This thread is called “Gun Control,” so your attempt to duck the issue is quite transparent. Try again, Michael.
"Man carrying on with his pathetic life annoyed other people also have pathetic lives they get to lead; film at 11" It's also particularly rich given how often he's whined about COVID measures to protect people from a distinct risk. His points are more hollow than the bullets he's seemingly eager to fire into the first stranger that accidentally crosses his property line when he's in the right mood. He won't engage and he can't engage. Just glib dismissals.
Indeed. Get back to me when the primary purpose or sole purpose of automobiles is to murder other living beings and I will absolutely become an advocate for automobile control (more so than I already am due to climate change). The frequency of murder by firearm is a uniquely American problem and any attempts to deflect from that are an endorsement of the “right” to murder by firearm. USA country motto: Sometimes murder is justified. It’s justified if it means homicidal “adults” who think they are still entitled to toys and tantrums can have easier access to more dangerous toys. The Michigan shooter’s father would be prosecuted for buying the homicide toy if our society were not as evil as it is.
Ok, as assertions alone will work, I will assert that the primary purpose of cars is to murder other living beings. The US has an estimated 300 million cars and an estimated 400 million guns. There's roughly 40,000 deaths on the roads each year, and about 40,000 gun deaths each year. So, in the US the average car is more likely to take a life than the average gun is. So no more cars, and keeping them is arguing for murder (Similarly, alcohol just poisons people, so keeping alcohol is basically defending the right to murder and anyone supporting alcohol is akin to an accessory to murder). Anything can be argued once the meaning of words don't actually matter. QGM's diversions are blatantly dishonest because they're dodging the topic, not because of some alternate reality that is reminiscent of people arguing things like vaccines are poison because they've redefined every word they use into utter meaninglessness.
Then please, Lowbacca, explain what the main purpose of guns is, if it's "assertions alone" to say that their primary purpose is to kill. Guns have plenty of purposes - I used to shoot competitively once upon a time, and I still enjoy a day at the range every once in a while - but it's a fact, not an assertion, that their primary purpose is to kill other living beings (which is specifically what anakinfan said, not "kill other people").
The kid stole a legally purchased firearm from his Dad. I was referring to the "altair of freedom" comment. But, fine though. There is no law that would have or could have stopped this other than a straight out ban which is not going to happen.
Hence the reference to gun worship being a religion. And it is a religion whose followers have zero issue with countless human sacrifices on its altar. Or else there would be a willingness to attempt any amount of change.
More precisely, she said that their primary purpose is specifically to murder, not just kill. Those are fundamentally distinct concepts (in the same vein of redefining words that anti-abortion people use to argue abortion is murder). I would contend the primary intention is to increase how much the person holding it can control the situation, and that can be a range of situations and used in a range of ways. If their primary purpose is murder, then anyone who does not vote only for politicians that have said they would entirely remove the military and police, then those people are voting for systematic murder because there's no reason other than murder that either of those groups could have guns. So, anyone that voted for Biden should admit they're explicitly pro-murder as Biden hasn't tried to disarm the government. That usage can come into play as not just the use of firearms, but the threat of them as well. I do not agree with the necessary conclusion from "guns are for murder" that when, say, the national guard is used to try to restore order into a situation, they are necessarily only there to murder people (and I do specify national guard because they actually do have things like rules of engagement so that they represent a show of force but at least in theory a show of force that has restraint in exercising it). That does leave defense and dissuasion as significant factors as well. To give a more personal example, the last time I saw a gun was a neighbor who alerted the people that I thought were going to attack me that he had a gun, and they left. If he hadn't done that, it was going to be me vs three other people and whatever they had, and I do not think a neighbor would've jumped in and obviously, there's no sort of organization that existed where I was that would come and deal with it, so I was at the mercy of those morons. Instead, they left very quickly once they knew a neighbor had a gun, because it meant that the odds were not so simple as three of them outnumbering me (or outnumbering me and the neighbor). It took one gun to get them to go, without a shot being fired. And of course, I had them try to kill or seriously injure me with a car more than once, too, so they were more than content to have weapons of some fashion so these were violent interactions from the get-go. The solution was someone that was able to have enough force that it was no longer worth continuing to attack, but that didn't require anyone to be shot or killed to work, let alone anyone to be murdered. Now, I get that it's a common response to say "well yeah, but you deserved to be killed", but I think that's a very simplistic assessment that avoids dealing with some of the other issues with the extent that violence is ingrained in America well beyond guns. I can certainly see how the situation would play out differently in places that have organizations dedicated to maintaining safety and order, but the issue at hand is the U.S., not a hypothetical U.S. that doesn't exist. In sum, if the only point of guns is murder, then anyone who doesn't support murder should support the immediate removal of all firearms from all military (no matter where they are), because to support any candidate who isn't doing that is to be pro-murder. (edit: for what caveat it is, I do not, and never have, owned a gun personally though I have handled them. I have also been shot at, so I'm well aware of being on that side of the gun, too)
Hey look, that Onion article came to us. With this and the attempt at "whataboutbothsides" for a school gun massacre, you've shown that, no matter how low the bar is set, you'll find a way to go even lower.
I do support removal of all firearms including from the police and military, and have said as much here several times. My one exception would be BB-guns or any such guns primarily used for target shooting. If nothing could stop this, first world democracies would have the same problems with murder by firearm and the same number of gun deaths per capita that the US has. The US not wanting to stop this because their homicide toys are more important than living beings, is not the same as being unable to stop it.
The sad truth is that implementing a gun removal policy like Australia did would be a decades long endeavor in the United States. It is certainly doable, but you need time, resources, and some policies that liberals and progressives have balked at in the past, like stop and frisk and police funding. The buy back policy is constantly floated, but someone could easily sell their legal gun to the government and then take that money to buy another one off the street because there are so many illegal guns in the US too. I want it to happen, but I don’t know how you get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US without something along the lines of a stop and frisk policy implemented over the course of several years.
My wife just had a short convo about this shooting, as I’m considering buying a new handgun and we have a child in the home. It seems like irresponsible gun ownership and security led to this kid being able to get his hands on a firearm. The bigger narrative is the gun culture of America where “a gun will solve my problems”. I don’t think just banning guns will solve that. This is an American gun culture problem and the solutions are not going to be very simple. I don’t believe it’s a realistic suggestion to ban personal possession of firearms in America.
The police already get overly funded as it is - check the budgets of cities and towns and see what percentage of it goes to police- that doesn't include ticket quotas or civil forfeiture. Plus, various sheriffs and police chiefs have indicated they won't enforce laws they don't like, which is I guess something they can do, apparently, without consequence. Did you know modern gun control laws in the US started in super-liberal California? Noted leftist Governor Ronald Reagan pushed for them when black activist groups were walking around armed. And if you think gun regulations won't do anything, I suggest applying that logic to any law restricting human behavior.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...estroying-ar-15-used-kenosha-protest-rcna7204 If you didn't do anything wrong you little POS, why are you destroying it? Perhaps you know you murder two people and don't want to be reminded of it everyday even though you will be.
Out of interest, I Googled gun laws in the state of Michigan and I found a document titled MSP-203-Use & Storage of a Firearm in a Home Environment. Guns should be in a gun safe and the children of gun owners should never know the location of the key or the combination. Parents whose children gain unauthorised access to their firearms have to bear some responsibility for the repercussions.
Not trying to reignite this debate as the case is over, but he definitely didn’t go to kill anyone so the weapon is bound to have very bad memories attached to it and it makes sense for him to want to get rid of it. The left really needs to stop making this guy out to be something he’s not. A dumbass, reckless teenager, yes. A white supremacist hell bent on murdering people with any weapon he can get his hand on, he is not.
Yes because nothing says "I am not a white nationalist" then hanging out with the likes of Jack Posobiec (which he did yesterday) and flashing white nationalist signs: And reckless teenagers are my students driving back too fast from lunch since they go to places too far away from the school which I freely admit we did as well. Not this POS who is a wannabe tough guy who finally meet his match and murdered in a cowardly fashion. Edit: I do find it delicious though that ASU students took time from partying and studying from finals in order to march against having Rittenhouse as a student there: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-to-protest-rittenhouse-as-a-possible-student He is going to really fast that the MAGAWorld is a very small lonely pathetic place made up of the worst people possible.
There are many dumbass reckless teenagers, in fact probably most of them are at some point in their adolescence. The majority of them, I would say 99 percent of them, do not go to a protest with an assault weapon and murder two people. That’s why I do not think he was just a dumbass reckless teenager and was in fact a homicidal white supremacist. That and his hanging out in a bar with Proud Boys. My teenage sons’ dumbass and reckless behavior so far has involved letting their grades slip during remote learning. Not getting me to drive them to a BLM protest with a “borrowed” AR-15 and killing two people.
Parading around with “free as ****” emblazoned on his t-shirt suggests that Rittenhouse doesn’t give one about the families of the deceased. As far as I can see, he’s conducted himself with no humility following the verdict. His actions and behaviours are light years beyond the realm of teenage stupidity.
