Blood is on the NRA's hands

[GG]

 

What the !@#$ are you Californians doing, electing people so indistinguishably stupid?

Uhhm, who started this thread?

[LA Grant]

 

I'm trying to guess who said that without reading it...problem is, I have to guess between Feinstein or Boxer, either of whom is stupid enough to say that.

 

What the !@#$ are you Californians doing, electing people so indistinguishably stupid?

 

I love guns so I am committing to highly selective reading but I accidentally clicked that link about the dumb Senator to laugh at her dumbness and OH NO IT ENDED WITH THIS PARAGRAPH

 

It is worth noting that California’s gun death stats, given its gun laws,have been lower than a lot of other states’. And the study she cited above, conducted in 2013, did conclude that from 1993 to 2010, gun deaths in California dropped over 50 percent.

 

 

Don't worry I yelled shut up at the screen because I hate reading and I love guns.

[B-Man]

 

I love guns so I am committing to highly selective reading but I accidentally clicked that link about the dumb Senator to laugh at her dumbness and OH NO IT ENDED WITH THIS PARAGRAPH

 

 

Don't worry I yelled shut up at the screen because I hate reading and I love guns.

 

 

That's great.

 

I'm glad that California is the same as the rest of the country.

 

 

 

Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

 

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public ... www.pewsocialtrends.org/.../gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-pe..

[truth on hold]

As I pointed out several pages ago, Chicago had a ban on handguns until 2010. Data before and after 2010 shows no impact on murders up or down. I'm not against reasonable discussion or efforts to make guns and gun use safer. At least in this one big city where controls are still tighter than other areas, restricting guns (or not restricting them) has not had an impact on gun crime.

As has been pointed out several times, Chicago is a city not a country with defensible borders. It only works as a nationwide solution.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I just got the absolute **** slapped out of me.

 

That happened because I'm incapable of making actual arguments, and I got called out.

Edited December 4, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

I realized you guys are absolutely right.

 

The mere idea of stronger gun laws is ridiculous! I mean, what would we even do? Test people in more intrusive ways than we currently do? Mandatory training? Longer waiting periods? Research? Prevent sales at gun shows? Literally any definition of "restrict access"? Well, who would decide? You? I don't know you. As you can see, there are too many questions and who has time for that? Guns aren't the problem. There actually isn't a problem, it's all hysteria from the media. No one has died from guns. Shut up.

If guns were outlawed, it would just create a black market where criminals would buy them anyway. Sure, the prices would balloon because these would now be scarer items, meaning buying an illegal gun would cost several times what it costs now, but... uhh... still. Think about CRIMINALS. They have easy access to money from all that bank robbing and burglarizing they're doing because they're CRIMINALS! Just thinking about criminals and all the crime they're getting away with makes me want to buy another gun.

 

Owning a gun is a rational decision, not based in emotion at all. Guns are never purchased in fear. The reason they're so frequently purchased after mass shootings, or during any discussion of gun control, is because everyone was just procrastinating and then that reminded them "buy a gun" was on their to-do list. It's not based in irrational fear. How is fear an emotion anyway? It's not. Shut up.

 

They are for protection against home invasion, despite the fact that is statistically very unlikely! I keep it in a safe so my stupid son won't accidentally shoot himself which does mean it would be difficult to access in case of a (again statistically very unlikely) home invasion. I guess it doesn't make the most sense. But I heard a story about home invasion and that made me scar--uh, I mean, very rationally decide to exercise my RIGHT as an AMERICAN to own a gun.

 

The government is bad and the NRA is good. Thankfully the government is afraid of me because I have a gun. If the government came for my guns, I would never give it to them. But then if someone said "hey, support the troops" well... I guess I would have to give up my gun because I am a patriot... I just pray it never comes to that.

 

Assault weapons and handguns are necessary so I can personally feel protected because I am the only person that exists. I'd feel better if those CRIMINALS didn't have pipe bombs and that's why pipe bombs should be legal. Also hand grenades. I need it to feel safe from my neighbors who might be criminals! They saw me bring in a new dining set the other week and I know Dave down the street was eyeing it all suspiciously. If Dave comes over uninvited one more time, he better hope I don't have my gun.

 

Guns are a very rational decision and the numbers back it up. Like the Second Amendment, written by wizards who could see the future. In the event of a mass shooting where people may be fleeing from gunmen and chaos, what we need in that situation are MORE gunmen, specifically untrained concealed carriers!! I feel tough when I have a gun so I think I would probably be pretty good in that situation. Yeah yeah yeah, I've heard people say that that only increases the chances of more innocent people getting hurt but I told those people to shut up. Did they write the Second Amendment? Didn't think so. I have a gun in my lap right now so I feel tough enough to tell you to shut up.

 

Glad I'm thinking straight now. Thanks for convincing me! I love guns!!!

 

You're not very good at sarcasm. You're also not very good at discussion. You begin a topic by condemning people who support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and the largest lobby that gives them voice, while simultaneously calling out people in advance of their responses, and you have the gall to continue to condescend sarcastically when you get the inevitable disagreement? Bravo - you're a jerk.

 

You ask for consensus in calling for 'something' to be done, and offer nothing in the way of specifics that won't set constitutional precedent. You take umbrage at being called an idiot, but you continue to seek agreement from people on the vague 'guns are the problem' mantra.

 

Perhaps you should focus more on the people who perpetrate mass killings such as what happened in San Bernadino, and how we, as fellow Americans, can stop them. You can't stop gun violence by advocating a cultural change which relies on willing and knowing curtailment of Constitutional freedoms, the precedent of which would have implications regarding all guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

I understand that your original post was inspired by a visceral reaction to yesterday's massacre, but you act as if you're the only one who hates and despises such deeds. You're not. Get over yourself.

[Alaska Darin]

 

Didn't the shooters have vests?

Generally doesn't matter. These mass shooting don't occur at police stations for a reason.

As has been pointed out several times, Chicago is a city not a country with defensible borders. It only works as a nationwide solution.

Doing a good job keeping drugs and illegals out of America with these "defensible borders"?

 

Criminals will always have guns. ALWAYS.

 

This is why I love liberals/partisan lemmings. No comprehension skills, everything solution is panacea.

[Bob in Mich]

I heard that the shooters weren't wearing bulletproof vests. They had military style clothing that had lots of pockets that they filled with extra magazines, making it look like body armor.

 

 

LA Grant - good try but wrong forum. One might think that with all the gun knowledge and just general brilliance here that brainstorming might work. Unfortunately for brainstorming to be effective people need to feel comfortable enough to throw out ideas that have not been completely thought through. In any professional brainstorming sessions I have been involved in, there were 2 main guidelines. There are no bad ideas and there will be no personal attacks. As you can see....wrong forum.

 

This forum (PPP) is way too cliquey with too much disrespect and name calling. You would think that a discussion group would appreciate newcomers with new perspectives, but it is just the opposite. Newcomers are basically badgered and insulted until they get frustrated and leave. Of course, if you like trading insults, PPP is a fine forum. Again, nice try.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I heard that the shooters weren't wearing bulletproof vests. They had military style clothing that had lots of pockets that they filled with extra magazines, making it look like body armor.

 

 

LA Grant - good try but wrong forum. One might think that with all the gun knowledge and just general brilliance here that brainstorming might work. Unfortunately for brainstorming to be effective people need to feel comfortable enough to throw out ideas that have not been completely thought through. In any professional brainstorming sessions I have been involved in, there were 2 main guidelines. There are no bad ideas and there will be no personal attacks. As you can see....wrong forum.

 

This forum (PPP) is way too cliquey with too much disrespect and name calling. You would think that a discussion group would appreciate newcomers with new perspectives, but it is just the opposite. Newcomers are basically badgered and insulted until they get frustrated and leave. Of course, if you like trading insults, PPP is a fine forum. Again, nice try.

 

 

That time of the month bob? It's a tough forum because feelings aren't interchangeable for facts here

[Bob in Mich]

Ever see the Monty Python skit called 'Argument Clinic'. At one point the guy walks into the wrong room and gets repeatedly insulted.

 

"I came here for an argument"

 

"Oh sorry, this is abuse"

 

There's a difference

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob in Mich

[/dev/null]

Not going to bother reading thru 14 pages of this thread because I'm pretty sure I know how it went.

 

NRA Bad!

Muslims Bad!

You're an idiot!

 

Did I miss anything or did I catch the gist of it? Now that's out of the way, my 2 cents:

 

Molon Labe

 

 

Ever see the Monty Python skit called 'Argument Clinic'. At one point the guy walks into the wrong room and gets repeatedly insulted.

 

"I came here for an argument"

 

"Oh sorry, this is abuse"

 

There's a difference

Yeah but when you come to PPP for an argument we offer complimentary abuse. Consider it Value Added

[Rob's House]

 

I love guns so I am committing to highly selective reading but I accidentally clicked that link about the dumb Senator to laugh at her dumbness and OH NO IT ENDED WITH THIS PARAGRAPH

 

 

If it makes you feel better, the murder rate where I live has dropped by about half in the last 15 years without any new gun control measures.

[Rob's House]

I heard that the shooters weren't wearing bulletproof vests. They had military style clothing that had lots of pockets that they filled with extra magazines, making it look like body armor.

 

 

[/b]LA Grant - good try but wrong forum. One might think that with all the gun knowledge and just general brilliance here that brainstorming might work. Unfortunately for brainstorming to be effective people need to feel comfortable enough to throw out ideas that have not been completely thought through. In any professional brainstorming sessions I have been involved in, there were 2 main guidelines. There are no bad ideas and there will be no personal attacks. As you can see....wrong forum.

 

This forum (PPP) is way too cliquey with too much disrespect and name calling. You would think that a discussion group would appreciate newcomers with new perspectives, but it is just the opposite. Newcomers are basically badgered and insulted until they get frustrated and leave. Of course, if you like trading insults, PPP is a fine forum. Again, nice try.

[/b]

 

Is this a joke? Go back and read the OP and tell me how that approach would go over in one of your brainstorming sessions.

[DC Tom]

 

You're not very good at sarcasm. You're also not very good at discussion. You begin a topic by condemning people who support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and the largest lobby that gives them voice, while simultaneously calling out people in advance of their responses, and you have the gall to continue to condescend sarcastically when you get the inevitable disagreement? Bravo - you're a jerk.

 

You ask for consensus in calling for 'something' to be done, and offer nothing in the way of specifics that won't set constitutional precedent. You take umbrage at being called an idiot, but you continue to seek agreement from people on the vague 'guns are the problem' mantra.

 

Perhaps you should focus more on the people who perpetrate mass killings such as what happened in San Bernadino, and how we, as fellow Americans, can stop them. You can't stop gun violence by advocating a cultural change which relies on willing and knowing curtailment of Constitutional freedoms, the precedent of which would have implications regarding all guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

I understand that your original post was inspired by a visceral reaction to yesterday's massacre, but you act as if you're the only one who hates and despises such deeds. You're not. Get over yourself.

As your Gedankenfuehrer, I'm giving you an official "attaboy" for this post.

 

But try to remember in the future that brevity is not only the soul of wit, but a great time-saver as well. "You're an idiot" conveys the same information with far less effort.

 

(My phone actually has "you're an idiot" in autocomplete. How sad is that? )

[Bob in Mich]

The OP makes a lot of good points. I disagree on several points. (I did not read entire thread either)

 

Certainly not making friends with the gun enthusiasts. Designed to provoke a discussion though, and it did. Apparently not out of line for this forum as the mods didn't intervene.

 

Seems to me that the idea was to try to look for possible ideas from those most objecting to gun controls. They might know where things could be done without really impacting responsible owners.

 

[4merper4mer]

The OP makes a lot of good points. I disagree on several points. (I did not read entire thread either)

 

Certainly not making friends with the gun enthusiasts. Designed to provoke a discussion though, and it did. Apparently not out of line for this forum as the mods didn't intervene.

 

Seems to me that the idea was to try to look for possible ideas from those most objecting to gun controls. They might know where things could be done without really impacting responsible owners.

 

Just think. If all potential gun owners had only smoked a lot of pot, none of these problems would have ever happened.

[MarkAF43]

The OP makes a lot of good points. I disagree on several points. (I did not read entire thread either)

 

Certainly not making friends with the gun enthusiasts. Designed to provoke a discussion though, and it did. Apparently not out of line for this forum as the mods didn't intervene.

 

Seems to me that the idea was to try to look for possible ideas from those most objecting to gun controls. They might know where things could be done without really impacting responsible owners.

 

 

 

This isn't even close. He came in attacking the NRA and anyone who supports them. He wasn't provoking a discussion. He wanted people to join on his crusade of emotion that guns are bad. He wouldn't present any logical ideas or thoughts and just kept calling peoples questions weak and acted superior and refused to answer a good majority of them. That isn't a discussion or brainstorming at all. Not even close.

[Rob's House]

The OP makes a lot of good points. I disagree on several points. (I did not read entire thread either)

 

Certainly not making friends with the gun enthusiasts. Designed to provoke a discussion though, and it did. Apparently not out of line for this forum as the mods didn't intervene.

 

Seems to me that the idea was to try to look for possible ideas from those most objecting to gun controls. They might know where things could be done without really impacting responsible owners.

 

What good points did he make? And what discussion did he provoke?

[Bob in Mich]

What good points did he make? And what discussion did he provoke?

Well, it is on page 14, though I know the vast majority of those posts are probably insults

 

Rob, I am not going to step into the gun discussion here. As mentioned above, wrong forum for brainstorming.

[Rob's House]

Well, it is on page 14, though I know the vast majority of those posts are probably insults

 

Rob, I am not going to step into the gun discussion here. As mentioned above, wrong forum for brainstorming.

90% of the posts are about OP's unwillingness to engage in a meaningful discussion. It certainly didn't spark much discussion about the stated topic. If it was even inteded to (which I doubt) it was very poorly designed to achieve that end.

 

And your "wrong forum" bit comes off as a cop out. I find most of the time the people complaining about insults are the ones who lead with them. Like I said, go into one of your brainstorming sessions and lead with "any of you who don't support <insert vague undefined policy> are the scum of the earth and want to watch babies and puppies burn," and see how open, cordial, and free flowing your "brainstorming" session is.

 

I think if you were honest with yourself you'd realize that OP is objectively an obnoxious ass hole and the only reason you feel compelled to defend him is because you share his anti-gun point of view.

 

If you engage in a thoughtful discussion you'll usually find one. Try it sometime. You might be surprised.