Why nearly all guns have to go

Post Reply New Topic

Which is to say they realized it would be quoted out of context like you're attempting to do.



You can repeat yourself all you'd like, it doesn't make what you're claiming credible. I'm more tired of hearing bad faith claims than you are of making them.

You’re ignoring the fact that society is a hellscape because of all the guns, and if there weren’t to many guns fewer people would getting blown away.

Examples: Pretty much every other country on Earth.


Also wouldn’t hurt to ditch the Reece madness mentality & have more people light up to calm their trigger happy nerves.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1 ... JvbA%3D%3D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-r ... JvbA%3D%3D

If you made all guns illegal one day, it would still be a hellscape and there would still be mass shootings.

If you magically had a button to delete all guns, there would be no more shootings but it would still be a hellscape.

Mass shootings are caused by the hellscape, the hellscape existed first.

People should recognize what a mass shooting is: an elaborate suicide where the person wants others to share in their suffering.

People in utopias don't spend months planning their suicide and hoping to take a bunch of randoms with them.

Yes, it's the landscape of the USA that drives people to madness and was the cause of all mass murders from Indigenous genocide to splattering churchgoers & schoolchildren. It's cursed land that's at fault, not the ultra easy access to guns!!



Once again: You sound like a drug addict blaming everyone and everything else for the problems in their life that are so clearly caused by drugs.

You have a wide century gap between events. What whites did to the natives was horrible and dishonorable, but there's no connection between that and the current events. Trying to equate the two and paint Americans as bad people just sounds like typical leftist hyperbole. You see, whites did not go around doing these mass shootings in the 50s, 60s and 70s, despite those years having truly ultra-easy access to guns. It's a recent thing. And also some blacks nowadays do mass shootings also, roughly half of the shooters are white, the rest are minorities 25% of them being black.



I fail to see any analogy here. Just sounds like more incoherent leftist hyperbole. The only parallels I can draw from this are that prohibition led to gang violence, which gave the gov an excuse to form the NFA of 1934. So prohibition indirectly caused both violence and gun control. Though I do not see the connection to modern issues.

A drug addicts problems are caused by drug use, not all the other things they point their fingers at to use as scapegoats.

Same for gun violence. It’s caused by guns, not all the other things you’re blaming. It’s the guns.

There's an elephant in this room.

People who consider themselves societal rejects, whether justified or not in feeling that way, often need something to cling to as a way to compensate. Libertarianism, Objectivism, Gun Worship, and other extreme views are typical. Unfortunately we sometimes see this happening on this forum.

That won't happen again though. There are systems in place to track people that are buying those ingredients in such large quantities. Meanwhile, most of the US has done precisely nothing to address the problem of gun violence. And even those that have, have done little to prevent the self-murders and one offs that arise from easy access to firearms by people that are a bit dodgy.

That being said, there is a lot that can be done while allowing people to retain the kind of firearms that are actually appropriate for hunting, target practice and self defense. Although, in the latter case, you've got serious psychological damage if you think that a firearm is a good choice for self-defense in modern America. That's really only appropriate if you're in a warzone or in the back country where bear spray isn't enough. A nice knife and/or flashlight is far more effective than a firearm in most of the cases where one would need one otherwise.

That's more or less it. Sure you do have people like my dad and brother that have a decent collection, but their collections are properly secured and used just for target practice and hunting. The weapons were designed with those uses in mind. I'm sure that it's technically possible to go on a rampage with them, but it probably wouldn't be very effective due to all the reloading they'd have to do.

Ultimately, for self-defense, there are far better options in modern America. People greatly understimage just how effective other options like pepper spreay, tasers, knives and even flashlights are in the kinds of situations where you might actually need to engage in some self-defense because you couldn't just avoid the confrotnation.

Not to mention the issue of frozen finger that many people do suffer from when they do have the firearm and are in a position where using it might be necessary. It turns out that most people really don't want to kill other people and will take some pretty ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so while looking like they are.

You need to consider that, if a person keeps any sort of gun for "self-defense", they probably keep it loaded and easily accessible, doesn't matter if the NRA cautions against that. We all know what sort of tragic outcome can result from that. Consider what happened to Reeva Steenkamp at least if we believe the official story.

But another scenario is that, the person can be triggered by an incident at school or work, or even in their personal life such as coming home unannounced and finding another man with their girlfriend, and in a state of rage they go for the gun (either in the next room in the latter case or a quick 10 minute drive in the former) which is ready for use, then blast away. If the gun wasn't there, or if it required some effort to ready it for use, perhaps the murder(s) wouldn't have happened.

TBH keeping a gun for self defense should be allowed only if the individual can present an extremely compelling case for doing so. Simply claiming they live in a sketchy neighborhood isn't enough. They would have to show proof that somebody had targeted them for revenge however in that case the person threatening them should be taken into custody. I suppose in situations where gangs are involved you might have a case where somebody fears retribution from a gang and has good reason to think they are coming after them, but the local authorities are unable to do much about it.

I personally believe the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed, however I don't see how anybody on the Supreme Court could read that to mean that the Framers of the Constitution expected Americans to rely on firearms for self defense. Which means the SC is probably not doing what it was constituted to do either. New Constitution, anyone?

Something analogous to that frozen trigger finger also happens with knives. Additionally, if you don't know how to use a knife in a violent situation there's a high risk of injuring yourself. That's not to say untrained shooters aren't at risk of injuring themselves as well, it happens.

A knife is also deadly force, so both from a personal safety perspective and legally, if you can justify using a knife but have the option of a gun, go with the gun.

I've always heard it's foolish to bring a gun to a knife fight.

Other way around.

It's not even factually correct at this point. Originally, it was as much for defense of the state as defense from the state. I'm those days we didn't have a standing army and most of the country didn't have a full time police force and if you wanted to shoot multiple times without reloading, you needed multiple guns.

But as the weapons used in combat have become more powerful and more expensive, it's ignorant to suggest that the 2nd amendment represents any meaningful protection even when extended to private citizens. Even the national guard, our well regulated militia, with much better gear and training would have a tough time of it.

Expanding the 2nd amendment to allow all military gear wouldn't do much either as tanks and fighter jets are crazy expensive.

Really, it's a belief that mostly exists to rationalize the ownership of weapons that serve no purpose in the hands of civilians other than being really cool.

Yes, the saying is the other way around, but in practice, a knife is often times massively overpowered compared with firearms. In some cases, a flashlight is more dangerous as well. So much of it comes down to what is the best tool for the job and what you can effectively use.

A good chunk of wild West shootouts wound up with all rounds being fired without anybody being shot as they rarely got the practice to be good at it due to how expensive bullets were at the time.