Everyone Hates Feminists

Post Reply New Topic

The average bullet wound is worse than the average knife wound; the average gun rampage is worse than the average knife rampage. Guns are, at their most basic, tools for killing things; if they weren't some of the best tools for that job, the army wouldn't use them.

Incendiary and explosive weapons are used by the military when they want maximum damage guns are mainly used for defensive purposes. Get ride of guns and people will become much more lethal.

I know I've said it before, but none of those things have entire lobbies dedicated to banning them, histories of government databases being used to confiscate them, or Constitutional protections. Maybe it's hard to get if you haven't spent years on the receiving end of a campaign to demonize you as violent, ignorant, dangerous, anti-social, etc, with the clear goal of persuading people to enact more and more stringent controls until a total ban is achieved, the slow boiling frog approach. Not only would universal background checks be an infringement and lead to the creation of a national database of firearms through the bound books of the dealers performing the checks, but I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that any good would actually come of them. That's of course the game plan, when those don't work it's on to step two that infringes a little more, and so on. Remember the assault weapons ban? Remember how it didn't work (not my opinion, fact)? Remember how Democrats have been fighting to enact an even more stringent version of it ever since despite it's lack of efficacy and despite the fact the guns in question are seldom used in crime?

BS. Incendiaries and explosives have their place, but I repeat: if guns weren't some of the most useful tools for killing things, the army wouldn't use them. The guys doing night raids in Iraq were/are armed with guns, not bombs, and they weren't retreating.


I think a katana would qualify as "arms" under the constitution.
They don't have lobbyists trying to ban them (sometimes), but they also don't have a national organization trying to protect their use.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/arts/2012/11/ ... karate.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation
shuriken?! Come on!
http://www.self-defender.net/law4.htm
http://www.easylawlookup.com/_easylooku ... &pgno=1133

BS. Incendiaries and explosives have their place, but I repeat: if guns weren't some of the most useful tools for killing things, the army wouldn't use them. The guys doing night raids in Iraq were/are armed with guns, not bombs, and they weren't retreating.


Really? Guns have their place but I repeat are not anywhere near the best tools. Guns are tools mainly used for defense in war or in most combat situations they have a very limited range. Explosive on the other hand are much better I was in the military the guys with guns took defensive positions to protect artillery because that is always the enemies target. Those night raids were almost always backed up by heave artillery guys went in to confirm an enemies position and if collateral damage was not a problem they bombed them. The enemy down there wasn't dumb either guns for them were secondary most times high explosives where what caused all the problems for us down there not guys with guns. Talk to any military people and they will say the same thing explosives are way to easy to make take away guns and you will see the worst killing on TV that this country has ever seen. Like dox said gun control hasn't done anything to stop gun crime or crime in general columbine happened under the brady bill.

If guns aren't available, the average murderer is going to go for a knife or poison instead; both are easier to treat than a gunshot wound.

Failing knife or poison, the next logical step would be ice cream scoop rampage

And? The person trying to defend themselves from said murderer is at a much greater disadvantage as they're presumably complying with the law, and have thus been deprived of the greatest tool available for the purpose of self defense. You act as if all violence is the same and equally bad, when it really depends on the context, as I don't think you'd call a dead would be rapist a bad thing.

Deal with crime as a crime problem, trying to make it a gun problem doesn't work, isn't helping anybody, and draws a whole lot people like me into a political fight that I'd personally rather not have, and that I'm sure you don't want us in. To put that in perspective, think of how effective the NRA has been at defeating Democrats over the years, and what that has cost them politically across the country, and realize that all they'd have to do to neutralize that threat is to unequivocally and categorically renounce gun control. Wouldn't you rather have a free hand to work on the real problems than keep fighting a pointless battle that you can't win that costs you grievously?

I'm sure you're familiar with the term, "arms race."
Where do you draw the line? With a muzzle-loading pistol? With a 6-shot revolver? With a 12-bullet semi-automatic pistol? With a sniper rifle that can kill something from 3 miles away? With a 30-round magazine?
Do you draw it, like a former facebook frenemy of mine (who rage-quit FB over a gun argument) who thought that he needed automatic weapons shooting bullets big enough to penetrate at least two walls and still kill someone, with magazines as big as possible, 'in case his house was invaded by a gang of thugs with AR-15s and he needed to defend his family (whom, he claimed, he always knew the location of)'? With the previously discussed shoulder-fired grenade launcher (my apologies if this list isn't technically accurate, but I'm sure you get the point anyway). 'Cause the criminals will always be better armed, don'tcha know, them being criminals and all, and not respecting lines.

My point about the relative harm caused by guns wasn't actually an argument to ban guns, though; rather, it was an academic point in response to someone who claimed that knives are worse, and then that it didn't matter because bombs are really worse. I find the argument that 'murderers will just use something else' one of the more stupid ones that the gun-rights people can bring up.

I don't want to ban guns; If nothing else, here in the west we still have bears and mountain lions. My Grandpa has shot the former on his back deck, and my great-uncle has shot the latter off of his; in neither case was the beastie 'minding its own business' or 'just passing through.' My stepmom carries a pistol when she goes horseback riding in the hills, both for mountain lions and in case she needs to put a horse down in an emergency - the point to all of this being, I see guns as useful, important tools, at least in rural areas.


Background checks and waiting periods is making it a people problem, not a gun problem.



I view the NRA as sort of a single-issue Faux News: they work largely at the behest of their corporate overlords, and work by whipping people up into a frenzy using obfuscation, selective quotations, bent truths, and outright falsehoods. Maybe it is sisyphean, but I could never feel good handing over the game to a player like that.

Seriously, enough with this one crazy person you used to know, if you want to go tit for tat on that I can provide a long list of obnoxious liberals of my acquaintance with crazy ideas that are just as frightening and offensive, and they're just as irrelevant as this one time "frenemy" of yours.

Why do you worry so much about things that aren't really used in crime? Firearms that use magazines that large don't conceal well and aren't generally suited to crime, neither are expensive and cumbersome precision rifles, or any of the other bugaboos that you're so worked up over. There are millions of AR15 variants alone out there, and yet rifles as a whole still barely make blip on the crime stats, as criminals don't use them for the myriad of reasons that I've listed repeatedly. Most murders with pistols don't involve dozens of shots, but capacity is important to someone carrying for self defense, as they have limited space to carry spare mags, and it's impossible to know how many you're going to need in advance. Have you ever heard of a murder involving a truly long range shot? The only example I can think of is the Texas tower shooter in the 60's, and he was a trained army marksman using a hunting rifle. This is not a rational argument, it's an emotional one based on fear, not reality.



Why? Even in the gun awash US, plenty of murders are already carried out without firearms, in fact more murders are carried out with hands and feet than are carried out with the rifles you're so afraid of, shotguns either for that matter. Guns don't make people want to kill each other, they might make it a bit easier, but they don't drive violence in and of themselves, social and economic factors do that, and those are what you should focus on if you're so concerned. Further, you're completely failing to account for the 100,000+ by the most conservative estimate times a year guns are used for self defense, far in excess of the number of times they're used to commit violence. Factor that in, and you're really getting into more harm than good territory.



Just the ones you find scary for reasons having nothing to do with reality.



You've still yet to show me an example of these policies working. Also, you live in Cali, correct? Are you familiar with your state gun laws? Why should I believe that it would stop with these two policies on a national level if the Democrats got their way, and they weren't simply the first step? I've seen what's happened in your state where there's virtually no opposition, I've seen what's happened in other countries with incremental encroachment leading to ever stricter policies leading to eventual confiscation. I've learned from history, I won't see it repeated here.



Evidence, please? When I trash the anti-gun groups, I can provide specific evidence of their malfeasance, I expect the same from people wanting to trash the NRA. Further, what are you "handing over" to the NRA? If the Dems renounced gun control, what do you think that would do to the NRA? If they're the big bad fear mongers you think they are, wouldn't taking away their chief bogeyman be a mortal blow to them? You also seem to less interested in achieving anything than in opposing a group you don't like personally, which is never a good reason for pursuing a policy IMHO.

It's funny how anti-gun people demonize the NRA, they don't realize that the NRA stands for 'Negotiate Rights Away' to many people. I guess that's the point, move the goalposts. They don't carry an ounce of the influence the left wing media likes to say they do, they don't "own" anybody. The American people value their RIGHT to keep and bear arms, that's why gun control is a dead issue in the US. Where would the gun control movement be without certain billionaires that finance it? The MSM owns the American people more than anybody, they're the nonstop propaganda machine. Unfortunately for the tyrants in charge, the American people are more and more rejecting the MSM lies and propaganda.

The NRA demonizes the NRA

With their stupid finger pointing and policy proposals, yea. Video games and movies don't cause violence any more than guns do. For as all powerful the dumbies on the left want you to think the NRA is, how many people are jumping on that narrative? The only elected person I can think of the top of my head(I'm sure there is more) that did was NRA endorsed Joe Manchin, a Democrat.

While the NRA does have a noticeable political lobby I think their rhetoric is directed more at purchasers who will take them at their word and go spend more money on weaponry

Fascists like Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg scare more people into buying 'weaponry' than the NRA ever could.