you put these poor kids into environments where there are few people trained and equipped to protect them.

There was an armed deputy on the compass at the Florida shooting. He purportedly had said he never actually encountered the shooter.

The idea that you need to have armed security guards in school is ridiculous.

Look at Israeli schools...

I can't tell whether or not your original post was meant to be sarcastic/snarky, but if it was meant to be serious and you think this is legitimately a compelling argument...you're wrong on so many levels.

Only 1 guard? Makes my point there were few (in this case exactly 1) people trained and equipped, doesn't it.

And my point is exactly as serious as sirlynchmob blaming all gun owners for each school shooting. If folks like him didn't force our kids into unsafe environments it wouldn't be an issue.

You're the one putting your kids in unsafe conditions, you brought a gun into the house, and greatly increased their chances of getting shot.

You need to let go of that nonsense that more guns makes us safer, if that was in anyway true the US would be the safest place on earth. Yet clearly it's not. As gun ownership rises so do the mass shootings and all other gun crimes.

My kids, while at home, are as safe as you can be on a rural property. We (myself, wife, and Son2) have all used guns to kill poisonous snakes which were in areas where they endangered us or our animals. I've used them to kill other predators (coyotes and feral dogs for example). In over 30 years no one on my property has had a negligent discharge or any accident with a fire arm. My storage solution works for my family.

There is no proof a rise in gun ownership causes more mass shootings. In fact, as gun ownership has risen violent crime has decreased except in certain cities. Correlation does not equate to causation. Even you are smart enough to know this.

In this particular shooting, a trained and armed guard at each entrance to the school stops the even from occurring. Is that The Answer to preventing all school shootings? Nope, I don't claim it is, but your insistence that millions of law abiding citizens are directly responsible for every school shooting is just fething stupid. That attitude guarantees that the millions of law abiding citizens will correctly tell you to feth yourself when you come up with your solutions which 1: never would have actually prevented the event and 2: the solutions themselves are not legal.

This is why I hold all gun users complicit. any attempt to solve the gun problems is met with nonsense like your posting. We can't have background checks because idiots like you care more for your gun and threaten to go off killing people in a revolution. Canadas gun laws would have stopped over 1/2 the school shootings, that alone is a great place to start. so saying gun laws won't stop these is just rediculous and you stating that kind of absurdities makes you part of the problem hence complicit.

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws? what are they hiding? let's remember almost all mass shooters we're law abiding gun owners until they started shooting people.

A armed guard at every entrance? So a country that won't pay teachers decent wages, can't afford office supplies for the schools, cut funding to the point of over crowding schools, will somehow find the money to hire that many guards?

you'd think just opening more schools and reducing class sizes would be a much better use of the money.

sure violent crimes are decreasing yet gun crimes are increasing. America is the proof that more guns directly equates to more gun shootings, because anyone with a desire to go on a shooting spree can get an arsenal of weapons over lunch, then go off shooting people. no questions asked, no red flags going off.

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

Rosebuddy wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.

Ladders are useful tools. The point of them is to allow you to reach places you couldn't reach unaided. Their fundamental purpose is peaceful. Cars are inefficient means of transportation and a society absolutely should be structured so as to minimise the amount of cars needed. It's safer and more efficient to have a robust system of public transportation. Cars, nonetheless, are meant for transportation. A gun is inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder because it was designed to kill people. A gun is a weapon. You can fall from a ladder or run someone over with a car but those are incidental events arising from the nature of physical reality and not something intended when the items in question were first invented. We're not talking about school ladderings here, are we?

By that definition, alcohol, which is not a useful tool, but causes eight times the number of deaths as gun related homicides, should be subject to far stricter controls than guns.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

That just my opinion, there are many rational gun laws that have been proposed and rejected by the NRA who funds politicians to make sure they don't happen.

You'd think after the vegas shooting that banning any conversion kits to allow weapons to fire like a automatic weapon would be a easy thing to ban, but yet not even that little thing could get passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.

Ladders are useful tools. The point of them is to allow you to reach places you couldn't reach unaided. Their fundamental purpose is peaceful. Cars are inefficient means of transportation and a society absolutely should be structured so as to minimise the amount of cars needed. It's safer and more efficient to have a robust system of public transportation. Cars, nonetheless, are meant for transportation. A gun is inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder because it was designed to kill people. A gun is a weapon. You can fall from a ladder or run someone over with a car but those are incidental events arising from the nature of physical reality and not something intended when the items in question were first invented. We're not talking about school ladderings here, are we?

By that definition, alcohol, which is not a useful tool, but causes eight times the number of deaths as gun related homicides, should be subject to far stricter controls than guns.

you mean like holding bar tenders legally responsible for drunk drivers?

sobriety check points?

not being able to purchase until 21?

losing your licence for drunk driving and horrendous legal fines and fees

alcohol is subjected to stricter controls than guns.

Shooters aren't even held responsible for the hospital bills of their victims.

but I guess since the laws against driving drunk don't stop drunk drivers, we should repeal all those laws as well, it's the same rational gun users spew.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

No I haven’t, I’ve been deliberately specific and what wouldn’t convince me agree to specific proposals like repealling the 2nd amendment and become a proponent for confiscation guns from people. If you think I’ve stated an absolutist position that nothing could convince to support any type of additional firearm regulation laws then you’ve either mistaken me for a diffeeent poster or misread my posts.

Please.

Prestor Jon wrote:


There isn’t a scenario that could happen that’s going to convince me that gun ownership is bad. I’m always going to support our 2A rights.

Alcohol is not subject to stricter controls than firearms. ANYONE over the age of 21 can buy whatever alcohol they ant in whatever quantity they want. Convicted felons can buy alcohol, people who have been adjudicated as mentally defective can buy alcohol, people who have been convicted of drunk driving can buy alcohol, people who have committed domestic violence can buy alcohol. There is no background check required to purchase alcohol. Being actively enrolled in state mandated substance abuse programs doesn’t prevent people from buying alcohol.

Victims of gun crimes can sue the perpetrator in civil court just like the victims of other crimes. If OJ had used a gun instead of a knife he wouldn’t have been immune to civil litigation.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

Please directly quote them then.

The only mention I can think of having seen of "weaponry taken by force" had to do with the idea that requiring people to surrender specific types of firearms would likely end up having to involve force given the attitudes some people have towards their firearms.

And if we really want to talk about "rationality", I can point to a few posters who keep bringing up the arguments of alcohol versus firearms as causes of death whilst ignoring the factors involved.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

No I haven’t, I’ve been deliberately specific and what wouldn’t convince me agree to specific proposals like repealling the 2nd amendment and become a proponent for confiscation guns from people. If you think I’ve stated an absolutist position that nothing could convince to support any type of additional firearm regulation laws then you’ve either mistaken me for a diffeeent poster or misread my posts.

Please.

Prestor Jon wrote:


There isn’t a scenario that could happen that’s going to convince me that gun ownership is bad. I’m always going to support our 2A rights.

How do you extrapolate my supposed complete support for no gun regulation whatsoever from that post? Guns are already regulated and I’m ok with most of the regulations on the books currently. Stating my belief that the right for people to own firearms is a key foundational right that shouldn’t be revoked doesn’t mean that I’m a proponent of wholly unregulated gun ownership that is a complete misinterpretation on your part.

In a previous gun thread d-USA and I were in agreeement on supporting new regulation that would require companies that host gun shows should be required to have a FFL because gun shows are de facto pop up gun stores and that such regulation wouldn’t affect the right for private individuals to continue to conduct private sales on their own as long as they aren’t doing so under the umbrella of a gun show.

You seem to want to limit the debate to only be between you and people that can be persuaded to agree with your personal interpretation of “reasonable” gun regulations.

The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.