Shooting discussion devolves

[ryacko]

Cause, see, myself? I always feel uneasy about any attempt to take away a freedom.

Aren't you similarly uneasy about people dying for your 'freedom'. Its always other people, of course, who suffer. Convenient, really.

Hardly, we are all equally likely to die for our freedom, any place any where.

[Stark]

If owning firearms doesn't reduce the Random King George To-Die roll, how is it worth all the deaths to own them? Net increase in deaths = freedom!

[Lord Falcon]

Guns are a VERY serious problem in this country. Guns are meant to KILL. That is their sole purpose. Why would you wanta a weapon designed to kill? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, someone could break into your house and steal your gun. You run the risk of being responsible for the murder of other people. And I am willing to tolerate a reasonable sacrifice. Whatever happened to the old hippie belief of "Make love, not war?" Personally, I believe if you stand against gun control or outright banning all guns, then you effectively say you care more about weapons designed to kill, in effect you care more about killing, than you do about the 20 murdered children.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Guns are a VERY serious problem in this country. Guns are meant to KILL. That is their sole purpose. Why would you wanta a weapon designed to kill? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, someone could break into your house and steal your gun. You run the risk of being responsible for the murder of other people. And I am willing to tolerate a reasonable sacrifice. Whatever happened to the old hippie belief of "Make love, not war?" Personally, I believe if you stand against gun control or outright banning all guns, then you effectively say you care more about weapons designed to kill, in effect you care more about killing, than you do about the 20 murdered children.

Molon Labe, motherfucker.

[Stark]

I'm not sure if you think you're helping the discussion, or what you think you're responding to, but I'd like to ask you a question.

Do you think what you just posted contributed to the thread? Do you believe propagating an extremely destructive black and white fallacy (ie all guns all the time or no guns evaaaaaaaah) is building a solution?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not sure if you think you're helping the discussion, or what you think you're responding to, but I'd like to ask you a question.

Do you think what you just posted contributed to the thread? Do you believe propagating an extremely destructive black and white fallacy (ie all guns all the time or no guns evaaaaaaaah) is building a solution?

I am only willing to compromise on sensible gun restrictions if I feel that the other side is also negotiating in good faith. My response serves the functional purpose of saying, "if you're not open to compromise, I'm not open to compromise either". Either gun control advocates admit that Americans have an absolute right to keep a firearm for defense of their home, or we concede nothing.

[Thanas]

This is a bit of a ingenious display of pretending to be willing to negotiate. You want to stick to your fundamental position while demanding the other side concedes theirs before negotiations even start.

How about both sides agree that there are legitimate arguments to ban guns and that there are legitimate arguments to own guns and then start debating which ones apply here?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is a bit of a ingenious display of pretending to be willing to negotiate. You want to stick to your fundamental position while demanding the other side concedes theirs before negotiations even start.

How about both sides agree that there are legitimate arguments to ban guns and that there are legitimate arguments to own guns and then start debating which ones apply here?

I want to be able to register new class IIIs, Thanas, so I have in fact already conceded by not trying to get the existing law on new Class III registrations being banned overturned, so this is not an appropriate complaint, I submit--I have already compromised.

[Thanas]

And the other side has already compromised by not proposing to ban every gun in existence.

[Aaron MkII]

Guns are a VERY serious problem in this country. Guns are meant to KILL. That is their sole purpose. Why would you wanta a weapon designed to kill? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, someone could break into your house and steal your gun. You run the risk of being responsible for the murder of other people. And I am willing to tolerate a reasonable sacrifice. Whatever happened to the old hippie belief of "Make love, not war?" Personally, I believe if you stand against gun control or outright banning all guns, then you effectively say you care more about weapons designed to kill, in effect you care more about killing, than you do about the 20 murdered children.

So tell me, how do you think Canada manages to have such a low rate of crime commited with a firearm? Or Switzerland? Finland? All these countries have high ownership and low crime.

Sensible discussion and comprimise is possible. I'm Canadian and have a dozen guns, I neither fear for my life nor am I comfortable killing people. We're not crazy.

But you, your response is stereotypical anti-gun, just as Marina's is pro. Though I know she isn't actually as hardcore as her response suggests. So not only have you managed to insult every owner here, you've single handedly reset discussion to the beginning. Handily demonstrating why comprimise isn't possible (in America).

Quite frankly, your type or your pro counterparts have no place in this discussion. Your extremists.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the other side has already compromised by not proposing to ban every gun in existence.

Lord Falcon hasn't, so for this specific debate right here on this board my complaint is fairly legitimate.

[Agent Fisher]

Cause, see, myself? I always feel uneasy about any attempt to take away a freedom.

Aren't you similarly uneasy about people dying for your 'freedom'. Its always other people, of course, who suffer. Convenient, really.

Nope, not one bit. Completely uncaring psychopath, not sad about the deaths of 26 people at all.

I wouldn't say uneasy about the people dying. No, I feel sad and wish to God this shooter had just decided to blow his own brains out first. I feel sad for the families that will be spending Christmas without their loved ones, for the fathers and mothers who had to bury a child. But do I think a blanket knee-jerk 'ban and remove all guns forever!' is gonna fix this? No. That's what Lord Falcon is proposing. And while I do not want a ban on 'assault weapons', a term which only means the rifle is scary looking, I understand we'll probably get that, along with a ban on high capacity magazines. And while I dislike it, since I think it's attacking a tool, not the source or cause of problems, I get that something must be done, even if it's done for the sake of being seen doing something. Like I've said, I support much stricter controls to keep people with mental disorders from purchasing firearms. I support responsible storage of the firearms. I support closing or at the very least modifying the gun show loop hole. I also fully support placing some sort of armed security, whether police or private security officers (who have been properly trained and equipped) at every school. But people would scream and rail against adding more guns to a 'gun-free zone'.

Guns are a VERY serious problem in this country. Guns are meant to KILL. That is their sole purpose. Why would you wanta a weapon designed to kill? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, someone could break into your house and steal your gun. You run the risk of being responsible for the murder of other people. And I am willing to tolerate a reasonable sacrifice. Whatever happened to the old hippie belief of "Make love, not war?" Personally, I believe if you stand against gun control or outright banning all guns, then you effectively say you care more about weapons designed to kill, in effect you care more about killing, than you do about the 20 murdered children.

No, crime is a very serious problem. Murder is a very serious problem. And why do I want a weapon designed to kill? Well, first off, a weapon not designed to kill is pretty pointless. Second, as to the real why? Well, I could probably go with 'when seconds count, the police are only minutes away'. Applies both at home and when I work. I've had to draw down on subjects who have pulled a knife or other weapons on me, and if I had to wait for police to be the ones to respond with a firearm, I'd be seriously wounded or dead by now.

And of course, you'd be willing to tolerate what you consider a reasonable sacrifice, you have absolutely nothing invested in the gun side of that equation, so it's not really a sacrifice.

[Lord Falcon]

Exactly. Crime is a serious problem, and then people grab guns, which again are weapons designed to kill. And exactly, you'd have to make the sacrifice, and you don't want to. People complain too much about losing their freedoms. What they want is the freedom to do whatever they want, which includes committing a crime. For example, people complain about patdowns at airports, but I am willing to make a sacrifice and tolerate that in the name of safety.

I am willing to give a little, which is banning assault weapons, and that includes taking it away from current owners, and banning heavy ammunition. If it means people can't collect guns and put them on display, I'll take that over 20 dead children any day.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"heavy ammunition"? WTF? Are you just retarded?

[Lord Falcon]

I don't know much about guns, I'll admit that. Like I said, I've never owned one. But I see a lot of people here who care more about guns than 20 massacred children.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't know much about guns, I'll admit that. Like I said, I've never owned one. But I see a lot of people here who care more about guns than 20 massacred children.

Maybe I don't want these fuckers to become suicide bombers instead.

[Lord Falcon]

People would have to buy the materials and build the bombs themselves. And you can restrict certain materials that might lead to bomb construction. If Adam Lanza's mother had locked up her guns or just not had them at all, he wouldn't have been able to shoot those 20 children.

[Aaron MkII]

Your ignorance would be shocking, if I had not seen at least a dozen posts like this a day since the shooting. My sympathies to owners in America for having to deal with guys like this.

I don't know much about guns, I'll admit that. Like I said, I've never owned one. But I see a lot of people here who care more about guns than 20 massacred children..

Then be quiet. This was a thread talking about ways to balance rights vs security, of ways to help society while allowing ownership. You refusal to read the thread before barging in making ignorant statements has derailed it all. We're literally rehashing things.

Go away. Educate yourself.

[Lord Falcon]

You lambast me as ignorant. I, at least, care for the 20 dead children. I care about them more than guns. But I will leave for now.

[Agent Fisher]

Exactly. Crime is a serious problem, and then people grab guns, which again are weapons designed to kill. And exactly, you'd have to make the sacrifice, and you don't want to. People complain too much about losing their freedoms. What they want is the freedom to do whatever they want, which includes committing a crime. For example, people complain about patdowns at airports, but I am willing to make a sacrifice and tolerate that in the name of safety.

WTF? Freedom to commit a crime? Are you serious? Of course people have that freedom. I have the freedom right now to go into a store and try to steal. But if I do that, I'll probably lose my freedom. I have the freedom to burn wood in my fireplace on a day where the county has said 'oh, you can't burn wood'. But I'll get a citation, thus losing freedom. I have the freedom to drive my car 80mph down the wrong side of the street, swerving to try and hit every car. But I'll probably die doing so, thus losing my freedom.

I am willing to give a little, which is banning assault weapons, and that includes taking it away from current owners, and banning heavy ammunition. If it means people can't collect guns and put them on display, I'll take that over 20 dead children any day.

Heavy ammunition? The AR-15 platform fires a bullet slightly bigger than a .22. The only thing is it shoots it faster. A rifle used ot hunt deer on the other hand uses a much large bullet. So, which of those would be 'heavy ammunition'?

You lambast me as ignorant. I, at least, care for the 20 dead children.

And we don't?! Go fuck yourself, you little shit. You've got your head so far up your ass, the lump in your throat is your goddamn nose.

[Aaron MkII]

*sigh* Dude, i have two children in that age bracket. I've said numerous times in the thread and elsewhere that this terrible.

[CaptHawkeye]

You lambast me as ignorant. I, at least, care for the 20 dead children. I care about them more than guns. But I will leave for now.

Is that you Colfax? It is isn't it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I care for children so much that I'm going to teach mine how to protect themselves in a very dangerous world. I hope you are Colfax because I want you banned.

[Simon_Jester]

Colfax was before my time. Him being this dim would certainly explain why he got banned. But apparently 'Falcon' has been on the site for about a year and a half- Colfax went through a sockpuppet or two in that time, didn't he? That's what Parting Shots says.

[Aaron MkII]

You lambast me as ignorant. I, at least, care for the 20 dead children. I care about them more than guns. But I will leave for now.

Is that you Colfax? It is isn't it?

That would be fantastic.