In my opinion, restrictions on firearms, just like NSA surveillance and TSA searches, play right into the “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. If you (that’s the collective “you”) want to require people to try to prove that they aren’t someday going to be criminals before they’re allowed near a firearm, you aren’t going to get any support from me.
Good for you re SUVs. However, a brief examination of your posting history did not show any attempt to speak against them and the people who own/drive them. From that I assumed you are biased against guns instead of just wanting a better world. Or your reasoning is emotional instead of logical.
I also noticed you did not address a single question from my last paragraph. I am interested in the answers. Why the focus on guns and not spending the effort instead at any of the top-five or even top-ten causes of death, where the results are lower-hanging, the discussions less emotional, and there are no people annoyed by attempts to take their fun away?
Thank you for allowing me to say something. I’ll get back in the kitchen now.
Not what I wrote. It’s (most) MEN’s obsession with visual beauty/appearance over more substantial parameters that keeps them from being willing to consider dating women who are equivalent to them instead of way out of their league.
You don’t even know the basics for having a discussion on misogyny but you’re schooling me?
3 Likes
So, you’re saying that someone whose temper causes them to lose emotional control at times shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun or drive a car? I can totally agree with that. 
But seriously, even just one uncontrolled twitch could have serious consequences. If epilepsy is too dangerous to drive, it’s too dangerous to shoot.
To put it a slightly different way…has anyone ever lost their license to own a gun after shooting someone while drunk?
We have a lot of regulations on who can drive and under what conditions. And yet, no one thinks the government is coming after our cars.
5 Likes
I don’t know what you’re talking about. You said your mom had epilepsy.
[quote=“anon67050589, post:296, topic:32359, full:true”]
But seriously, even just one uncontrolled twitch could have serious consequences. If epilepsy is too dangerous to drive, it’s too dangerous to shoot.[/quote]
I won’t claim to be an epilepsy expert, but I think one could operate a firearm safely with it. Of course epilepsy effects different people in different ways, so one can’t make a blanket statement to include everyone.
However, even if one is a victim of uncontrolled twitches, if you follow basic firearm safety, you could shoot safely. Namely you don’t touch the trigger until the gun is pointed in a safe direction and you are ready to fire. So if you twitched at that point, it would fire in a safe direction. A twitch at any point up to that wouldn’t result in a shot going off.
If convicted of a felony, yes. Usually bad things happen when drinking because of poor decision making, such as not keeping you finger off the trigger and/or having the gun pointed in a safe direction. I am just assuming your mom’s mental capabilities are intact enough for her to follow those two basic principles.
Gee - maybe there are a few reasons for that. Like 1) people have actually said they want to confiscate guns, 2) gun confiscation has been a reality in other countries, 3) people don’t have an irrational fear of cars because they are familiar with them and the media doesn’t glorify and demonize their misuse and abuse, rarely showing them used in the manner they are actually used.
Here’s where that comparison breaks down: cars aren’t designed to cause grievous injury or death. Nobody buys a car specifically because it’s the most lethal automobile they can get their hands on. There are countless laws regulating the manufacture and use of automobiles on the books, nearly all of them for the express purpose of reducing the number of people killed or injured by cars. And let’s not forget that few people choose cars as weapons of mass murder.
If a car manufacturer could design a fully functional automobile that was incapable of killing they’d be heralded as geniuses, and their innovations would soon become mandatory throughout the industry. If a gun manufacturer created a weapon that was incapable of killing, gun owners would shrug and say “what’s the point?”
4 Likes
Um, I did.
1 Like
That was you? Then you’d better move it soon, you’re in a two-hour zone.
9 Likes
If people typically spent an hour or more every day with a gun in their hand, in tactical stance, on a crowded street, isolated by imperfect bullet-resistant shielding, distracted by the radio, shouting at their kids and talking to companions trailing along behind them in tight groups, and everyone else on the street was in turn pointing guns at them, and the shooting rate was only as high as the automotive accident rate is now, you might have a point.
But the automotive comparison is not a logical comparison, it’s just more idiotic, emotional bullshit, so you don’t actually have a point. If you want me to address all your points, don’t lead with illogical stinkers.
2 Likes
I notice that you didn’t respond to a single point I raised. You only are upset by the term “gun nut.” Why is that?
And in some parts of this country, like NYC. Guns which were previously legal there either need to be removed from the city or surrendered to the authorities:
Airsoft and paintball guns are very popular in many parts of this country.
Mine has retractable spikes in the hubcaps. And I’m pretty sure I ran over the meter when I backed in.
2 Likes
If you can convince firearms enthusiasts to accept those devices as sufficient for expression of their Second Amendment rights then I’m right behind you.
6 Likes
I wanted to say something non-adversarial for what you said as it is a valid argument. But no, for some weird reason I am wrong. I was not allowing or disallowing you, I was happy that I finally see some useful argument.
But no, you want to see an adversarial reaction. Fine, but then don’t be surprised when the world around you is full of adversaries. It doesn’t have to be, if you won’t see them where they aren’t.
The obsession with beauty/appearance is not only about men but about people in general; and not about people-to-people only but about industrial design as well. Many things sell only because “looking good”. It kind of irritates me. Re people, we’re on the same boat here, and you don’t even consider that I may not be entirely wrong. Meh.
And this is a discussion of misogyny? I thought I started with a complaint about bad communication, reliance on weak ambiguous and difficult to read signaling, and no way even to coredump fails for later analysis.
Okay, what’s “menz” and why is it relevant here?
I don’t want to really want to compare guns to cars, as they are two different beasts. However for most people, a car is more likely to be their death than a gun - but like I said - people are familiar with the 99% of the time when cars aren’t hurting anyone and they don’t tend to fear them.
I guess I concede the point that guns were originally made as a weapon to shoot people. They HAVE been made safer over the years. Modern firearms that are working properly don’t just “go off” (despite what someone who has a negligent discharge might say). Safer designs means they can be dropped and knocked around with out going off unless the trigger is pulled.
Anyway - yes you have a point that guns were made to cause injury. But I don’t think that should eclipse the fact that is NOT what a vast majority of guns are used for, or even the motive of most people buying and using fire arms.
Yes, there are some who have defense in mind, for some that is their #1 priority. For others that takes a back seat to what most people use their guns for - target shooting and shooting sports. Everything from bullseye shooting, to timed scenario courses, to plinking cans. Some people get out once or twice a year, others every weekend if the weather is nice. The primary appeal to guns for most people is shooting - not hurting someone.
For people who are unfamiliar with firearms besides what they see on movies or tv this might be a hard idea to grasp. But it shouldn’t be. Shooting - making a shot - is one of the most exciting primal things people can do. The skill to send an object from point A to point B with accuracy is something everyone can relate to. My theory is it stems from the first early hominida who fashioned a tool that could be thrown for a kill, the reward centers lighting up knowing they could eat and his or her social status would go up. Of course now a days we don’t need to kill when shooting, but EVERYONE likes shooting.
“Say what, Mister44? I don’t like shooting. I don’t even like guns.” Ah fair enough, but you love shooting - making the shot. Basketball is all about how many shots each team can make, with those “nothing but net” three pointers bringing people to their feet. A million people will jump on their feet and scream when that perfectly thrown shoot results in a 50 yard touch down. How many times have you wadded up your trash paper and gone for the shot? It’s no accident early video games started with a “pew pew” and first person shooters make millions of dollars a year. Beer pong? Darts? Nerf guns? Paintball? Archery? Angry Birds? Skee Ball? The ending to Star Wars? Horse shoes and washers? Nearly every sport with a ball: baseball, golf, tennis, hokey, soccer. Even something as simple as catch.
Firearms are just one of many ways one can enjoy shooting. Firearms in many ways is the pinnacle, nothing else is more accurate, and you get the reactive, tactile experience. Of course there is an element of danger involved, and one must follow some very basic safety rules, but that really isn’t a problem. Most people are shooting their paper and steel plates, but many people are only exposed to guns used as props for violence in TV, Movies, video games, etc.
1 Like
Well, here’s hoping! Come on guns, you can do it!
3 Likes
For some people, those are enough. Just like how some people are happy to drive in a safe car.
But there are still folks out there on their dangerous motorcycles or in sports cars, and there are still folks who like to put holes in tin cans.
Each mentality has its place.
Wow. What’s a nice ride!
But the Killdozer is still better.
Looks like it gets yards to gallon.
I like that it is probably killing people through climate change as well.
