I want to argue with a liberal please!

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think it does. The tiny amount of choice we lose by limiting guns is insignificant compared to the choices we lose by allowing them. Does owning firearms, especially ones that allow for large amounts of damage quickly, create enough benefit to outweigh the harm? There is a point where allowing one choice has limits the ability for others to make choices. I think firearms does that to an unacceptable degree. Ask the people at Pulse Nightclub, or the kids that now have to have clear backpacks, or anyone that goes to any event where they have to submit to a search.

Bear in mind, the shooter doesn't remove the choices of backpack opaqueness or expedient access to events, those are a result of the security theater built by people acting out of an impulse to 'do something' as a result. Now, the loss of choice to life is something that the shooter takes from the victims, that's really the point to focus on. Does the loss of life and the loss of choice to live outweigh the loss of freedom provided by permitting firearms. Also, is there an amenable compromise between the complete restriction of all projectile tools, and near-complete freedom we have now, which satisfactorily meets the requirements/desires of firearm owners, and the level of safety and restriction that non-firearm owners request.

 

[Bird222]

Unless the government and military are absolutely inept, then the people don't stand a chance, guns or no. This has also happened before and will again.

Why didn't Russia or the US completely clobber Afghanistan? Why couldn't we win in Vietnam? This argument also assumes that all of the military is going to stand with the corrupt government. How 'bout this since you say I can't stop a tyrannical government with the weapons I currently have, let me have more powerful weapons then (keep in mind I'm not really interested in this).

 

[Bird222]

The balance point is where we evaluate the benefits that choice brings to society vs. the costs. Guns have little to no benefit outside of entertainment and carry with them large costs. If the costs to gun ownership were borne solely by the owners that would also mean a lot more to me but they aren't. I can't in good conscience support that.

Tell that to this lady

Or these business owners

 

[Indus]

Tell that to this lady

Or these business owners

Big difference inbetween those guns and ASSAULT RIFLES.

Assault rifles are the problems but no you can't understand that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Big difference inbetween those guns and ASSAULT RIFLES.

Assault rifles are the problems but no you can't understand that.

And that runs down the rabbit hole of explaining the nomenclature of specific gun types, relative lethality between weapons/calibers, and 'scariness factor' of specific modifications, aka back to square zero.

 

[GobBluth]

Big difference inbetween those guns and ASSAULT RIFLES.

Assault rifles are the problems but no you can't understand that.

Everyone in this thread is using analysis, statistics, and logic to argue their views on these subjects. You're posting YouTube videos that are subjective to the point you want to make and calling me a Nazi mass murderer, or something to that effect. So, do you have any real insight you'd like to share, or are you still just trolling?

Also worth noting, half of the idiots you're posting don't actually know what the National Socialist stood for. They just see it as a symbol of hate. And it is a disgusting symbol of hate and a ugly stain on mankind altogether.

Don't associate people with that unless they tell you that is who they are, because it's not to be taken lightly.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell that to this lady

Or these business owners

Do you really need me to start posting pictures of innocent people killed by guns? Guns are a net negative when it comes to personal safety.

 

[GobBluth]

A human. The dehumanization of opposition is routinely part of a process to reduce resistance against a particular set of ideals or agenda. I agree completely with the idea that peaceful discourse needs to become a regular thing in this country if we have any intention of preventing the fall of the republic. A thread like this gives me some hope that we can reach across the aisle and have actual conversations with opposing views without degrading into insults. Of course the usual suspects haven't made their way into this thread yet so here's to hoping...

Well said, that was the idea going in. So far, I think it has been really constructive!

 

[Bird222]

Big difference inbetween those guns and ASSAULT RIFLES.

Assault rifles are the problems but no you can't understand that.

Really? Let me ask you this. If you got a mob coming to your store to loot it, would you rather have a hunting rifle or an 'assault rifle'?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Really? Let me ask you this. If you got a mob coming to your store to loot it, would you rather have a hunting rifle or an 'assault rifle'?

If there's a mob coming to your store to loot it, you shouldn't be in it. That's what insurance is for. Taking life over something as asinine as products in a store is just silly.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Let me ask you this. If you got a mob coming to your store to loot it, would you rather have a hunting rifle or an 'assault rifle'?

To use a more likely example if two people you care about get in an argument and start fighting do you want them to be fighting with their fists or with guns?

 

[mikeymikec]

Why didn't Russia or the US completely clobber Afghanistan? Why couldn't we win in Vietnam?

This argument also assumes that all of the military is going to stand with the corrupt government.

Jesus Christ, the last time I mentioned this argument these exact two points were mentioned. If the military does not stand with the tyrannical government, then the people don't need to rise up against the government. You've got the military on your side, which is better organised, far better equipped, actually has some experience of combat, has tonnes of resources, etc.

How 'bout this since you say I can't stop a tyrannical government with the weapons I currently have, let me have more powerful weapons then (keep in mind I'm not really interested in this).

Then don't bother arguing idiotic points? The reason you wouldn't win is not primarily because of the weapons you theoretically have, it's about amassing an organised set of forces, establishing supply lines, experienced fighters, experienced organisers, having good places to defend and attack, being able to counter heavy weaponry, etc. The reality is that most gun fanatics haven't even fired a weapon against another human let alone been in a gun fight, they'll be used to the comforts of home, running water, electricity, getting their food at the supermarket and all the other comforts of civilisation.

The Taliban on the other hand very likely have their own fresh water supply in the mountains, they have the terrain on their side, they fund their campaign through growing and selling drugs, they're very likely used to living a very conservative and basic lifestyle, obviously they have supply lines that are obviously well-protected and they've been fighting against trained killers for decades.

That's just aside from the very likely scenario that if a tyrannical government tried to take all your freedom in the US, they would wear the people down first by setting them against each other so that by the time they made their move, you'd probably think it's a good idea because of all the atheist transgender Mexicans and/or the Muslims who want to take all your women away, or something equally absurd.

 

[umbrella39]

Ok, Guns it is!

Republican here. Gun Supporter, Gun Owner.

So why is the Left (I am going to generalize, so be aware) so adamant that regulations of firearms is the answer to gun violence? Or that less guns to law abiding citizens directly equals less guns for criminals. Owning a gun and open carry has proven to be as good of a deterrent of gun crime as anything else.

Liberal here. Gun Supporter, Gun Owner.

So why is the Right (I am going to generalize, so be aware) so opposed to regulations of certain firearms? Why do some rely so heavily on the canard that owing or carrying a gun someone makes you safer?

Now my own questions. Why when I went to school in the 70's and 80's was worrying about getting shot in class never a problem? What mitigating factors have led the monumental increase in school shootings since then? Were we intrinsically more safe 40 years ago? Do you think the fact that obtaining a firearm today being so much easier than it was 40 years is part of the problem? Why has putting more guns in more hands not left things status quo? Why has the increase in gun ownership not part of the problem in your view?

I'm a firm 2A supporter who carries and I am certain if certain guns were regulated or in fact removed from being able to be purchased legally, I would have all my guns and that my 2A rights would still not have been infringed upon.

Liberals like me who own and carry merely existing is the antidote and truth serum that squashes 99% of a Conservative gun owners talking points...

 

[justoh]

If there's a mob coming to your store to loot it, you shouldn't be in it. That's what insurance is for. Taking life over something as asinine as products in a store is just silly.

Just because you claim to value the lives of strangers more than your property doesn't mean it's the only way. Consider the alternatives, such as real life circa now, where often it's perfectly fine to defend one's property. It's not just about the claim related paperwork and considerable inconvenience. Some people don't want to submit to lawlessness just because it's trendy. Conservatives. God bless them?

 

[Indus]

Really? Let me ask you this. If you got a mob coming to your store to loot it, would you rather have a hunting rifle or an 'assault rifle'?

M-1 Abrams.

 

[Bird222]

If there's a mob coming to your store to loot it, you shouldn't be in it. That's what insurance is for. Taking life over something as asinine as products in a store is just silly.

Yeah, angry mobs always RSVP. You know I'm starting think this whole issue comes down to some people just want to be ultimately responsible for themselves and not depend on someone else to handle it.

 

[GobBluth]

Liberal here. Gun Supporter, Gun Owner.

So why is the Right (I am going to generalize, so be aware) so opposed to regulations of certain firearms? Why do some rely so heavily on the canard that owing or carrying a gun someone makes you safer?

Now my own questions. Why when I went to school in the 70's and 80's was worrying about getting shot in class never a problem? What mitigating factors have led the monumental increase in school shootings since then? Were we intrinsically more safe 40 years ago? Do you think the fact that obtaining a firearm today being so much easier than it was 40 years is part of the problem? Why has putting more guns in more hands not left things status quo? Why has the increase in gun ownership not part of the problem in your view?

I'm a firm 2A supporter who carries and I am certain if certain guns were regulated or in fact removed from being able to be purchased legally, I would have all my guns and that my 2A rights would still not have been infringed upon.

Liberals like me who own and carry merely existing is the antidote and truth serum that squashes 99% of a Conservative gun owners talking points...

Thanks for joining!

I'm not opposed to regulations of firearms. I'm not opposed to sanctions against fully automatic weapons, or modifications that make a semi-auto full-auto. I'm not opposed to background checks, mental health evaluations, and raising the age to 21 to purchase any firearm (the far Right disagrees with me here). I'm not opposed to mandatory firearm safety courses. I'm not opposed to gun free zones. What I am opposed to is confiscation and policy that prohibits law abiding citizens from owning or carrying firearms. That includes rifles.

Carrying a firearm doesn't make you safer, what it does is provide you with the tools to preserve your life, or someone else, if you are ever presented with lethal force against you. And sadly, prior to the big gun debate of the last 2 years, that happened all the time in America.

Culture was different in those decades. Kids respected their parents and teachers (to a degree), America seemed more unified than it is now. Just a different time. There are no mitigating factors that led to more school shootings. Mitigating factors would have deterred school violence. What you do have is every talkative child has ADD and is on medication, every stubborn child has a learning disability, and every child who dares to be different gets his ass kicked for it. You want to know why kids want to kill kids, it is because kids are awful to one another.

I tend to agree with you, I don't think any kind of regulation really infringes on my 2A. What I don't want to see is confiscation and bans that forcibly remove guns from law abiding citizens' hands. That, is what your non-Washington, non-Fox News, average joe conservative cares about. At least the ones I know and have spoken with.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Ladies and Gents, our first hurt feelings. Welcome, and thanks! Feel free to continue to flame and name call, or you can also feel free to find a different thread to pollute.

It seems facts make no inroad on your beliefs. Truth is the more legal guns there are, the more black market guns there are through no background check private sales, theft and straw buyers.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well he's right.

I take his words as an invitation to pollute and flame.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Just because you claim to value the lives of strangers more than your property doesn't mean it's the only way. Consider the alternatives, such as real life circa now, where often it's perfectly fine to defend one's property. It's not just about the claim related paperwork and considerable inconvenience. Some people don't want to submit to lawlessness just because it's trendy. Conservatives. God bless them?

Look, I get defending one's property, family, home, pets, etc. I get defending one's life. I even get defending random innocents, all with deadly force if necessary. I do not, however, get the notion of defending insured property, random crap brought over on a ship from China, with a semi-automatic rifle. That's just idiotic on an epic scale.

Yeah, angry mobs always RSVP. You know I'm starting think this whole issue comes down to some people just want to be ultimately responsible for themselves and not depend on someone else to handle it.

Where do you live where there's roving bands of mobs, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting shopkeeps? Do stores not have back doors there?

 

[JSt0rm]

Tell that to this lady

pile of toiletpaper defended.

 

[HomerJS]

Thanks for joining!

First off, we need proof of racism. And if we find it, and hopefully we do, we fire without second consideration the individual responsible. Problem is in the proof.

Proof? I thought you were serious. Ok how about the 2 self defined Nazi's running in Republican primaries. One won, the other is the leading Republican to win primary in Paul Ryan's district. If Republicans can mount a good enough campaign to get 50% of their people to believe Obama was born in Kenya they could put forth a similar effort to rid themselves of these lowlifes.

Lastly Trump's response to Charlottesville. I don't need to go into details.

Since you obviously were not serious I'm outta here. Just detailing for others.

 

[Kneedragger]

Sorry, not down with the labels. They are intellectually lazy (both to self-label, and to paint others). I am "liberal" on some issues, others not much. Personally if more people would stop blindly subscribing to a packaged set of beliefs and evaluate each issue on its own merits we'd be better off. Instead political discussion is pretty much the same as listening to two rival sports fanatics yell about how their team is best....

Well said.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah, angry mobs always RSVP. You know I'm starting think this whole issue comes down to some people just want to be ultimately responsible for themselves and not depend on someone else to handle it.

The trouble with the angry mob scenario is that if the shopkeeper is armed, then the odds are so are at least some of that mob. So the shopkeeper fires a burst of rounds at the mob, 3 people are hurt or killed, 10 people run, and 12 people fire back. Who wins?

 

[Kneedragger]

It's amazing how so many here have misinformation on firearms and are convinced they know what they're talking about.. These beta males need some help..