Urban areas have fewer guns, per capita - especially poorer urban areas. Guns cost money, and are less useful in urban areas, and are less likely to be part of the estates or familial inheritance of urban dwellers.
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
so your argument is that gunowners tend to be sociopaths? you do one of the big parts of military training is breaking the reservation of taking a human life. there is a rather large difference mentally from say killing a deer and killing a person.
How the hell do you get from "No, Bork is a moron." to "Gunowners tend to be sociopaths."?
Typical, illiterates telling other people what they really mean when they speak...
Is that crap supposed to be a sentence or a question? Unless you're e e cummings, sentences start with a capital letter in English.
A head wound wouldn't faze you, would it?
Typical, illiterates telling other people what they really mean when they speak...
Is that crap supposed to be a sentence or a question? Unless you're e e cummings, sentences start with a capital letter in English.
A head wound wouldn't faze you, would it?
you shouldn't call your self illiterate. i mean if you wanna bash your self go for it i find you a rather loathsome person but its not something one should do in public. you don't understand the concept of an implicit premise do you? i get logic hard and its easier to not think. you were making comments on combat capabilities of hunters i was merely pointing out the premise you seemed to over look
if you need help perhaps you should go back to kindergarten and relearn your punctuation. amusing someone who wants to call other illiterate but doesn't know what punctuation means.
internet lag double post
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
thanks for the info.
Child, "yourself" is one word.
What the fuck is an "implicit premise"? Did you mean "promise"? "Overlook" is also one word.
What is the meaning of your non-sentence "i get logic hard and its easier not to think"? If logic is as tough for you as grammar, punctuation and spelling seem to be, then you've really got a hard row to hoe.
Since you're having comprehension problems, I wasn't commenting on the the combat capabilities of hunters, I was responding to another halfwit's troll post suggesting that gun owners are only target shooters, therefore easy targets from 1.5 miles away.
Your comment speaks for itself. Very telling...
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
bump
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
erm... no. that isn't a part of military training. Military training consists of oft repeated physical training designed to make you react as quickly as possible. In point of fact, only about 3 -10% of the military is in the combat arms and trained to actually engage the enemy anyway. Most military jobs are support or related positions, from Doctors and nurses to firefighters, supply and finance.
the only way to break the reservation of taking a life is through experience in combat actually taking a life.
EDIT: from DOD, making the numbers less than 10%
except that hunters probably have a better ability to stalk and kill than most soldiers, which is why people like Gunny Hathcock was so successful as a Sniper in the USMC. In point of fact, when they were choosing their students for the newly formed USMC sniper school, Gunny Hathcock tried to look for country boys that hunted to help speed training along and get instructors who were capable of fieldcraft and stalking (Gunny Hathcock's own words found in "Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills" by Charles Henderson).
Last edited:
Because the right wing has made it into a cause celebre. They equate more gun regulation to "losing" and will do anything to stop it, no matter how many die. They are well financed by the gun industry to maintain that stance. Indeed, lately Russia has been financing the NRA to maintain this division; they see such divisiveness as bad for the USA (and thus good for Russia.)
you could also say:
Because the left wing has made it into a cause celebre. They want more gun regulation because any dissenting opinion or facts are equated to "losing" and they will do anything to stop dissension against their cause or free speech that doesn't reflect their beliefs, no matter how many die in their riots or rage fueled anger. They are well financed and supported by the media to maintain that stance. Indeed, lately you can see that the media help spread irrational statements from Hogg while refusing to also advocate for Kashuv, both being from Parkland, and only the latter attempting to bridge between the two camps to seek an effective resolution of the problems.
so the reason it's so difficult is more about the fanatical left and right refusing to actually find a compromise
Progress.
Now: identifying those who are and those who are not not in the "fanatical" anything (which is not left/right, specifically, btw). That's going to prove difficult - prediction.
Maybe start here: "one of the big parts of military training is breaking the reservation of taking a human life"
"erm... no. that isn't a part of military training."
Yes, it is. Considerable thought, research, and effort have gone into exactly that. So: awareness?
I am well aware of what is taught in boot for the USAF, USA and USMC
after basic, for the combat arms in the USA and USAF, I have to agree: considerable research has gone into breaking the reservation of taking a human life. They actually use the previous Basic/Boot training where they want you to react quickly and go from there.
However, in Basic/Boot (circa 1980-2000), you only get:
Army - one day (maybe two, depending) of hand-to-hand combat, one day of grenade, a week on the rifle range (not all of it shooting) and maybe one day on Claymore or shoulder fired missiles - just enough to make you a threat to everyone around you. It's essentially a familiarization course that comes together in the FTX at the end of Boot.
USAF - you don't get near as much range time, and you only shot paper targets with multiple sizes at about 25 or so meters. I don't think we spent a week total.
Marines - they're a different beast altogether. They begin the induction right off the bat and drive the point home, so they do "break the reservation" immediately, which is one reason it is one of the longest induction training courses of the military (I believe it is the longest, but I've not checked in years)
The Navy and CG are the only two that I don't have direct experience with so I can't comment. I don't expect boot has changed that much in the ensuing decades. It was essentially the same before I went in as my father was a Drill.
So when you talk about breaking the reservation, you really need to include what branch you're talking about, whether they're enlisted or officers (like the USAF) and if they're combat arms for certain branches (sometimes the LEO schools are considered part of the combat arms training)
Army: Meat shield. (Edit: Infantry. I've known some airborne rangers that make the grade.)
AF: Damned good mess hall and more bomb sights than paper targets.
USMC: Hoo-rah! No more need be said.
Navy: ABS are whiny bitches, at least in my experience. I've never hobnobbed with ship's commanders, so I can't comment, but Navy pilots are frickin' insane. (And damned fun to party with, if you keep your wits about you...)
AF: Damned good mess hall and more bomb sights than paper targets.
USMC: Hoo-rah! No more need be said.
Navy: ABS are whiny bitches, at least in my experience. I've never hobnobbed with ship's commanders, so I can't comment, but Navy pilots are frickin' insane. (And damned fun to party with, if you keep your wits about you...)
11B - Bullet Catchers LMFAO
Hell, they don't even have my MOS anymore- 14R
LOL
there are a couple enlisted "combat arms" AFSC's, believe it or not. They're not too bad to hang with... meh
You could say that. You'd be wrong, but you could certainly say that.
So there are two options:
1) Hogg has been planning this for years, and he "wants more gun regulation because any dissenting opinion or facts are equated to "losing" and he will do anything to stop dissension against their cause or free speech that doesn't reflect his beliefs, no matter how many die in his riots or rage fueled anger."
2) Hogg wants gun regulation because his friends and fellow students died at the hands of a murderer armed with an AR-15, and he doesn't want to see that happen again.
I guess if your political agenda requires it, you are going to believe option 1 no matter what the facts are.
it's no different than the claim you made, which is equally wrong - therefore it holds the exact same weight as your claims
or, you could add to that:
1a) Hogg is being manipulated by liberal fanatic "advisors" due to his youth, inexperience and highly emotional state. Because he is already unstable and malleable, plus is already left leaning, he allows himself to be the tool used by others.
I don't doubt that he may well be suffering from a loss. IMHO - It seems quite wrong that the "adults" in this situation didn't actually allow for mourning and counseling before allowing their kids to be used
you can believe that if you like. It is something that is done when a political agenda requires it.
My only agenda is to protect the rights of citizens while attempting to find a solution that will work without violating those rights. That is neither left nor right, except that I will defend the 2A, which you consider right.
plans like this:
http://americansforclass.org/meadows-movement/
I also advocate to my SEN/REP to fund and enforce existing laws... those laws have worked when they were enforced (Seattle) so we need to provide support for them instead of making more laws that would interfere with them.
No, you really don't. The matter is one of degree, not kind.
And that's another reason why arming teachers is a bad idea - unless you do plan to pay for the necessary training, somehow without subtracting from the educational resource base.
You oppose several small, incremental, but reasonable improvements which would help without violating anyone's rights (fire rate and magazine restrictions, example) and you support political factions and politicians who are major obstacles in obtaining the the measures you claim to support otherwise (universal background checks, mental health care, etc).
You promulgate arguments and policy bases that interfere with with the agenda you claim, in the public discourse.
Your visible agenda is not as you describe, in other words.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Wouldn't be in the first hundred times.
It's a bothsides issue.
Last edited: