Guns & Gun Violence

see4

see4

Well-Known Member
undercovergrow said:
wasn't the slavery issue so contentious at the time, that the politicians decided to deal with "it" at another time and to get the ball rolling with identifying a black person as an actual human being, that is why the initial framers started out identifying the blacks as less than but almost--it doesn't negate the fact that the framers desired to keep the People in power and on equal footing with the ability to defend themselves from dictatorships that may arise.
Click to expand...
Just as contentious as guns are now.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
btw, canni-poo-bear, in no way am I claiming that because you believe in guns therefore you believe in slavery. I don't think that for a second.
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member

School shooting in 1922

ZaraBeth420 said:
I do think. So just because I see it different, I don't think? Come on canna...
Click to expand...
I've read several of your posts.... You say that you think, so here's a riddle for you: Where were all the mass shootings after 1947? Guns have been around since before 1776. I won't argue about muskets, but in 1947 significant gains were made in firearm manufacturing. Why didn't US streets run red with blood when the finest killing machine ever invented exploded onto world markets? Why are "mass shootings" now a thing of this generation?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:

School shooting in 1922


I've read several of your posts.... You say that you think, so here's a riddle for you: Where were all the mass shootings after 1947? Guns have been around since before 1776. I won't argue about muskets, but in 1947 significant gains were made in firearm manufacturing. Why didn't US streets run red with blood when the finest killing machine ever invented exploded onto world markets? Why are "mass shootings" now a thing of this generation?
Click to expand...
The dude second on the left is holding it all wrong. The girl on the far right has a wicked overbite, but I'd still throw it in her, Refer Madness style. Nawwww Seeee.

Guns were invented by .... Not God, Not George Washington. God damnit, the friggin Chinese. They fucking come up with everything! Those bastards! Oh and gunpowder wouldnt-cha-know-it.
Guns have been used to mass kill since it's invention. It was a war invention after all. But oddly, not gunpowder.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
see4 said:
btw, canni-poo-bear, in no way am I claiming that because you believe in guns therefore you believe in slavery. I don't think that for a second.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying that.

It is imprecise to say I believe in guns. It is more precise that I believe that the codified right to own them belongs first to the citizen, and only second to the organs of the state. WE tell THEM what it is, and how far it goes.

The dismissal of this axiom by the engineers of today's truth is something I find morally pathological.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Thank you for clarifying that.

It is imprecise to say I believe in guns. It is more precise that I believe that the codified right to own them belongs first to the citizen, and only second to the organs of the state. WE tell THEM what it is, and how far it goes.

The dismissal of this axiom by the engineers of today's truth is something I find morally pathological.
Click to expand...
You know what I meant. I gave you the cliffnotes clarification good sir.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I did not, so I asked.

What is your opinion of the idea I presented in that last post?
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

re present idea: I agree from the perspective of the citizen that it is our right to bare arms, because I like to go sleeveless. But I disagree, that it is only second that the state, government, have those same rights. Keeping in mind that GW had 1:10000th the military we have today. He had no choice but to go door to door, selling his wares and his Tec-9s. At the same time, I'm on board with us telling the proverbial "them" what, and who can has. Which I suppose is why we have elected officials, that are supposed to represent "us" as a whole.

Who do you suppose are the engineers of today's truth? Shall we go on a well hung limb and assert yellow press the culprit?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Talk science to me. How do we separate out the various encroachments of legislation from this trend? In my lifetime gun laws have tightened like an anaconda with a strychnine habit. i will need peer-reviewed data saying so before I agree. Science? Let's use scientific criteria. Not peer reviewed = not data. The great fallacy is right there. Gun ownership and gun violence are not the same or interchangeable. This is an example of the modern demagoguery; check for hooks before striking the tidbit.

Deeper background checks I can live with ... but with the proviso that they do not infringe on civil rights. No other civil right is dependent on not having been convicted or adjudicated or or.

So, as long as the background checks do not interfere with one single gun purchase or trade ... I'm in.
Click to expand...
[/quote][/QUOTE]
OK, so deeper background checks that don't infringe on civil rights are OK...how is this different from simply increasing funding and staffing to enforce current laws? The anti gun control lobby has a death grip on the funding for these background checks. Pro gun activists get to have it both ways -- proclaim the need to get guns out of the hands of "crazies" yet their paid for legislators voting against funds to pay for said checks.

I'm sure you've already seen the reports showing that the rate of mass murder in the US are not even close to economically and socially similar countries. If those don't convince you, what will? Can you give me an example of a report that you have read and rejected? Also, can you give me an example of "scientific criteria" on any subject that you find convincing? The reason I ask is that I've found when the general public reject "science" they don't really understand it limitations. For example, there is confusion regarding the difference between certainty and a scientific finding. By the way, data and peer reviewed papers are two different things.

I don't know why you started raving about gun ownership not being the same as gun violence. Your statement about this and demagoguery is so confused it gives me a headache but what I said had nothing to do with your ravings. I said that I think that requiring everybody to carry a gun would increase gun violence. I have my reasons for this. If you want me to explain, I'll be glad to. If you want to put words in my mouth I'll be glad to refute you.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Gun ownership and gun violence do not have a direct correlation. There has been no study to prove that directly. One can infer it, but it can be argued contiguously or inversely.
 
meristem

meristem

Well-Known Member
Halt ALL gun sales in the US for EVERY type of gun with NO exceptions and there would still be more than enough assault weapons in the hands of crazy idiots to keep the slaughter going for generations. Even if we made it illegal for anyone in the US to own or have a gun in their possession, I seriously doubt that criminals, gangs, and other assorted douchebags would feel the least bit compelled to comply. But at least home invaders wouldn't have to worry as much about getting shot by some frightened homeowner.

We're about 100 years too late in trying to manage the stockpile of citizen weaponry. And we can't even discuss the issue of armed non-citizens and even terrorists running around shooting up the place with fully automatic assault weaponry. Can't go there - might offend someone. But since "gun control" is mostly political claptrap, I couldn't care less what the politicians do or don't do since it's almost certain that they'll end up doing whatever is the most counterproductive to their stated goals regardless. But I'm fully confident that whatever they do or don't do, it will be trumpeted as a grand success - regardless of reality.
 
ZaraBeth420

ZaraBeth420

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
I've read several of your posts.... You say that you think, so here's a riddle for you: Where were all the mass shootings after 1947? Guns have been around since before 1776. I won't argue about muskets, but in 1947 significant gains were made in firearm manufacturing. Why didn't US streets run red with blood when the finest killing machine ever invented exploded onto world markets? Why are "mass shootings" now a thing of this generation?
Click to expand...
From Googling "gun manufacturing 1947" and reading the first hit, I found that the AK47 was first made in 1947. Is this the killing machine you spoke about?

I don't know why mass shootings didnt happen back then like they do now. Guns were around then. So were people. But I have no idea why some people today use guns to kill people in public. Why do you think this happens? More mental illness today than in the past?

Edited to add this:

Maybe every generation has about the same percent of idiots who would do these shootings, and each generation has more people than the last. so the number of people who would do mass shootings increases every generation. I don't know. Just a guess.
 
Last edited:
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
ZaraBeth420 said:
From Googling "gun manufacturing 1947" and reading the first hit, I found that the AK47 was first made in 1947. Is this the killing machine you spoke about?

I don't know why mass shootings didnt happen back then like they do now. Guns were around then. So were people. But I have no idea why some people today use guns to kill people in public. Why do you think this happens? More mental illness today than in the past?

Edited to add this:

Maybe every generation has about the same percent of idiots who would do these shootings, and each generation has more people than the last. so the number of people who would do mass shootings increases every generation. I don't know. Just a guess.
Click to expand...
I believe more mental illness and anti-psychotic/anti-depression drugs can't have helped.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
see4 said:
Fair enough.

re present idea: I agree from the perspective of the citizen that it is our right to bare arms, because I like to go sleeveless. But I disagree, that it is only second that the state, government, have those same rights. Keeping in mind that GW had 1:10000th the military we have today. He had no choice but to go door to door, selling his wares and his Tec-9s. At the same time, I'm on board with us telling the proverbial "them" what, and who can has. Which I suppose is why we have elected officials, that are supposed to represent "us" as a whole.

Who do you suppose are the engineers of today's truth? Shall we go on a well hung limb and assert yellow press the culprit?
Click to expand...
The military is people, not weapons. GW had about the same military capacity as we do today. The only difference is tech.

As for the engineers of truth, I think the press is a puppet's puppet. I think the fix is in much deeper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top