Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

G

Gary K

New member
Banned
This Charming Manc said:
After all these years of arguing against it you still haven't understood the premise of UK and Australian gun control and why it works.

Its is not about allowing people including criminals to access guns and limiting what they do with them by statue. I would agree with you that is pretty futile.

But it is about creating a situation where there is a very limited supply of guns for criminals and law abiding citizens and reducing the amount of gun crime due to undermining the supply.

All the figures from the UK and Australia would suggest its an more effective technique than ensuring everyone has lots of guns.
Click to expand...

In other words, according to you, it's about punishing the law abiding people for the actions of criminals by restricting what they can do for the actions of a small minority of people. Sorry, but if you think that is a cogent and logical argument for gun control, you're greatly mistaken. It's the very reason I am against gun control.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
This Charming Manc said:
I'm a very strong gun control advocate, and i'm not sure what you think your achieving here.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the discussion. Would you like to engage in a civil discussion?

Obviously, you can infer that my position is pro-gun. I would very much enjoy an open, honest, and rational discussion about gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
This Charming Manc said:
Th question you want to ask yourself is should the USA be in a list with all of those countries or in a list with

Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc

I see the USA as a mature industrialised democracy which deserves to be in above that list.

If you think two places better than Somalia in terms of murder rates as where the USA ought to we have very different ideas on where america sits in the world.
Click to expand...
I believe you've missed my point here. America's problem with murder isn't because of guns, because every country on the earth has FAR less civilian owned guns that America does, and yet America is FAR from the world's murder capital. There are like 100 countries more dangerous than America wrt murder, and ALL of them have far fewer guns.

Murderers cause murders, guns don't. America's problem with murder, is because America has more murderers per capita living here than do " Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc." (Try not to gloat.)

The number of civilian owned guns per capita in America has doubled over the past 50 years, and the murder rate is the same; guns do not murder, nor do guns create murderers. Taking guns away won't take away our murderers, and doubling the number of guns again over the next 50 years isn't going to create more of them either.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
Nihilo said:
I believe you've missed my point here. America's problem with murder isn't because of guns, because every country on the earth has FAR less civilian owned guns that America does, and yet America is FAR from the world's murder capital. There are like 100 countries more dangerous than America wrt murder, and ALL of them have far fewer guns.

Murderers cause murders, guns don't. America's problem with murder, is because America has more murderers per capita living here than do " Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc." (Try not to gloat.)

The number of civilian owned guns per capita in America has doubled over the past 50 years, and the murder rate is the same; guns do not murder, nor do guns create murderers. Taking guns away won't take away our murderers, and doubling the number of guns again over the next 50 years isn't going to create more of them either.
Click to expand...

Well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
WatchmanOnTheWall

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
This Charming Manc said:
I'm a very strong gun control advocate, and i'm not sure what you think your achieving here.

Your rude and insulting posts only make people dig in further and your arguments are as well developed as the worst of the pro gun lobbyists.

You will have ridiculous positions argued against you here, chill and respond to them with patience and reason. If not please be quiet because all you do is peraaude people that they are right.
Click to expand...

Your spelling is worse than mine.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
jgarden said:
gun-cartoon-morin.jpg
Click to expand...
Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

Cars may be a necessary evil in a modern democracy - guns, especially assault weapons, were designed with an evil intent and are not a necessity in a civil society.
Click to expand...
What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

Automobiles and every other product manufactured in America are subject to government regulation to protect the public - firearms (but not toy guns) are exempt from such safety regulations.
Click to expand...
So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Unlike the auto industry, the "gun lobby" has even gone as far as even curtailing government financed studies as to the impact of firearms on American society - apparently ignorance is bliss!
Click to expand...
Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
jsanford108 said:
Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...
@jgarden doesn't care because. Cartoons.
 
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
jsanford108 said:
Notice that this cartoon is in the "opinion" section of the Denver Post, not the fact section? Probably because it ignores facts. Like how at the time, guns were being manufactured to fire as many rounds as possible. Go ahead and google 1700's firearms.

What is an "assault weapon?" Can you define it? As well a statement of manufacture intent.

So, more regulations, by this logic, does not equate into more safety.

Also, you are completely wrong. Firearms are highly regulated. You know, like how modifiers that make weapons automatic are illegal, automatic weapons are illegal, and permits are required for gun use/carry.

Oh wow. Except that this is false, too. Anti-gun lobbyists pay more than pro-gun lobbyists. Let us compare the two largest contributors: The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyist, Everytown for Gun Safety, gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA. Yay math skills.

So, your entire response is false, in every aspect, including the misrepresented ideals of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...



25g5pxj.jpg
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
WatchmanOnTheWall said:
Pro-gunners don't have the intelligence to realise that all their guns would not disappear over night if gun control laws were passed. This is nonsense. It would take decades of small steps to go from where they are now to say where the UK is now.
Click to expand...

What kind of gun control laws? I ask this as someone who believes LAW-ABIDING citizens should have a right to defend themselves, their family and their home.
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This Charming Manc said:
After all these years of arguing against it you still haven't understood the premise of UK and Australian gun control and why it works.

Its is not about allowing people including criminals to access guns and limiting what they do with them by statue. I would agree with you that is pretty futile.

But it is about creating a situation where there is a very limited supply of guns for criminals and law abiding citizens and reducing the amount of gun crime due to undermining the supply.

All the figures from the UK and Australia would suggest its an more effective technique than ensuring everyone has lots of guns.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ... it's the law abiding citizens part. As I have explained to you before, the limited supply you wish to have will always be obtained by the CRIMINALS ... because they are not law abiding citizens. That puts criminals at an advantage.
 
WatchmanOnTheWall

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
Rusha said:
So show your *imagination* already rather than suggest gun owners and advocates have less intelligence than those (such as yourself) who prefer to leave them defenseless?
Click to expand...

Doh, I'm not the one with the deficiency. It's those who can't imagine what the next step could be. The pro-gunners.

This thread is ridiculous from the beginning.
 
This Charming Manc

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
The evidence from both UK and Australia suggest the assumption you make below isn't true.

The total gun homicides in the UK is less than 60 which suggests that criminal don't get guns.

I'm also not sure of your clear distinction between criminals and citizens. I would prone to believe that many of gun homicides in the states are made in relational to marital disputes, disputes between neighbours or drivers where people have got angry and a gun is to hand.

The last mass shooting which took place in California a couple of days ago, escalated out of dispute between neighbours. We can never know but there is fair chance if that argument would happened in the UK, somebody would have got punched and assaulted, and hopefully been arrested, but no one would have died.



Rusha said:
I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ... it's the law abiding citizens part. As I have explained to you before, the limited supply you wish to have will always be obtained by the CRIMINALS ... because they are not law abiding citizens. That puts criminals at an advantage.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top