Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

[G1911]

cgjackson222 proposed banning semi-auto and anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds, as I recall, constituting most all post-civil war technology.

The troll whose views flipped around once he saw an opening for his personal vendetta proposed a de facto ban on every gun of any kind with a 10,000x tax on any ammunition.

Several others have proposed bans too but aren’t in the current rendition of the debate.

Words have actual meanings. Anyone with a dictionary knows this.

This is what I’m talking about when I point out the lack of sensible argument from the other side. Don’t try and have it both ways and straight up lie about terms, existing bills, and mechanics. Pretending that a ban isn’t a ban is just idiotic. Make a logically valid argument (I.e., a good one - one that is not self contradictory, and consistent with the dictionary and verifiable facts). It is not difficult to do so. I’m an idiot, the rest of you can surely make an argument that passes elementary Aristotelian logic.

An argument should always be valid, whether one agrees with it or not. This simple hurdle still isn’t being cleared. Logic is 2,500 years old and has not changed much, one doesn’t need to be a scholar to get the basics and form a coherent, rational thought. Insisting that words do not mean what they mean, that mechanical items perform in a way they factually do not, and being dead wrong about existing laws do not form a logical argument.

This is really not hard. It’s difficult to fathom how a logical argument still hasn’t been made.