You can’t ban human nature

[CLAX1911]

Imagine agreeing that there's nothing that can be done to prevent kids from killing themselves.

There is but it's talk to them having a connection interacting with them. When they trust you they won't talk about these sorts of thing.

My guess is the average gun owner doesn't have kids anymore.

I'm betting there's a lot more average gun owners that have kids then that don't have kids the ones that don't have kids probably have grandkids.

Maybe they just know their children very well need to worry about this sort of thing.

 

[Spock]

Over 100 years ago, progressives convinced the country that banning alcohol would solve the problem of drunkenness. Needless to say, it became one of the biggest policy failures in U.S. history. Today, they want to ban guns - just like they once banned alcohol. Does anybody really think the results would be any different?

Prohibition didn’t stop drinking. It created black markets, built up organized crime, and turned millions of ordinary Americans into criminals. Now, with guns, they think a ban will stop violence - or “gun violence,” as they put it. But just like booze, the demand won’t vanish, it’ll just go underground.

And let’s not pretend that banning one specific weapon means a murderer suddenly decides not to murder. The intent stays, while the method shifts to whatever it takes to fulfill the intent.

Many countries with firearms have far less firearm violence than the USA because they have gun CONTROL not gun bans.

 

[Spock]

When a dog steps on a rifle in the back seat with one in the chamber, and kills the guy in the passenger seat, it's the dumbasses right.

Human nature is to be foolish, selfish, and thoughtless.

 

[Citizen]

I could do this too say that you love people dying and so forth but you're only doing that because you're stuck in a corner.

Please don't ever stop what you're doing. Make everyone hate you so they vote against you out of spite that's the best thing you could do for gun owners thank you for your service.

Just a word to the wise this is how you turn the culture against you again thank you.

You live in a bubble

 

[Citizen]

I was pointing out that it's rare even if I was to believe you're absolute lie that it happened every day.

Over a year it's 365 out of 100 million.

Huh? If something everyday, it is not rare. I don’t know what the **** you are talking about. Do you know what rare means

 

[rahl]

Sure it does.

No it doesn’t.

Read the newspapers and what the local news. Somewhere in America someone is going to die tomorrow because an angry person or a lunatic is going to shoot them

 

[Cosmo]

Imagine agreeing that there's nothing that can be done to prevent kids from killing themselves.

My guess is the average gun owner doesn't have kids anymore.

Rather than guessing, maybe actually read.

Post in thread 'You can’t ban human nature'

Thursday at 5:24 PM

I say leave nuclear ordnances in the toy chest.

Riiiight. It's either nukes in the toy chest or a total gun ban. Can't take a reasonable approach like reducing stress and bullying at school.

• Cosmo

Or don't and just keep saying stupid shit like you usually do. Here, let me play your game: car crashed into a fire hydrant? Gotta ban fire hydrants or else nothing can be done to prevent collisions with fire hydrants!

 

[Maidenrules29]

Sure it does. Read the newspapers and what the local news. Somewhere in America someone is going to die tomorrow because an angry person or a lunatic is going to shoot them

You forgot to include a common criminal/thug/gang member. Are those types "lunatics" or "angry"?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Imagine agreeing that there's nothing that can be done to prevent kids from killing themselves.

My guess is the average gun owner doesn't have kids anymore.

Who on earth is saying there is nothing that can be done?

 

[ataraxia]

Riiiight. It's either nukes in the toy chest or a total gun ban. Can't take a reasonable approach like reducing stress and bullying at school.

Between nukes in the toy chest and a total gun ban, you seem to know exactly where to draw the line. But I'm glad that at least you are agreeing now that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. The Constitution just says "the right to arms shall not be infringed"- but back then "arms" was basically front loading muskets and swords. 21st century weapons technology has been a game changer- and so even you seem to agree a line needs to be drawn somewhere now. This business of "right to arms shall not be infringed" is hopelessly obsolete here in the 21st century.

So now the question is: where?

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about "ask Cosmo where to draw the line".

 

[poppopfox]

Who the hell are you, Superman???

 

[RF667799]

Between nukes in the toy chest and a total gun ban, you seem to know exactly where to draw the line. But I'm glad that at least you are agreeing now that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. The Constitution just says "the right to arms shall not be infringed"- but back then "arms" was basically front loading muskets and swords. 21st century weapons technology has been a game changer- and so even you seem to agree a line needs to be drawn somewhere now. This business of "right to arms shall not be infringed" is hopelessly obsolete here in the 21st century.

So now the question is: where?

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about "ask Cosmo where to draw the line".

Do you remember reading anything about in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[Cosmo]

Between nukes in the toy chest and a total gun ban, you seem to know exactly where to draw the line. But I'm glad that at least you are agreeing now that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. The Constitution just says "the right to arms shall not be infringed"- but back then "arms" was basically front loading muskets and swords. 21st century weapons technology has been a game changer- and so even you seem to agree a line needs to be drawn somewhere now. This business of "right to arms shall not be infringed" is hopelessly obsolete here in the 21st century.

So now the question is: where?

Not where you think because you have a bizarre, cartoony perception of military history. By the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there were already repeating rifles.

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about "ask Cosmo where to draw the line".

 

[ataraxia]

Not where you think because you have a bizarre, cartoony perception of military history. By the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there were already repeating rifles.

Again, you clearly think a line should be drawn these days with current technology, before it gets ridiculous. The question is: where?

Does the Constitution say "the right to arms shall not be infringed, unless Cosmo designates it as such?"

Modern technology has made the 2A dangerously obsolete.

 

[RF667799]

Again, you clearly think a line should be drawn these days with current technology, before it gets ridiculous. The question is: where?

Does the Constitution say "the right to arms shall not be infringed, unless Cosmo designates it as such?"

Modern technology has made the 2A dangerously obsolete.

The line seems to be "in common use for lawful purposes".

There's nothing about the line being where Ataraxia wishes to paint it for political expediency.

 

[ataraxia]

The line seems to be "in common use for lawful purposes".

No one needs semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets for any common or lawful purpose.

 

[Cosmo]

Again, you clearly think a line should be drawn these days with current technology,

How did you reach that conclusion? Did I say something in favor of private ownership of SSBNs? Because that's current technology. Repeating rifles are way, way in the past.

before it gets ridiculous. The question is: where?

I dunno. I have no problem with automatic rifles and sound suppressors, for example. Let's start there.

Does the Constitution say "the right to arms shall not be infringed, unless Cosmo designates it as such?"

You're the one trying to restrict it, not me. Shouldn't you be doing a search for "ataraxia" in that document?

Modern technology has made the 2A dangerously obsolete.

How so?

 

[Cosmo]

No one needs semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines

This guy did:

No charges against Oklahoma man who killed 3 intruders

An Oklahoma prosecutor said Monday no charges will be filed against a 23-year-old man who fatally shot three teenage intruders in his home, but that the woman who drove them there is being charged with first-degree murder.

abc7chicago.com

and armor piercing bullets for any common or lawful purpose.

All ordinary rifle rounds have some degree of "armor piercing," so your statement is stupid. Just a buzz phrase to get clueless liberals riled up.

 

[ataraxia]

This guy did:

No charges against Oklahoma man who killed 3 intruders

An Oklahoma prosecutor said Monday no charges will be filed against a 23-year-old man who fatally shot three teenage intruders in his home, but that the woman who drove them there is being charged with first-degree murder.

abc7chicago.com

You know where there are the most defensive uses of firearms? A battlefield.

So does that make a battlefield a safe place to live?

America's gun culture is turning it into a battlefield. It is not making it a less violent or safe place to live.

More Guns, More Death: The Fundamental Fact that Supports a Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Gun Violence in America | Rockefeller Institute of Government

rockinst.org

All ordinary rifle rounds have some degree of "armor piercing," so your statement is stupid. Just a buzz phrase to get clueless liberals riled up.

So is there any point at which they are no longer needed for lawful use?

 

[RF667799]

No one needs semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets for any common or lawful purpose.

That's bias and prejudice speaking. And undefined terms.

 

[The Brad Dad]

A lawful owner of a gun going berserk and murdering people? It's not that common.

There’s reams of dead school kids that say otherwise.

 

[ataraxia]

That's bias and prejudice speaking. And undefined terms.

OK. Let's get specific:

Armour-piercing discarding sabot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RF667799]

There’s reams of dead school kids that say otherwise.

"Reams"

Maybe you meant bushels. Or gallons. Or barrels. Or some other term meant to disguise rarity.

 

[aociswundumho]

Human nature is to be foolish, selfish, and thoughtless.

Exactly, so the best thing to do is to give a relatively tiny group of them power over everyone else. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[ataraxia]

"Reams"

Maybe you meant bushels. Or gallons. Or barrels. Or some other term meant to disguise rarity.

It's ridiculously off the charts. It's not making the country safer. Some people don't like living like that.

The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.

everytownresearch.org