I don't think anyone is saying guns are complicated. I don't understand engines and blah blah blah about cars because I don't care about them. Should I be injecting my opinion on how we should outlaw your dream car because of pollution? The answer is no, I shouldn't because I don't know 2hat I'm talking about. The same applies to gun control.
I couldn't ever see eye to eye with you on blaming guns. They are a tool, 100% extension of the user. They don't build themselves, they don't aim themselves and they don't pull their own triggers. They are inanimate. Btw, I did kind of suggest a few changes to make. So...laugh at that?
I have a few questions for someone smarter than myself When they are posted up trying to catch their breath near the end of the video before they start running again and the super loud shots happen is that the bullets hitting near them making that noise or is the other more distant noise the echo? We're most of the people that got struck by bullets in the same area? Because if you notice these people are still laughing near the end, I don't think they saw anyone get shot? Did the gunman kill anyone inside the hotel?
I think parents of victims in tragedies like Sandy Hook understand gun violence and their impact more than most gun enthusiasts.
Another absurd premise by bobby that is easily refuted. Firearms are the only product in this country where the failure rate of its intended purpose exceeds its intended purpose. In other words there are far more people who were murdered by firearms who were innocent than people who used their firearms in a legitimate self defense situation. In the pressure cooker world, that would be equivalent to having more pressure cookers being sold to make explosives rather than actual cooking. Another stupid analogy gun nuts **** out is the analogy to vehicles. "TWO TON VEHICLE CAN BE USED AS A WEAPON!! DURRR!!!". How about this. When the amount of times a vehicle is used to run someone over exceeds the amount of times a vehicle is used in its proper use of transporting humans from point A to point B, then we can have a rational discussion about banning vehicles. Can anyone point to a product that has a similar failure rate as firearms?
When you have 300 million of them lying around in a country, it enables individuals to go straight to the last resort. A nuclear weapon is a inanimate object. I'm quite confident that you would be rather uneasy if 300 million individuals possessed nuclear arms. So obviously there is a certain threshold for you where an inanimate object being owned by a large swath of people could make you feel uneasy.
You have to compare guns to nuclear bombs to make a point about what? Only recorded use of a nuke, on a small city, had 150,000 casualties. The "most deadly mass shooting in American history" had 60 dead. There is no comparison. What's next, let's compare flashlights and the sun. Let's compare the portfolio of a homeless man and Donald trump. Let's compare a JV middle school bball squad to the golden state warriors. Keep ignoring the changes in gun ownership I suggested so you can keep rattling off stupid, bleeding heart arguments that don't apply. And btw, I think you should be allowed to build your own nuke. Doesn't mean you can use it or that the government won't come take it. There's about 4 people with that kind of money anyway.
I think you have reading comprehension issues. This might explain why you only reply back with copy and paste canned responses on nearly every subject.
Okay but I don't understand how someone who understands proper sight relief, rate if fire, proper breathing techniques and general fire arm terminology understands the damage that firearms are capable of more than a parent of a child who was murdered in a mass shooting? Please elaborate. Again, understanding firearms isn't find mechanics. We had one week of rifle training in boot camp and they called us sharpshooters.
I think I covered that when I stated its not difficult to understand but more of a matter of willful ignorance and trapping oneself into an echo chamber. Of course its not hard to look at a picture of a wounded or dead person and see what kind of damage a bullet can do. None of that is the point. We may as well start arguing about personal nukes, banning automobiles and knives. The point is the subject on how to address gun violence. Sandy Hook spawned a cry for the repeal of the 2nd amendment and how nobody really needs guns. Ok great. Lets repeal the 2nd amendment. Do most of these people really know what it takes to repeal the 2nd amendment? Probably not. They likely think it can be rammed through congress like Obamacare. If they looked passed their willful ignorance, they would probably realize getting rid of the 2nd amendment is not going to happen in their lifetime and move onto more practical measures. Or the Lets Ban Assault Weapons. I dont know what an assault weapon is by definition, but they sound scary. Lets just ban them. Never mind the statistics that 'assault weapons' are the result of a fractional percentage of gun deaths, but surely they would have prevented Sandy Hook, Pulse Nightclub and Las Vegas, right? Oh, are there really other 'non-assault weapon' rifles the shoot the same ammo, at the same rate, with the same firepower? Or they would just use handguns. Or Paddock with his squeaky clean record and being well off could afford the tax stamps that would legally allow him to purchase that 'assault weapon' in the first place. Lets just tax the **** out of ammo, never mind someone with a deathwish and wanting to go on a killing spree is really going to be stopped by the cost of ammo. Or just reload your own. Or buy it on the black market. Or any other way to get around this. Lets just restrict the amount of ammo one can have at once time. Yes, criminals who are about to go on a mass killing spree are going to obey this law. We need to stop the gun show loop hole and online purchases with no FFL requirement. The truth is we already have laws for this. What we need to do is enforce them and put a stricter definition on what we call dealers. If you're at a gun show, you should be considered a dealer and therefore be required to run background checks. And parcel services should be required to deliver guns only to FLL dealers, never an individual. In summary, the most popular (and ignorant) gun control measures proposed by the left will do little good. None of these measures slow down the production of new weapons. None of them discourage purchasing or giving up guns. None of them deter criminals. None of them puts restrictions or responsibility on careless gun owners. This is why gun control discussions go anywhere.
Gun control discussions never go anywhere because gun hobbiests treat any proposal by moderates as a 'final solution' that is supposed to solve every avenue of gun violence and thus setting the proposal up for failure. It's a shitty strawman.
You say that, but what you fail to understand is that an emotional appeal is their entire point all too often. They aren't interested in thinking, they are interested in feeling and making policy based on feelz. That's why they seem so ridiculous to people who actually think. I give you props for trying, but no argument, no matter how logical, will work against those making emotional appeals because logic and emotion are very often incompatible.
300 million firearms in circulation contributing to the US having he highest rate of gun violence amongst the developed world is not a 'feels' statement but rather an emperical one.
And you would rather spend your time spouting off numbers as if you say it enough, they will all magically disappear. You are not a moderate. Your positions are naive. I explained why they are naive and all you can come up with is 'straw man argument'. Propose realistic ideas that can pave the road to less violence.
I don't mind closing the loop until we prevent more Sandy hooks. Psychos will find a way, and then we move onto the next loophole. Right now these disasters are self inflicted random acts of chaos. They are preventable though, with time and effort.
What makes a gun enthusiast an expert on the social ramifications of gun control, gun ownership, and gun trade, or for that matter interpretation of Constitutional law? Knowing the ins and outs of how to use a gun does not add any weight to one's opinion on such topics.
