I don't understand this on guns?

[independentusa]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

 

[Absentglare]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

 

[cuban smokes]

I am pro gun, pro 2nd Amendment, pro personal responsibility .........

when I was six years old my father taught me & my slightly older brother how to shoot a single shot, bolt action .22 rifle.
some of the things I learned from the experience .......
1. I learned how to respect the potential of a weapon that has the power to take a life
2. I learned that I was NOT supposed to point the firearm at anything, or at anyone, unless I planed on firing the weapon
3. I learned general firearm safety; what NOT to do at the shooting range
4. the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY was further re-enforced in my young life

IMO a firearms safety class including hands-on operation of firearms, at an early age, would help to educate our youth about firearms, which the likely result would be adults that are much less likely to utilize firearms for the WRONG reasons.

YMMV

 

[Rexedgar]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

As with most other things in our world these days, follow the money trail.

 

[phattonez]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

Because mass homicides never happen in countries where firearms have been banned. :roll:

 

[Harshaw]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

Your problem is your faulty premise: people wanting "no regulations."

 

[Koke]

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

Yes, yes.

Lets give all the guns to the state. That could NEVER go wrong.

It amazes me the amount of stupidity anti-gun people display.

 

[celticwar17]

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

Freedom comes at a price... And so does non-freedom. There will always be mentally ill people, it's not a fact we can change. And there is a statically reality that out of a country of 400 million people, something bad is going to happen somewhere.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes, yes.

Lets give all the guns to the state. That could NEVER go wrong.

It amazes me the amount of stupidity anti-gun people display.

You may be confused. I didn't endorse any gun control policy. I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control. Do you disagree with that?

I simply stated it another way: that pro-gun advocates consider them acceptable losses, which they do.

 

[Absentglare]

Freedom comes at a price... And so does non-freedom. There will always be mentally ill people, it's not a fact we can change. And there is a statically reality that out of a country of 400 million people, something bad is going to happen somewhere.

Oddly enough i agree with the principle you are exposing here.

However, i believe it is important for society to understand the price it pays for freedom. We should be aware of the costs and honest about the reasoning.

 

[Chillfolks]

I have no problem with keeping mentally ill folks from gun ownership, as long as we define what mentally ill is. There is a minority that looks at things in extremes and would say anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally ill therefore should not own one. Some places may classify any transgender person as mentally ill. So define it and legislate what mentally ill is than I'm on board, but will fight an open to interpretation definition style law.

I'm ok with universal background checks as long as they are free or priced under $10. I can see less gun friendly states or even feds put background check in high hundreds to low thousands as a way to restrict guns without legislating restrictions. The higher the price the more people will ignore doing checks.


Felons gun rights are tied to voting. Once they are responsible enough to have rights restored they get them back.

 

[Renae]

You may be confused. I didn't endorse any gun control policy. I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control. Do you disagree with that?

I simply stated it another way: that pro-gun advocates consider them acceptable losses, which they do.

You cast it in a dishonest, petty way.

The truth is we abhor such senseless acts of violence and want to find ways to help prevent them. We do not agree that restricting our rights because of fear of these bad actors is the proper path to doing this. It's a principled stand that has nothing to do with "acceptable losses".

Now get out of here with your bull****.

 

[Chillfolks]

You may be confused. I didn't endorse any gun control policy. I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control. Do you disagree with that?

I simply stated it another way: that pro-gun advocates consider them acceptable losses, which they do.

I disagree

I am pro gun and have stated some forms of control I support. Each shooting reinforced we need control.

 

[tres borrachos]

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.

As recently as 2012 President Trump was all for strong gun regulations. He enthusiastically supported Obama's push for gun control. You may get your wish and the real Trump may manifest itself soon.

 

[jimbo]

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

The pro gun side understands that without a gun, that convenience store clerk who just blew away her armed attacker would be dead.

The acceptable loss is the perp.

Just one example:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dek...k-kills-attempted-robber-police-say/494455480

 

[jimbo]

You may be confused. I didn't endorse any gun control policy. I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control. Do you disagree with that?

I simply stated it another way: that pro-gun advocates consider them acceptable losses, which they do.

I don't view mass shootings as a valid reason for gun control. I view mass shootings as a reason for nut job control.

If instead of a gun free zone, what do you believe the outcome at Sandy Hook would have been if the principle had had a couple of double 12's locked in a safe in her office? And knew how to use them?

 

[ludin]

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

proof or evidence of this? ol yea you don't have any.

1. Most deaths with a gun are suicides.
2. Most homicides are either gang or drug related shootings.
3. Criminals don't go to a gun store to buy a gun. They get them either from friends or on the corner sales.

I don't know any person that views these as acceptable losses.

 

[ludin]

You may be confused. I didn't endorse any gun control policy. I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control. Do you disagree with that?

I simply stated it another way: that pro-gun advocates consider them acceptable losses, which they do.

This is a dishonest argument as I ever saw one.

The problem is that there is little that gun control can do to stop them. A person bent on a mass shooting or mass killing is a better term
will find a way to accomplish it rather you have gun control laws in place or not.

even if you were try and restrict mentally ill people most people are not mentally ill nor do they exhibit signs of being mentally ill till
they are ready to carry out the act.

and you are stating your opinion as fact which is well meaningless.

 

[Absentglare]

You cast it in a dishonest, petty way.

The truth is we abhor such senseless acts of violence and want to find ways to help prevent them. We do not agree that restricting our rights because of fear of these bad actors is the proper path to doing this. It's a principled stand that has nothing to do with "acceptable losses".

Now get out of here with your bull****.

Petty?

Every time there's a mass shooting, pro-gun advocates insist that it must not be considered as a possible motivation for passing gun control. Trying to reduce the frequency and/of severity of mass shootings is not worth gun control to pro-gun advocates. Why can't you just be honest about it?

You simply don't care about the deaths the way gun control advocates do.

 

[Absentglare]

I disagree

I am pro gun and have stated some forms of control I support. Each shooting reinforced we need control.

I was speaking in generalizations, which is my fault for lacking accuracy. Of course, you are correct. There are many people who consider themselves pro-gun but still manage to support at least some forms of gun control.

 

[jimbo]

proof or evidence of this? ol yea you don't have any.

1. Most deaths with a gun are suicides.
2. Most homicides are either gang or drug related shootings.
3. Criminals don't go to a gun store to buy a gun. They get them either from friends or on the corner sales.

I don't know any person that views these as acceptable losses.

Add #4: Most mass murders are not gun related. Guns are inefficient. On the top 10 list: Fertilizer, fire, box cutters, airplanes, bombs, or a combination of the above.

 

[ludin]

Add #4: Most mass murders are not gun related. Guns are inefficient. On the top 10 list: Fertilizer, fire, box cutters, airplanes, bombs, or a combination of the above.

usually those mass shootings are suicide attempts.

 

[Absentglare]

The pro gun side understands that without a gun, that convenience store clerk who just blew away her armed attacker would be dead.

The acceptable loss is the perp.

Just one example:

Store clerk kills attempted robber, police say | WSB-TV

Your argument is that the lives saved outweigh the lives lost.

IOW, the lives lost are acceptable losses.

I don't view mass shootings as a valid reason for gun control. I view mass shootings as a reason for nut job control.

If instead of a gun free zone, what do you believe the outcome at Sandy Hook would have been if the principle had had a couple of double 12's locked in a safe in her office? And knew how to use them?

Yes i am well aware that pro-gun advocates fail to acknowledge the causal role firearms play in mass shooting tragedies. That's part of the dishonesty.

 

[Absentglare]

proof or evidence of this? ol yea you don't have any.

1. Most deaths with a gun are suicides.
2. Most homicides are either gang or drug related shootings.
3. Criminals don't go to a gun store to buy a gun. They get them either from friends or on the corner sales.

I don't know any person that views these as acceptable losses.

We aren't talking about the full set of gun deaths nor gang/drug shootings nor criminals acquiring firearms.

Please notice my language, emphasis mine:

The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.

And this is in direct response to the context which established:

When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason

 

[jimbo]

Petty?

Every time there's a mass shooting, pro-gun advocates insist that it must not be considered as a possible motivation for passing gun control. Trying to reduce the frequency and/of severity of mass shootings is not worth gun control to pro-gun advocates. Why can't you just be honest about it?

You simply don't care about the deaths the way gun control advocates do.

I'm one of those who do not put much correlation between legal possession of firearms and mass shootings. A mass killer is going to find a way.

So a question. Every time an airplane is blown out of the sky or piloted into a building, do you then advocate for more airplane control?