At 2/10/13 12:28 PM, Warforger wrote:
No I didn't. That was not the point I was making. The part I was arguing were the people who said the gun rights people are on the high ground in terms of the argument, my point was that there doesn't seem to be any fringe elements of the gun ban crowd that do anything remotely as insane as saying Sandy Hook is a conspiracy.
that's because you only looked for the fringe group that suits your needs.
That was one part of the overarching point I was making, nevermind the anti-Obama ad which the NRA just put up despite the fact that it had fuck all to do with the argument. Hell Obama even tries to calm down tensions and communicate that he respects gun ownership and the NRA takes it as an insult.
that's because the bullshit meter maxed out and then some when he said it. no politician, unless so heavily entrenched in their job that no one can hope to get enough votes to get elected is going to say they're against the 2nd ammendment. Feinstein is one example of a politician who will serve until she dies so she can say whatever she wants, which is why in 1995 she openly said she wanted to ban all guns. that move would be political suicide most anywhere in this nation, except california, maybe 1 or 2 other states. Difference is, Obama had the ambition to get in the white house, so he couldn't just openly say it.
All the Gun ban people seem to be guilty of is being for a gun ban, this apparently makes them retarded, elitist and the assholes in the argument,
they want to ban guns to 'prevent crime', except it's been shown, all over the world, that it simply does not work, and yet the gun ban groups ignore this fact.
meanwhile the Gun rights people do things from ignoring the argument altogether and insulting the arguer (ad hominem) to outright denying the Sandy Hook shooting even happened.
again, you find a VERY VERY TINY GROUP and try to connect them to everyone which is outright dishonest. you're as bad as those who tried to paint the tea party movement as a bunch of stupid redneck bigots by seeking out the 1 guy in the crowd who actually was a stupid redneck bigot and tie them to the entire party. if a small group of idiots is all you got to work with, then, i suppose you may as well close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and begin screamingly about them loudly because that's about the only way you'll win an argument.
If you can find a Gun Control person who believes in the equivalent of denying Sandy Hook happened then I'll admit I was wrong, but as it stands the Gun Rights people are unreasonable and are determined to have nothing get done to solve the problem.
as I said before, you're being dishonest, tying a few people to everyone. in that case OMFG ALL DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS BECAUSE FEINSTEIN WANTS TO BAN ALL GUNS AND SHE SPEAKS FOR ALL DEMOCRATS!
And who's fault is that? The NRA's of course. They're responsible for how they market themselves and they chose to market themselves as people who throw insults instead of arguments at people they don't agree with.
it's because those in the media focus on the negative and what bolsters their point of view while ignoring the facts and putting aside what doesn't and stick it somewhere few will find, but will leave it there because removing it entirely will out them for their bias.
? Then they've been doing a pretty bad job at that seeing as they tend to kill alot of people.
obviously a chunk of metal passing through your body has the potential to kill. however, the Hague convention of 1899 prohibits the use of expanding and explosive bullets in international warfare, which ARE designed to kill. the body count on the battlefield would be FAR higher otherwise. there's a reason why the number of injured in a war always seem to outnumber the number killed. a bullet that flattens or explodes when it strikes an object would raise the body count significantly.
I don't think that was the point she was trying to make. The point she was making was that the weapons were designed to kill, for example in Columbine even the NRA would be behind the ban for the TEC-9 (for one it was designed so it didn't leave behind any fingerprints), no one commits a school shooting with a hunting rifle since I'd assume it'd be incredibly difficult.
actually, hitting a person with a hunting rifle is not hard at all. if you can shoot an 'assault rifle' you can shoot a hunting rifle. Bullets designed for hunting ARE designed to kill what it hits, and there are semi automatic hunting rifles available. Also, if these guns were specifically designed to kill, then why it is considered cruelty to animals to shoot one with a 'military' style bullet?
I don't think that matters as much as it matters how they were obtained (and they were obtained legally). Any pistol can be used to commit a massacre as long as it isn't so dated that it's single shot.
yeah but the point is, she was bitching and whining about assault rifles and 'high capacity' magazines. 15 bullets is hardly high capacity. you can blame Virginia's shitty laws on that one.
Yah I'd assume any argument when people die is going to be emotional, that's pretty normal. But this again is using logical fallacies, it doesn't matter if those kill more people guns still kill people. Which again doesn't explain why countries with far less guns report far less gun violence.
It's more a matter of culture, than availability of weapons, which is something the gun grabbers ignore completely. the UK has more or less total ban on guns, and yet their gun crime is still a major problem. why? they have a similar culture to the USA. they have gangs and lots of them, it got so bad the cops actually had to patrol with submachine guns. the gang problem in the UK got to the point where the police needed fully automatic weapons to deal with them. think about that. in a nation with a gun ban, they cops need fully automatic weapons to deal with criminals.
now, you go to a place like Japan, and you notice the culture is FAR different. criminals are heavily frowned upon and their culture values things like education and being part of something bigger than themselves. They still have criminals, they still have gangs... they still have gun violence.
you go to Switzerland. now, according to your logic, Switzerland should be a perpetual war zone, given that it's mandatory for men to keep a fully automatic, military grade gun in your home, with ammo. and yet, Switzerland is one of the safest places to be. why? culture.
also check this out.
yes, it says the USA is on top by a large margin. however, that's not per capita. when you look at per capita...
UK: 6,523,706 crimes, population: 62,641,000 for a total of 9.6 crimes per 100 people.
USA 11,877,218 crimes, population: 313,914,040 for a total of 3.7 crimes per 100 people.
UK's assault victims per capita is more than DOUBLE what the USA's is. how is this significant? simple. taking away their guns isn't stopping the violence, it's actually be making it worse. Look in the cities in the USA where there are gun bans. is the violence lower? no. it's worse. why? because the criminals don't fear their law abiding victims.
their drug offense crime rate is over 300x what the USA's is, and over 100% per capita. They also have a bigger problem with rape. 125% more per capita in fact. why? because rapists don't fear their law abiding victims.
ok, continue on with your blatant intellectual dishonesty. go ahead, keep making conspiracy theorist references, and painting everyone with the same brush, while claiming not to.