Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster
- Thread starter Xelor
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
I think the presence of a gun or owning a firearm because one is afraid is the opposite of courage. I think guns give people false courage, and they believe that it makes them stronger, but in reality it does not.
explaining why your comment was a false claim isn't the use of "false equivalence "
and blatantly false claims or subjective argument from personal belief presented as fact do not win you credibility
No, it cannot. Guns are designed to kill. People use them to kill. That's why police carry them, for example. And when they are not being used to kill, they are being used by people practicing killing. (Go to any range and see if any of the targets they use is the shape of a person.)
So is a BB gun or wrist rocket or a paintball gun. But those are not designed to kill.
That is exactly right. And a gun allows such a person to do so easily, quickly and in large numbers.
That's a mealy-mouth self serving argument, like claiming that alcohol will not make you drunk, or that heroin is not a dangerous drug.
It is arguments like the above that cause most people to not take gun advocates seriously. You sound more like a lawyer trying to get a client out of a drunk driving bust than someone interested in discussing the issue. "But your honor - alcohol doesn't make someone drunk. It's the DRINKER that makes himself drunk, and my client did NOT make himself drunk! No matter what the BAC reading was."
your abilities of denying plain facts are awesome but your lying your ass off as usual. a gun's purpose is to harm. that is why they were invented, hell the whole reason gun powder was invented was so chinese people could blow up their enemies. your answering how and saying its a refutation of why is telling. its not a real refutation but its the same dishonesty you engage in in this debate. guns are designed as weapons; a weapons purpose is to harm, nothing more and nothing less. your inability to acknowledge this simple fact is a problem that prevents you from having an rational discussion on this topic. that and your overly emotional attachment to gun ownership.
you have to remember that the arguments the pro gun crowd are wrapped up in emotions not anything rational. it makes them feel safe and having such a weapon at their disposal is a large part of their identity. the reason they get huffy is not because of it being an attack on their "rights" because lets be honest they don't two shits about their rights. the same people who whine about the second amendment are the first people trying to do away with the rest of the bill of rights. the real reason they throw their hissy fits is because when you attach guns your attacking their identity as a person. so when you criticize guns its the same as criticizing them in the lizard part of their brains.
And one of things required right now is an overhaul - including a tightening up - of the laws governing firearm possession and use in the US.
Not because it would "solve the problem" of the gun crazy, the gun criminal, the gun abusive, or the gun suicidal - some incremental benefits from gun control we can expect,with the big gains from other measures - but because it would restore some basic sanity to the governance of the country and its locales. Dysfunctional governance is bad, dysfunctional governance of firearms is dramatically and influentially bad. It's screwing up our politics.
Which means it's an opportunity to begin the unscrewing of our politics. If we have the nerve.
Just to add...
A law cannot be broken if a law doesn't exist. Just like a line in the sand can not be crossed unless the line is drawn.
By reforming gun laws the government is doing two things. 1) clarifying the will of the collective by drawing that line and 2) Placing the responsibility on those that cross the line. Thus shifting responsibility from collective's confusion to that of the individual or organisation that crosses that line.
If people can not see through the fog then it is up to the law maker to provide guidance through leadership.
Therefore a person who is in possession of an illegal firearm can be considered criminal. With out the laws the person can not be judged as such.
Law reform is about attempting to clarifying what is and what is not legal.
(M)
Last edited:
You are going to have to do better than that.
You get 2/10 for at least trying.
As I suggested, you will not acknowledge the obvious. As it would take courage to do so. A courage you lack.
The pro gun lobby is promoting violence.
This can be easily stated because the primary function of guns is to commit or in the very least threaten violence against another or self.
(M)
Bells
Staff member
Surely you are joking.
You target shoot for practice to enable you to be able to kill more swiftly and efficiently. There is also a reason why gun violence is so prevalent in your country and why your country is known for mass shootings.
Your argument is tantamount to suggesting that arrows are made so as to not waste feathers that people find on the ground.
And a gun allows one to do so quickly, easily and fairly efficiently.
I have to ask, did you feel even remotely embarrassed to have typed that out? Because having read it, I actually feel embarrassed for you.
Bullshit, Bells. We shoot targets for fun. We shoot dove and turkey and deer for meat. We shoot coyotes and cougars to save our pets, people and stock. We shoot enemies for our lives. No problem.
Mass shootings aren't carried out by expert marksmen, eh? Or enabled by gun free zones, or feel-good legislation?
Mass shootings aren't carried out by expert marksmen, eh? Or enabled by gun free zones, or feel-good legislation?
Several reasons.
You seem to have this solution turned on its head. Statistically you’re far more likely to be injured or killed by your pets, people and stock than by coyotes and cougars.
That's because people don't shoot pets, people, and stock on sight. If people shot them as they do coyotes and cougars, they would not be the threats they are.
It works, see?
Yes, let's cull the perceived offending populations in the name of safety and reduced competition.
Us?
Bells
Staff member
And in the meantime, you are practicing to allow you to shoot dove (what?) and turkey for meat and coyotes and cougars... Which does not explain why people have guns in urban areas..
What "enemies" are you shooting for your lives?
Do you live in a war zone?
They don't need to be marksmen. The firearms that are available for civilian use in the US means that they can point in a general direction, hit the trigger as fast as their fingers would allow and they will hit people.
Hence the problem.
Gun free zones are worthless given the fact that so many guns are available for anyone who decides to go on a rampage on any given whim.
And what legislation do you actually have that work towards curbing mass shootings?
A 17 year old kid was able to access his father's firearms and killed 10 people. You don't even have legislation that requires all firearms be kept in a safe and separate from bullets to try to ensure that people who aren't licensed to have that gun, cannot gain access to those firearms. You don't even have legislation that would hold the father of that 17 year old kid equally responsible for allowing his son to have such easy access to said firearms that he used to murder 10 people. You don't even have adequate legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. Hell, you don't even have legislation that would require firearms be tracked or registered. I mean shit, in many states in the US, kids can legally purchase a firearm because there isn't even an age limit in those states in regards to who can purchase a rifle or shotgun if they are buying it privately. And it doesn't stop there, in some States, kids can legally purchase a long gun from a licensed dealer without even parental consent:
States including Maine, Minnesota and Vermont allow teens 14 or 16 years old to buy or purchase long guns without parental consent, with some exceptions.
You don't even have legislation in place in some parts of the US, that would prevent someone who is out on bail for stabbing someone to own a firearm or to buy firearm components to allow them to make their own guns..
Neal was killed 45 minutes after he went on a deadly tear that left four of his five victims dead and 10 people injured, including seven children. Investigators later discovered the fifth victim, Neal's wife, beneath the floorboards of their home.
Despite being out of bail for stabbing a neighbor in January, the 44-year-old shooter was not barred from owning a weapon, Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said on Wednesday.
Neal also owned two handguns that were also used during the killing spree, including one that he purchased in 2009 in Raleigh, North Carolina, NBC News learned Thursday.
Despite being out of bail for stabbing a neighbor in January, the 44-year-old shooter was not barred from owning a weapon, Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said on Wednesday.
Neal also owned two handguns that were also used during the killing spree, including one that he purchased in 2009 in Raleigh, North Carolina, NBC News learned Thursday.
You don't even have adequate laws that would ensure those accused of or convicted of domestic violence be disarmed and prevented from obtaining firearms.
So what "feel-good legislation" are you even talking about?
If you had adequate legislation regarding firearms in your country, then you might have had a point. Alas you don't..
They are also available to Canadians - but without the American consequences.
There's an interesting meme floating around of comparing the base level courage of Americans and Canadians. One can find comparisons of the frequency of unlocked front doors, for example (notably higher in Canada, even in cities), and macho violence in sports (about the same, in Canada), and military pride (quite high, in Canada), and so forth.
I can verify the prevalence of locked front doors in my region of the US (not a high crime area) - working as a deliveryman of heavy things, it was universal to find houses locked up tight in the middle of the afternoon with the residents home and expecting delivery. It was common to have a suburban customer answer the front door by unlocking it, direct us to a delivery entrance (walkout basement, say), and when we got there with our delivery find that door still locked and (walking back around) the front door relocked behind us. A weirdly paranoid scene, and completely normal.
My own favorite statistic is a bit indirect, but indicative: Canadians drive a lot, and drive drunk a lot, just like Americans, but their per capita death by road mishap rate is significantly lower than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate I don't know why, but I suspect a different basic attitude toward carelessness with other people's lives, violence as self-expression, and desperation as a cultural feature. So they own a lot of guns, and cars, but they don't as often kill people with them in desperation or dehumanized derogation. They value the capability of violence, but not the expression of desperation or dehumanizing bigotry in violent acting out, it seems. That's my experience, anyway.
And others have made similar anecdotal observations, going back generations: https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-like-canadians/ and noted some possibly contributing factors
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Now, now, no trolling.