A good emotional presentation of a case can sway enough people of the lawmaking body. Assuming that factor only, you then don’t have to convince one specific person, you can get away with just 0.51 one across the set. Some would say it makes the task easier.
Even easier if you subtract the ones already decided, or holding a party line, and aiming just to those undecided. Sometimes one convinced is sufficient.
Ask Hill & Knowlton.
Frankly, at this point the only emotion driving me to push for change is exhaustion. I’ve had enough.
That’s not a Godwin. FFS.
And, if the primary use of guns by non-farming, non-hunting folks is for target shooting …
#Why the fuck can’t people keep their fucking guns at the fucking gun club?#
Why do they need to? They aren’t hurting anyone. What are you into so I can suggest treating you like a child before using something. This line of thinking brings about crap like the “safe” internet the UK is proposing.
I can’t afford a membership to a nice private range now, I can’t imagine what a storage fee would cost. Of course well to do liberals would be fine if poor people couldn’t get access to guns.
And then the logistic. I belong to club A, friend belongs to club B. I guess we don’t get to shoot together ever. And if I belong to club A, but club B has a competition, then what? I guess I don’t get to compete or they may just have a practice match.
If you substitute in the word ammo in place of gun you refute @Mister44’s points.
When I’m into something that can fucking kill someone, sure thing. I’d actually be in favour of that. Because I’m empathetic and responsible like that.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
Ibid.
(At no one in particular, this is just like every other fucking gun thread here.)
Apparently, imposing restriction on Other People And Their Hobbies/Activities is way too easy. It requires no sacrifices from those who advocate such crap, so there’s nothing that’d make them stop, or even just slow down, and think about the adverse effects of their desires to impose their will to others.
It’s easy to give up something one doesn’t want.
Then you get heaps of asinine restrictions and mountains of unnecessary paperwork, whether it is guns, chemicals, meds, or sometimes even lasers and “dual-use” sensors.
Q.E.D.
I think you used the wrong gif, you meant to use this one? Right?
Oh… my mistake that is the gif that’s supposed to welcome people to gun threads.
EDIT: Seriously though? Can we just have a bot that makes a post with this gif the moment “gun control” or “mass shooting” is used in any thread?
People have used computers and social media to goad people into suicide, SWAT them, stalk them, steal their identity, etc.
Like I said. Would love it if the poor had no access to weapons. (They do cause the most crime, after all.)
2-3) Now we are at the mercy of what that range has in stock and their prices. Hey, I love paying $10 for a pop at the theater too! Fuck the poor, amiright?
Extra bonus - you think criminals will have any trouble getting bullets - hahahahahahaaa.
Or this one?
So what is your suggestion? How do you think we should fix this problem? Your argument against that specific policy certainly makes what seem to be some valid points but it still doesn’t address how we fix the problem of mass shootings/gun violence in the United States. So, if you would be so kind as to give into my curiousity: what is your proposed solution? Seriously though, give it to me straight and clear.
So guns are happy to sit on a shelf or a sandbag at a range until they are kidnapped by evildoers and made do horrible things no one could imagine using them for, given that they are simple machines designed to kill people.
Using a semantic argument and bailing out by crying semantics? It’s not worth shit, which isn’t the same as priceless.
what the actual fuck?
I don’t think there is a easy solution for these crazy mass shootings. Part of living in a free society means we have to accept that people are also free to cause harm to others. We could set up check points, check papers, have invasive spying programs, etc, and that might get SOME of them. Not the ones off the grid.
Society is safe because most of us follow the rules. What if tomorrow no one obeyed the traffic laws? There would be chaos and death! What is STOPPING everyone from doing that? NOTHING. We trust most people are stable and living up to the social contract to stay within the lines.
Complete banning and confiscation or nearly complete would probably reduce mass shootings, but I don’t see it solving the bigger problem of crime in general (poor people killing themselves is the BIG problem here, not the sensationalist “mass shooters”). Such a drastic measure I don’t see as rational in the least. Anything short of that will do NOTHING to stop criminals, though perhaps it might stop or postpone a mass shooter. Even the Democrats know this from way back in the 90s. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/george-stephanopoulos-sought-gun-control-debate-in/?page=all
General crime I think can be fought with curing social ills, racial and economic equality or at least people living better, and ending the prohibition on drugs.
But let me ask you this - crime in general is on a downward turn. Certainly since the 90s. Gun crime is down since then too with out sweeping legislation? Why is that?
Mass shootings are UP, but at the same time, the means and technology has been around since the late 1940s. You could afford to buy a real machine gun pre 1986. Gun laws have only become more restrictive since the 1940s. WHY were there not MORE mass shootings 60+ years ago when they had less restrictive laws, easier access to actual machine guns, and a higher percentage of gun owners?
Why is it places like Mexico have VERY restrictive firearms laws and yet still suffer from high gun crime?
We need to admit the willingness to cause violence is not from the availability of the tools. The concept of just “banning it and no one will get hurt” is childish and simplistic and doesn’t line up with anything in history ever.
Yours might not be but clearly that isn’t true for others.
You know what else is easy? Buying a gun and a few thousand rounds of ammunition followed by the ease of shooting up your neighbors.
Given that responses with pictures are a norm here, let’s have one.
One of these things isn’t like the others since only one is designed purposefully to kill things with its only tangential secondary use being to practice the activities that allow you to engage in the first use (aka “target practice”).
