The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Most people have very squed perspectives. I understand that someone who doesn't claim a connection to a product or lifestyle etc. doesn't feel the need for that group to defend their ideals. An example of this could be related to abortion or gay marriage. A person that is'nt for gay marriage or abortion is indifferent to the subject when it comes under attack. When a group or gov't starts to make aggressive movements to remove the rights of individuals we must as a society defend these rights. It is clear that people will always kill. The manner inwhich they do it will always evolve. What if the next series of murders of innocent children is performed by doctors. Oh, wait that already is going on. Maybe we should ban that next.
Before long they will ban the size of soda you can drink. Oh, wait that one is being done now in New York. A very slippery sloap. Indeed.

Thanks for your absurd reductionism rileybrown

Quote:

---

A very slippery sloap.

---

Slippery soap or slippery slope? In any case I agree, before a surgeon is allowed to wield her scalpel she is required to have an undergraduate degree, a medical degree and a degree in a her specialty (from six to ten years of high level schooling), a year or two in residency at a hospital and a State license (which require her to pass a very comprehensive examination). Can we really ask less of a man who wishes to wield a firearm, carry it in secret and walk among us? The thing about soap is it can slip in any direction :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

My damn memory is full of loopholes, Trishikins, but this chart would seem to prove that crazy is here to stay.


EDIT The math on my left chart doesn't add up with the chart on my right.
so nevermind

---

Forgive me slinger, butt I do have to ask not only the source of your chart, but what it includes and excludes. What counts in this chart as a public mass shooting? Three people in a bar? Ten people in a courthouse? A drive-by killing two people in the street? Do the 2 mass shootings listed for the 1920’s include all the mass homicides carried out by organized crime at the time?

Every generation has its crazies. They are indeed here to stay. But they were always here. Look at America’s wild west (read Blood Meridian). They (the crazies) just didn’t always have access to semi-automatic firearms. In ancient Rome they had knives, swords and clubs. In the wild west they had six shooters. In the 1920’s organized crime was using tommy guns, but ordinary crazies were still using squirrel rifles and cavalry revolvers. Today our crazies wear kevlar, strap themselves with multiple semi-automatic weapons and spew death at a rate of sixty rounds per minute.

The crazies are always there, and imo probably in fairly constant proportions. The frequency of their murderous outrages increases with opportunity. Firearms increase that opportunity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0eb9_blog.html

Now I must ask Duwe all the same questions, and how many Pinochios should we award him?

Excellent idea Trish - a teacher in every gunshop. Trouble is a lot are going there to buy guns... :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rileybrown195

Most people have very squed perspectives. I understand that someone who doesn't claim a connection to a product or lifestyle etc. doesn't feel the need for that group to defend their ideals. An example of this could be related to abortion or gay marriage. A person that is'nt for gay marriage or abortion is indifferent to the subject when it comes under attack. When a group or gov't starts to make aggressive movements to remove the rights of individuals we must as a society defend these rights. It is clear that people will always kill. The manner inwhich they do it will always evolve. What if the next series of murders of innocent children is performed by doctors. Oh, wait that already is going on. Maybe we should ban that next.
Before long they will ban the size of soda you can drink. Oh, wait that one is being done now in New York. A very slippery sloap. Indeed.

---

You don't see anything different about gun ownership? You feel it's apt to compare it to the right of two same sex individuals to marry do you?

What is the tangible harm of two individuals of the same sex marrying in a secular society committed to the separation of church and state? Is it similar in scale to the harm caused by someone shooting their neighbor or entering a school and killing children? What is the upside of allowing unfettered access to gun ownership? At least with gay marriage you allow two consenting adults the opportunity to share their lives together in a legally recognized union. The only upside to owning military equipment is the false appearance of masculinity. With such weapons, there's almost no benefit and tremendous harm.

What is the fascination with guns? You say if they are banned other means of killing will be invented. Why do you want to have instruments of death anyway? I'll suspend disbelief. Tell me the role that guns play in your life that you feel so threatened that they may be taken from you. They're devices designed to cause injury or death.

Maybe it's time to reflect on the origins of this thread, in which a gun supporter urged people to stock up on guns and ammo in case of an outright ban. As long as that kind of attitude prevails there is no hope of genuine reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Maybe it's time to reflect on the origins of this thread, in which a gun supporter urged people to stock up on guns and ammo in case of an outright ban. As long as that kind of attitude prevails there is no hope of genuine reform.

---

\

Not much....? Not at all methinks. Congress will block any initiatives.