I didn't ever say I wanted to make laws on anything. I just said that I liked the idea behind what he was saying. I admitted that I didn't know enough about guns to really know if "6 shots" would be an effective regulation.
Like I said to someone above, this is a typical gun owner response. Very defensive, very fast even when I said nothing to attack the second amendment or really anything to attack anyone or anything at all.
The problem is, you're advocating for a standard when you know nothing about guns or the majority of people who own them. As if you wouldn't vote anti-gun? That's literally how regular people 'make laws'...they vote based on these beliefs. Of course people get defensive when ignorant people step up and decide they want to make the rules. People who have (admittedly) no knowledge of guns and no personal need for them. No interest in them. Just a knee-jerk reaction to a random tragedy.
What do you mean by "anti gun"?. I said I am pro second amendment. If I was voting on a ban of all firearms, I would vote against that ban (at least at this time). If you mean that I would potentially vote for regulations, then you would be correct.
I didn't say that I was the right one to decide how many "shots" would be appropriate. Or what type of regulations should be placed on firearms. I was advocating a overall, general viewpoint on the logic behind regulation in general.
Random tragedy? Is that what you call it? Random? Really? with all the mass shootings within the last decade or so... you want to say it's random? It's not random. There was a motive in all of those shootings and there was also a way that the person was able to carry out those shootings with the help of certain tools. It's not random.
And I'll tell you something else. Just because I'm not a gun owner, doesn't mean that I and others don't have a say in the gun laws. We walk the same streets as you do and we all have a right to feel safe. If you want to own guns, that's fine. But there is a line to be drawn.
And thats exactly the point here. You're in no danger from law abiding responsible gun owners. Your in danger from whack jobs that would ignore or circumvent the laws. So again 20k+ gun laws and tragedies STILL happen. Obviously gun legislation is NOT the answer.
If you can explaib how another law which would be ignorned by a maniac would change anything I would gladly hear you out. But so far your only saying things that would be less than effective.
Whack jobs that legally purchase guns... and are law abiding gun owners... until they do something terrible. It's only after they do the terrible thing that they are a "whack job".
Look at Charli's comment above. That makes some of my point for me. But like I said, I am not advocating a specific law, so I don't know what you guys are so hung up about. Plus I already kind of described wayyyy up there back quite a few comments on your comment how regulations can be beneficial.
How do you know that they haven't stopped crimes? It's going to be very hard to stop all shootings, but we can at least reduce the number. How do you know that it hasn't helped? Maybe because of some of those laws, a few people have been turned down at a gun shop who would have done something bad. Maybe because of some of those laws, it took the criminals longer to obtain the type of weapon that they wanted, and gave law enforcement enough time to catch on to what was going on.
Maybe because of some of those laws, someone was arrested for illegally possessing a firearm on a traffic stop where they were on the way to do something bad. It's hard to judge the effectiveness of gun laws, because the whole idea is prevention. Maybe some people attempted an attack with a sharp object instead of a gun because they couldn't get one quick enough to do what they wanted to do. It can make a difference.
And by the way, that 20k number... I bet that a lot of those regulations are for tiny little things. That number probably includes every gun law for each individual state, even if some are more or less redundant from one state to another. That probably also includes regulations for each and every type and brand, manufacturing regulations etc. 20k sounds like a lot, but it's really probably not as many as it seems. A lot of those laws are probably redundant and/or just technicalities and clarifications of other laws.
I mean at this point, if you choose not to see anything I am saying, then I'll agree to disagree. No hard feelings toward you or anything... I just am not really sure what else to say haha. This is why I usually refrain for these types of topics, but I figured "what the heck" on this one. Obviously more than I bargained for lol.
The reason gun owners get defensive is they are tired of non-gun owners who have no knowledge of guns but want to make rules. It's like gay men wanting to make laws concerning women's reproductive health.
Just because a gun looks like a military firearm or was based on a military design doesn't mean it operates like a military firearm. Jeeps and hummers are based on military or battlefield designs but the civilian versions are much different.
Look at the last paragraph in the comment I wrote above yours.
Also, more typical responses that I've heard too many times now. Always trying to compare guns to other issues. It's not the same.
Women's reproductive health doesn't pose a threat to everyday Americans walking the streets. Women's reproductive health doesn't put bullets in people's heads.
I mean I get what you are trying to say, it's just that it really is not comparable at all. Non gun owners have a right to have a say in gun laws because the presence of guns is something that affects everyone's personal safety and has the potential to help or harm a person's personal freedoms.
I won't go into detail about how that process works and why.
I was simply speculating on an idea that the OP had proposed. I was not trying to propose any gun laws or even claim that I knew anything about guns, and right away I got two very defensive responses, both telling me I don't know what I'm talking about etc.
Makes me question why someone would get so defensive like that. I think sadly a lot of people who own guns don't understand the true power of their weapon and don't quite understand the responsibility they take on when they possess a firearm.
Gun rights are in the constitution, but that doesn't mean that it is priority over all other rights.
My whole point is the actual threat of "Gun Violence" is far less than we are lead to believe. We are fed a steady diet of hype and misinformation making law abiding gun owners out to be the bad guy. If you can't understand why that becomes tiring then that is your problem.Maybe you should do something about overcoming your irrational fear. You are more likely to die from other things that we do nothing about to prevent or decrease the likelihood but blame societies problems on guns. Just because a law may make you feel safer doesn't mean it actually will in reality. Just look at France.
Questions on gun control
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I didn't ever say I wanted to make laws on anything. I just said that I liked the idea behind what he was saying. I admitted that I didn't know enough about guns to really know if "6 shots" would be an effective regulation.
Like I said to someone above, this is a typical gun owner response. Very defensive, very fast even when I said nothing to attack the second amendment or really anything to attack anyone or anything at all.
--
wigz
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The problem is, you're advocating for a standard when you know nothing about guns or the majority of people who own them. As if you wouldn't vote anti-gun? That's literally how regular people 'make laws'...they vote based on these beliefs. Of course people get defensive when ignorant people step up and decide they want to make the rules. People who have (admittedly) no knowledge of guns and no personal need for them. No interest in them. Just a knee-jerk reaction to a random tragedy.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What do you mean by "anti gun"?. I said I am pro second amendment. If I was voting on a ban of all firearms, I would vote against that ban (at least at this time). If you mean that I would potentially vote for regulations, then you would be correct.
I didn't say that I was the right one to decide how many "shots" would be appropriate. Or what type of regulations should be placed on firearms. I was advocating a overall, general viewpoint on the logic behind regulation in general.
Random tragedy? Is that what you call it? Random? Really? with all the mass shootings within the last decade or so... you want to say it's random? It's not random. There was a motive in all of those shootings and there was also a way that the person was able to carry out those shootings with the help of certain tools. It's not random.
And I'll tell you something else. Just because I'm not a gun owner, doesn't mean that I and others don't have a say in the gun laws. We walk the same streets as you do and we all have a right to feel safe. If you want to own guns, that's fine. But there is a line to be drawn.
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
And thats exactly the point here. You're in no danger from law abiding responsible gun owners. Your in danger from whack jobs that would ignore or circumvent the laws. So again 20k+ gun laws and tragedies STILL happen. Obviously gun legislation is NOT the answer.
If you can explaib how another law which would be ignorned by a maniac would change anything I would gladly hear you out. But so far your only saying things that would be less than effective.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Whack jobs that legally purchase guns... and are law abiding gun owners... until they do something terrible. It's only after they do the terrible thing that they are a "whack job".
Look at Charli's comment above. That makes some of my point for me. But like I said, I am not advocating a specific law, so I don't know what you guys are so hung up about. Plus I already kind of described wayyyy up there back quite a few comments on your comment how regulations can be beneficial.
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There are already regulations... 20k+ of them. If they haven't stopped shooting tragedies how will another change anything?
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
How do you know that they haven't stopped crimes? It's going to be very hard to stop all shootings, but we can at least reduce the number. How do you know that it hasn't helped? Maybe because of some of those laws, a few people have been turned down at a gun shop who would have done something bad. Maybe because of some of those laws, it took the criminals longer to obtain the type of weapon that they wanted, and gave law enforcement enough time to catch on to what was going on.
Maybe because of some of those laws, someone was arrested for illegally possessing a firearm on a traffic stop where they were on the way to do something bad. It's hard to judge the effectiveness of gun laws, because the whole idea is prevention. Maybe some people attempted an attack with a sharp object instead of a gun because they couldn't get one quick enough to do what they wanted to do. It can make a difference.
And by the way, that 20k number... I bet that a lot of those regulations are for tiny little things. That number probably includes every gun law for each individual state, even if some are more or less redundant from one state to another. That probably also includes regulations for each and every type and brand, manufacturing regulations etc. 20k sounds like a lot, but it's really probably not as many as it seems. A lot of those laws are probably redundant and/or just technicalities and clarifications of other laws.
I mean at this point, if you choose not to see anything I am saying, then I'll agree to disagree. No hard feelings toward you or anything... I just am not really sure what else to say haha. This is why I usually refrain for these types of topics, but I figured "what the heck" on this one. Obviously more than I bargained for lol.
The reason gun owners get defensive is they are tired of non-gun owners who have no knowledge of guns but want to make rules. It's like gay men wanting to make laws concerning women's reproductive health.
Just because a gun looks like a military firearm or was based on a military design doesn't mean it operates like a military firearm. Jeeps and hummers are based on military or battlefield designs but the civilian versions are much different.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Look at the last paragraph in the comment I wrote above yours.
Also, more typical responses that I've heard too many times now. Always trying to compare guns to other issues. It's not the same.
Women's reproductive health doesn't pose a threat to everyday Americans walking the streets. Women's reproductive health doesn't put bullets in people's heads.
I mean I get what you are trying to say, it's just that it really is not comparable at all. Non gun owners have a right to have a say in gun laws because the presence of guns is something that affects everyone's personal safety and has the potential to help or harm a person's personal freedoms.
I won't go into detail about how that process works and why.
I was simply speculating on an idea that the OP had proposed. I was not trying to propose any gun laws or even claim that I knew anything about guns, and right away I got two very defensive responses, both telling me I don't know what I'm talking about etc.
Makes me question why someone would get so defensive like that. I think sadly a lot of people who own guns don't understand the true power of their weapon and don't quite understand the responsibility they take on when they possess a firearm.
Gun rights are in the constitution, but that doesn't mean that it is priority over all other rights.
--
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
My whole point is the actual threat of "Gun Violence" is far less than we are lead to believe. We are fed a steady diet of hype and misinformation making law abiding gun owners out to be the bad guy. If you can't understand why that becomes tiring then that is your problem.Maybe you should do something about overcoming your irrational fear. You are more likely to die from other things that we do nothing about to prevent or decrease the likelihood but blame societies problems on guns. Just because a law may make you feel safer doesn't mean it actually will in reality. Just look at France.