Guns

[TexRex]

I wouldn't conflate the dangers of high school sports to the danger of firearms

Except when you do so as argumentum ad absurdum:

Do you discontinue sports in school because hundreds of thousands of kids are injured every year.

"The triggered snowflakes want to keep guns out of school because they injure kids so let's see if they want to keep sports out too trollololololololololol"

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except when you do so as argumentum ad absurdum:


"The triggered snowflakes want to keep guns out of school because they injure kids so let's see if they want to keep sports out too trollololololololololol"

It's enough to quote me, you don't have to imply something using words I've never used to make a point I've never made.

 

[TexRex]

It's enough to quote me

Disagree.

you don't have to imply something using words I've never used to make a point I've never made.

But I wanted to. And don't think it's lost on me that you were able to discern that as an implication rather than an allegation in the absence of any legitimate citation.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Disagree.


But I wanted to. And don't think it's lost on me that you were able to discern that as an implication rather than an allegation in the absence of any legitimate citation.

You wanted to imply something using words I've never used to make a point I've never made? I suppose that really is the last resort of someone who has no point to make at all. In other words to just make things up. By all means continue amusing yourself.

 

[TexRex]

You wanted to imply something using words I've never used to make a point I've never made? I suppose that really is the last resort of someone who has no point to make at all. In other words to just make things up. By all means continue amusing yourself.

I wanted to, nay, was compelled to indicate the intent I inferred from comments you made.

What legitimate reason do you have to imply parallels between gun violence in schools and something as benign as school sports? Sure, kids get hurt while engaging in these athletic activities, despite efforts to prevent such occurrences, but the activities also serve to promote camaraderie, teamwork and school spirit while trouncing an opposing team.

Oh wait, I suppose there are parallels, because what those kids and teachers experienced in Parkland motivated them to work together and live through the situation.



If I've got it so wrong (and I'm certainly not swayed, as I think such a game is so far up your alley that your back teeth are awash in it), what was your intent in drawing said parallel?

 

[Michael88]

 

[Grayfox]

And so it begins.

Maybe assign certain children to have guns, similar to the "Hall Monitor" and give them the title of "Gun Monitor" so they can stop a teacher who shoots children?

 

[Imari]

People often forget that law Enforcement and Military personnel do not consist of Demi-Gods but of ordinary humans with some formal training. They make mistakes, have emotions, have bad days and feelings just like you. Not trying to put down people in those branches but those that say only they should have guns forget that they are just humans too.

Certainly, but I don't think it's too much to expect someone teaching gun safety not to shoot themselves in the foot.

Maybe assign certain children to have guns, similar to the "Hall Monitor" and give them the title of "Gun Monitor" so they can stop a teacher who shoots children?

Just go the whole hog and mandate that all students and teachers be armed in order to attend school. That's the only way to guarantee that no one gets shot. The less people with guns the greater the chance of tragedy, down the the most horrific situation where no one in the school has a gun yet everyone gets mysteriously shot.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

LOL, this guy one of the biggest cryer Im ever see... Of course you go in to kill the shooter with one pistol vs AR-15 Rifle.. Is not about the speed of the bullet but the school shooter have a much more POWERFUL rifle. But yeah... everybody sit behind screen and act cool and blame he for not go in. Wow.

 

[_ApexPredator]

I find the gun debate pretty wearisome tbh. You could take the left approach and outlaw firearms entirely, but in America that wouldn't stop people having guns - you can draw parallels with drug legalisation and associated arguments (the illegality does nothing to diminish use).

Yet it seems glaringly obvious that heavy assault rifles, suppressors, armor piercing rounds, etc, etc, etc ad nauseam, should not be as easy to obtain as they currently are.

So, I strongly doubt that you could ban firearms in the U.S, but I don't understand why they're not more heavily regulated; I do understand the push back though - let me explain.

Since we're on GT Planet, I'd assume we're all fairly into cars & driving? So here's a ropey analogy:
The trend (certainly in Europe) is to diminish the responsibility of the driver, trickle in ever more driver aids, limit dual carriageway & motorway speed limits to 50mph by putting up average speed cameras everywhere, and curate the popular opinion that driving/cars are dangerous.

I fear that it won't be long until driving is outlawed. Tbh, I already feel like it is, certainly in the UK. I can't drive anywhere without breaking the law. Call me a criminal if you want, but I'm a safe, competent driver.

The way I feel about driving is perhaps how a lot of responsible gun owners in the states feel about the pressure to clamp down on their firearms?

 

[Mr Tree]

I find the gun debate pretty wearisome tbh. You could take the left approach and outlaw firearms entirely, but in America that wouldn't stop people having guns - you can draw parallels with drug legalisation and associated arguments (the illegality does nothing to diminish use).

Yet it seems glaringly obvious that heavy assault rifles, suppressors, armor piercing rounds, etc, etc, etc ad nauseam, should not be as easy to obtain as they currently are.

So, I strongly doubt that you could ban firearms in the U.S, but I don't understand why they're not more heavily regulated; I do understand the push back though - let me explain.

Since we're on GT Planet, I'd assume we're all fairly into cars & driving? So here's a ropey analogy:
The trend (certainly in Europe) is to diminish the responsibility of the driver, trickle in ever more driver aids, limit dual carriageway & motorway speed limits to 50mph by putting up average speed cameras everywhere, and curate the popular opinion that driving/cars are dangerous.

I fear that it won't be long until driving is outlawed. Tbh, I already feel like it is, certainly in the UK. I can't drive anywhere without breaking the law. Call me a criminal if you want, but I'm a safe, competent driver.

The way I feel about driving is perhaps how a lot of responsible gun owners in the states feel about the pressure to clamp down on their firearms?

While I agree with the drug analogy due to american culture. As a belgian I eon't see your analoy with traffic/cars.

How would you be breaking the law when you need to get anywhere? Maybe I can see the analogy that way.

 

[_ApexPredator]

How would you be breaking the law when you need to get anywhere? Maybe I can see the analogy that way.

If the speed limit on the dual carriageway or motorway I'm travelling on is being enforced at 50mph, yet there are no road works, no junctions, weather's clear, etc, then even without necessarily breaking the law, I feel as though I can't drive according to the conditions or at a speed both appropriate & reasonable for the road on that day at that time for fear of being fined and possibly losing my license - I actively avoid driving as much as possible nowadays.

The trend is that penalties, fines, and blanket enforcement are all going to get stricter - I just saw a possible door into an analogy and threw the shoehorn at it.

 

[Mr Tree]

If the speed limit on the dual carriageway or motorway I'm travelling on is being enforced at 50mph, yet there are no road works, no junctions, weather's clear, etc, then even without necessarily breaking the law, I feel as though I can't drive according to the conditions or at a speed both appropriate & reasonable for the road on that day at that time for fear of being fined and possibly losing my license - I actively avoid driving as much as possible nowadays.

The trend is that penalties, fines, and blanket enforcement are all going to get stricter - I just saw a possible door into an analogy and threw the shoehorn at it.

Yet these strict rules are enforced because to many people think they can do stuff and end up killing or injuring themselfs and others.
I find that a bit strange, no one forces you to go over 50 so losing your liscense wouldn't be because cars aren't allowed it's because you descided to go against the rules.

Those rules might be assenine I'll grant you that but there are some pretty good reasons they became that way. And there are some pretty good reasons certain rules are assenine u'der ideal conditions.

Also if you want to drive fast go to your local racetrack or play by the rules a'd accept.if you get caught it's ypur own mistake.

But hey this is getting offtopic.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Public safety and revenue generation. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Also if you want to drive fast go to your local racetrack

I don't want to drive fast. I want to drive at a reasonable speed appropriate to the conditions for the road on that day at that time, without fear of being criminalised & fined.
Similarly, I'm sure most gun owners don't want to shoot people.

Those rules might be assenine I'll grant you that but there are some pretty good reasons they became that way.

Half a century ago. A considerable amount has advanced since then.

I find that a bit strange, no one forces you to go over 50 so losing your liscense wouldn't be because cars aren't allowed it's because you descided to go against the rules.

yes. I can't help but feel you haven't understood my point.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Public safety and revenue generation. Not necessarily in that order.

Hah, exactly. Were public safety the primary concern we'd have far better testing standards.

 

[Mr616]

I don't want to drive fast. I want to drive at a reasonable speed appropriate to the conditions for the road on that day at that time, without fear of being criminalised & fined.
Similarly, I'm sure most gun owners don't want to shoot people.


Half a century ago. A considerable amount has advanced since then.


yes. I can't help but feel you haven't understood my point.

I know how you managed this, because I have nearly misquoted from other threads myself.

I'm not letting you rope me into this debate..... apart from, no guns should = nobody gets shot. The problem is, gun culture is such a big part of US life, you will struggle to ever get it back on track imo, because everybody now feels they need them for "protection".

Anyway, I'm outta here.

 

[TexRex]

I can't drive anywhere without breaking the law.

This should help.

 

[_ApexPredator]

This should help.

Hilarious - I was of course deploying hyperbole in an attempt to advance the ropey analogy.
Anyway back to guns - do you own any, TexRex?

 

[TexRex]

Anyway back to guns - do you own any, TexRex?

Yes, I do.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Yes, I do.

What've you got?

 

[TexRex]

What've you got?

There's already a thread dedicated to the discussion of firearms themselves and firearm ownership.

This thread, however, is for the discussion of legislation--whether it should be tightened or relaxed--and alternative methods of curbing acts of violence perpetrated with firearms. See, gun legislation isn't unique to any one part of the world, for which there are other threads dedicated to general interest discussion, and the issue isn't limited to "the most recent incident," for which dedicated threads have been, and can be, created. Of course the matter is often discussed in those threads anyway because there is indeed overlap, and this is something I'm guilty of, but it's probably better it stays here.

 

[_ApexPredator]

There's already a thread dedicated to the discussion of firearms themselves and firearm ownership.

This thread, however, is for the discussion of legislation--whether it should be tightened or relaxed--and alternative methods of curbing acts of violence perpetrated with firearms.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[TexRex]

So what are your thoughts on the matter?

That it's too easy for individuals who ought not have access to firearms, for varied logical reasons, to get them, and that more needs to be done to remedy issues that make individuals unfit to possess them.

You'd be aware of this if you were more than a casual observer whose interest apparently only exists because of an implied association (that you even admit to not being very good in using the term "ropey" to describe it) with something that actually interests you (re: driving faster on dual carriageways). I've made my position crystal clear on numerous occasions and in numerous locations (that I admit weren't truly appropriate even though being actually associated in either a broad or narrow sense), and it shouldn't be lost on anyone who has been paying attention.

Mind you I don't intend to establish myself as any kind of arbiter for what should be discussed where, but I'm also not oblivious to your feigning interest in the appropriate topic only because your attempt to subvert it was called out.

I find the gun debate pretty wearisome tbh.

Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to engage in it.

 

[_ApexPredator]

You'd be aware of this if you were more than a casual observer whose interest apparently only exists because of an implied association (that you even admit to not being very good in using the term "ropey" to describe it) with something that actually interests you

You could assume that because I'm commenting on the thread, I have an interest in the topic, even as a casual observer. My self-described ropey analogy was an attempt to relate and/or empathize with people who are advocates of gun rights - since my opinion on the subject has dramatically changed over the years.

I think that guns are lethal killing implements, but I can respect that many are able to take great pleasure through their responsible ownership and wield their firearms in a safe manner, store them responsibly, and are a threat to no one in possession of one.
My analogy was indeed an attempt to extend that respect and consideration to a topic closer to my own experiences, you're right. I'm not sure if I need to apologise for that or not

but I'm also not oblivious to your feigning interest in the appropriate topic only because your attempt to subvert it was called out.

That wasn't an attempt to subvert the topic, it was an attempt to engage with it, something I now regret.
I'm sorry for not delving through the 140 pages here, and the 200-odd here in attempt to find your posts (incidentally I attempted to CTRL+F that other topic to find some of your posts about the guns you own, but I gave up after 5 pages).

I'll start reading I suppose.

 

[Blood Eagle]

LOL, this guy one of the biggest cryer Im ever see... Of course you go in to kill the shooter with one pistol vs AR-15 Rifle.. Is not about the speed of the bullet but the school shooter have a much more POWERFUL rifle. But yeah... everybody sit behind screen and act cool and blame he for not go in. Wow.

This post is so ridiculous that it's probably not worth a response but xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios and you are assuming that the deputy knew what he was up against. An AK47 is a more powerful rifle than an M16 but that doesn't stop people with M16s from engaging someone with a "more powerful rifle". If you look at an aerial view of the school in question, you can see there are a lot of angles and corners to use to your advantage if there were some type of plan in place for these types of situations. Especially someone who knows the campus well like a resource officer assigned to said campus that could utilize their own knowledge and use it as an advantage. Nobody expects a cop to just go face to face with an active shooter but from the rear, side, element of surprise, suppressive fire etc all could have limited the damage and end result. It's pretty clear there was no plan and if there were, it was ignored. Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact but these should be learning experiences and protocol changes should be seriously considered.

 

[Biggles]

This post is so ridiculous that it's probably not worth a response but xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios and you are assuming that the deputy knew what he was up against. An AK47 is a more powerful rifle than an M16 but that doesn't stop people with M16s from engaging someone with a "more powerful rifle". If you look at an aerial view of the school in question, you can see there are a lot of angles and corners to use to your advantage if there were some type of plan in place for these types of situations. Especially someone who knows the campus well like a resource officer assigned to said campus that could utilize their own knowledge and use it as an advantage. Nobody expects a cop to just go face to face with an active shooter but from the rear, side, element of surprise, suppressive fire etc all could have limited the damage and end result. It's pretty clear there was no plan and if there were, it was ignored. Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact but these should be learning experiences and protocol changes should be seriously considered.

Yup. We already know that if Trump had been there he wouldn't even have needed a gun - he would have run in there & taken the shooter out with ... one ... well-aimed ... tweet.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

This post is so ridiculous that it's probably not worth a response but xxxx type of gun against xxxx type of gun is utterly meaningless in real world combat scenarios and you are assuming that the deputy knew what he was up against. An AK47 is a more powerful rifle than an M16 but that doesn't stop people with M16s from engaging someone with a "more powerful rifle". If you look at an aerial view of the school in question, you can see there are a lot of angles and corners to use to your advantage if there were some type of plan in place for these types of situations. Especially someone who knows the campus well like a resource officer assigned to said campus that could utilize their own knowledge and use it as an advantage. Nobody expects a cop to just go face to face with an active shooter but from the rear, side, element of surprise, suppressive fire etc all could have limited the damage and end result. It's pretty clear there was no plan and if there were, it was ignored. Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact but these should be learning experiences and protocol changes should be seriously considered.

What exactly you mean ridicolous? Ofcourse the size and power of the gun matter in real life scenenario, what are you talking about? The difference is clear between normal police officer pistol and Assault rifle. M16 vs AK47 the difference is not so clear so that example you make is very bad. And yes ofcourse he can go inside and try play James Bond but that another story.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Yup. We already know that if Trump had been there he wouldn't even have needed a gun - he would have run in there & taken the shooter out with ... one ... well-aimed ... tweet.

Maybe the shooter would have taken the tweet super personally and got so irritated, he stopped shooting and went on the internet to complain about it.

What exactly you mean ridicolous? Ofcourse the size and power of the gun matter in real life scenenario, what are you talking about? The difference is clear between normal police officer pistol and Assault rifle. M16 vs AK47 the difference is not so clear so that example you make is very bad. And yes ofcourse he can go inside and try play James Bond but that another story.

If you hit a vital with a 9mm or a 5.56 the end result is the same. XXXX gun vs XXXX gun doesn't matter. You are again assuming the deputy knew what the shooter was armed with. For this he'd need to have a line of site on the shooter. He claims he thought the shots were coming from off campus.

 

[TexRex]

I attempted to CTRL+F that other topic to find some of your posts about the guns you own, but I gave up after 5 pages

I recommend using the forum's search function, as it enables you to search for keywords from specific users in specific locations, or even any content at all if the keyword box is left empty. A really nifty feature of that particular search function is a list of available users whose screen names match the spelling you provide as you provide it, with the list getting shorter with each subsequent letter.

Fair warning--late it may be--either venture is for not, as I have not chosen to contribute to that particular topic, either in a serious nature or with a proffer of wit as I am often inclined to do. I know with absolute certainty I have not done so, too, because a thumbnail of my own avatar does not appear within the larger avatar of the user who created the topic residing alongside the topic title within the forum menu.

I have not contributed anything serious to the topic because my firearms (plural...they each serve a specific purpose within the realm of "makin' critters dead") are tools to accomplish a task efficiently; I also own a ball-peen hammer and a cultivating rake, but I don't feel the need to discuss them.

I have not contributed anything superfluous, witty or otherwise, because I haven't been incited to by any comments therein.

You could assume that because I'm commenting on the thread, I have an interest in the topic, even as a casual observer. My self-described ropey analogy was an attempt to relate and/or empathize with people who are advocates of gun rights - since my opinion on the subject has dramatically changed over the years.

Then it seems I'm the one who needs to apologize. I apologize.