You are a gun control hypocrite if...

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by dime21

Really hits home doesn't it? The same people that get paid $Millions to portray gun violence on TV and in movies are saying "demand a plan"? LOL. What a joke.

This is no different from gangster rappers making similar statements, while raking in the $Millions for their songs that glamorize violence.

But since when is "Hollywood = Rich Idiot Hypocrites" new news? Seems like par for the course.

No more par for the course than those of you who are whining about your "rights" but seem to have no problem denying the rights of others, or supporting those who deny the rights of others.

Let's be frank - I'm sure we've all been hypocrites at one time or another.

[MrWillie]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Average from 2001-2005 was ~80,000.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DACH_ARDI/D...AA6CE5D7&F=&D=

For every 5 people who's death is linked to alcohol, 2 people are killed by firearms.[COLOR="#808080"]

Thanks, I am not in any mood for research right now. So, it's safe to say then that resources would be better utilized dealing with alcohol issues than the gun debate ?

Originally Posted by citizenzen

For every adult in the United States?

What if I refuse to attend?

I don't know what to do about you not attending, but I do have a suggestion as to what to do if Sandra Bullock doesn't attend.

Originally Posted by Iscariot

For the sake of "this argument," this isn't my argument, MrWillie put forth the comparison. If you would like him to better define the terms of his comparison, and what exactly it's supposed to mean, that'd be great for the both of us.

<snip>

But again, this is only within the context of MrWillie's point (???) and not a greater statement about gun regulation.


How is this relevant? Are you suggesting that guns should be regulated like alcohol, that vehicles should be regulated like guns, that guns should be regulated like vehicles, that guns should only operate vehicles while intoxicated?


I don't think you can really do that. If there's going to be intellectual honesty coming from the proponents of gun control they need to accept that they want to change a fundamental part of the fabric of the United States. As I stated in another thread, the only way an intelligent discussion can be had is if people are willing to cop to the realities of their position. People who oppose gun control are advocating a position that freedom is worth a price paid in innocent blood. People advocating gun control similarly need to admit they want to change a big part of American culture, which includes willingly giving up a small part of everyone's freedom.

I think people are looking in too deep as to what I said/meant. As was pointed out by Citizenzen, for every five alcohol related deaths, there are two gun related deaths. Which one of these is the bigger problem ? Which one of these problems should demand more of our time and resources ?

I am not trying to distract people away from gun violence with alcohol issues, but I am trying to keep the gun issues from distracting us from the more severe alcohol issues.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

I think people are looking in too deep as to what I said/meant. As was pointed out by Citizenzen, for every five alcohol related deaths, there are two gun related deaths. Which one of these is the bigger problem ? Which one of these problems should demand more of our time and resources ?

I am not trying to distract people away from gun violence with alcohol issues, but I am trying to keep the gun issues from distracting us from the more severe alcohol issues.

If you want to broaden the topic to that level my response would be "the debate is stupid." As I've pointed out before there are way bigger problems that threaten the average American's health than violence.

The part of the debate that is important, however, is how well it frames the recent American development of not being able to get a damn thing done. Nate Silver ran an interesting piece on the decline of the use of the term "Gun Control" in the media and by gun control proponents because it makes for some kind of bizarre political suicide. We can't even talk about it. On the flip side, you have the NRA suggesting we put armed guards in schools and pushing an incredibly irresponsible and niave self-defense narrative that only serves to heighten paranoia and diminish critical thinking. Just like the videos in the OP, this only serves to highlight the incredible intellectual bankruptcy that has gotten wrapped up into the debate. There are members participating in this debate like NickZac behaving like adults whose position is being undermined by other members dodging questions, dropping discredited talking points, sourcing FUDy YouTube videos and displaying an incredible amount of dishonesty that is just short of bald-faced lying. And hell, I'm sure if I took a minute to look I could find more than one example of that, too.

I don't think the topic of gun control is nearly as important as using this opportunity where emotions are high to try and force all parts of the American society to sit down, shut their ****ing stupid mouths and have an adult conversation. The issue is nowhere near as important as the possibility that this could be an aha moment that finds the American people demanding better of their representatives.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

Thanks, I am not in any mood for research right now. So, it's safe to say then that resources would be better utilized dealing with alcohol issues than the gun debate ?

I'd say the results conclude that for every 5 resource units utilized to deal with alcohol issues, 2 resource units should be utilized to deal with gun issues.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by bradl

So once again, I state: Then I suppose you are calling Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Errol Flynn, and Clint Eastwood all hypocrites, right?

Simple yes or no would suffice. And I would like a response, please (though knowing your track record, I'll never see a response).

BL.

how many of those people advocate gun control and civilian disarmament...?

You do understand thats what this thread is all about don't you?

[bradl]

Originally Posted by glocke12

how many of those people advocate gun control and civilian disarmament...?

You do understand thats what this thread is all about don't you?

you do realize that all of these people are the hollywood hypocrites you have just railed on because they have glorified shootings in their movies, right? You do understand that is also the topic of what this thread is about, especially being the OP?

BL.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

A .22 pistol in the right persons hands is extremely deadly. Add a muffler and use subsonic rounds and its perfect for taking out a target in a crowded venue. 500 S&W is controllable, if your not afraid of a little recoil (I am not talking about rapid fire). Big bore rifles ? Where and what do you hunt ? The problem is lack of education. Go to some of these gun forums and the amount of FUD being generated is frightening. Most people on the 'net recommend the biggest you can handle, with the most rounds you can get. What is a good self defense weapon ? Where do you live ? I always recommend .380s, .38s, or .357 (with a .38 round when at home in a neighborhood), but I also believe you are responsible for the bullet. I wouldn't want the neighbor shooting at a potential rapist, and the bullet coming into my home.

Yes we have rights, but along with those rights we have responsibilities. Some people tend to forget that.

I get what you are saying but I would not call a .22 as extremely deadly. In a sense, yes. Any firearm is potentially extremely deadly when in the hands of someone without a clue, but the .22 is not an ideal defense caliber. A .500 S&W with full spec loads is a monster to control…I’m talking about real ammo such as Double Tap versus the down-loaded Magtech. A rifle is far more practical such as a .375 to .45x. I know of on one who needs things like the Nitro Express .700 through the .800s and .900s. In addition to uncontrollable recoil, the guns are far too heavy for carrying around for any sustained period of time. Their real purpose is novelty once they get to that size.

And I agree with you 100%. Bigger isn’t necessarily better. Many credible schools of thought recommend 9mm +p or +p+ or .38 +p. Larger calibers are less controllable and often pose a greater risk because of the lesser controllability. Furthermore, the ‘advantage’ of larger calibers is armchair debatable at best.

A lot of it is the machismo complex IMO. Men feel a need to shoot the biggest thing they can find. A good class will highlight that if one wants to play manly man or they feel that they have something to prove that they should be somewhere other than anywhere near a firearm.

And you are absolutely right. There are responsibilities. And if there are responsibilities, that means there is accountabilities as well. If someone feels they cannot accept the responsibilities and equated accountabilities, then they need to think twice before purchasing a gun.

Originally Posted by Iscariot

For the sake of "this argument," this isn't my argument, MrWillie put forth the comparison. If you would like him to better define the terms of his comparison, and what exactly it's supposed to mean, that'd be great for the both of us.


I purchased a firearm in Canada, I'm sure the procedure was quite different. I currently don't hold a license so I don't own any active firearms, but if I wanted to purchase again I'd need to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (1 day course), pass an examination and wait for a license. If I wanted a handgun I'd have to get a special kind of Restricted Purchase and Acquisition License. I'm pretty sure I can get a Possession Only Licence grandfathered to me. Licensing while more lax than a drivers license still follows a similar route including expirations, and restricted firearms are registered (the current sitting government is intent on changing some of the registration requirements for long guns).

But again, this is only within the context of MrWillie's point (???) and not a greater statement about gun regulation.

How is this relevant? Are you suggesting that guns should be regulated like alcohol, that vehicles should be regulated like guns, that guns should be regulated like vehicles, that guns should only operate vehicles while intoxicated?

I don't think you can really do that. If there's going to be intellectual honesty coming from the proponents of gun control they need to accept that they want to change a fundamental part of the fabric of the United States. As I stated in another thread, the only way an intelligent discussion can be had is if people are willing to cop to the realities of their position. People who oppose gun control are advocating a position that freedom is worth a price paid in innocent blood. People advocating gun control similarly need to admit they want to change a big part of American culture (also the whole States rights thing), which includes willingly giving up a small part of everyone's freedom.

Canada's lower rates of 'accident' and gun violence shows that education does work. Finland, also with very high ownership, shows this as well. I support it 100%.

My point was that there is more regulation than a driver’s license. NOW, with that said, recent history has shown us this regulation is not being enforced. And there are also more loops in regulation (which should be closed). That’s the first problem. As you noted, Canada does compulsory education where as the US does not. This is another problem (believe me, people with a gun without any training knowledge scares me as much as anyone). Just those two things IMO will make quite a difference.

And there has to be some state of compromise that comes from effort from all sides. Furthermore, I’d argue a major portion of this is mental health related. If you look at mental health stats, I’d argue they are a major part of the problem and they need to be a focal point.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

For every adult in the United States?

What if I refuse to attend?

Then no sale. Most gun shops do this currently. Selling a firearm to someone without a clue clearly is contributing to the problem. This doesn't undermine the Second Amendment. If anything, it helps protect it.

[k995]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

Thanks, I am not in any mood for research right now. So, it's safe to say then that resources would be better utilized dealing with alcohol issues than the gun debate ?

No you need to tackle both. Plenty of regulation in place or being made for drunk driving.

You cant just point to every other proiblem and say "untill all those are solved dont tackle this problem"

I think people are looking in too deep as to what I said/meant. As was pointed out by Citizenzen, for every five alcohol related deaths, there are two gun related deaths. Which one of these is the bigger problem ? Which one of these problems should demand more of our time and resources ?

Depends how easy it is to solve and how much is already being done.

Gun related nothing much has been done the last decade.

I am not trying to distract people away from gun violence with alcohol issues, but I am trying to keep the gun issues from distracting us from the more severe alcohol issues.

Enough USA legisltion to tackle both you know, and people can talk about more then 1 issue.

Its a cop out of the discussion.

[wonderspark]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Show me a movie where the brutality of rape is shown in great vivid detail and where the rapists are made out to be the protagonists of the film.

Originally Posted by chown33

A Clockwork Orange.

Nice.

I was going to say "High Plains Drifter", except they implied the rape, didn't they...

The worst rape scene I've ever seen was in "Irreversible." That's pretty hard to watch.

Carry on...

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Then no sale. Most gun shops do this currently. Selling a firearm to someone without a clue clearly is contributing to the problem. This doesn't undermine the Second Amendment. If anything, it helps protect it.

I'll just get my guns through other means.

Isn't this what you people say ... that restrictions won't keep guns out of the hands of people who want to get them?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'll just get my guns through other means.

Isn't this what you people say ... that restrictions won't keep guns out of the hands of people who want to get them?

Wait so now you've gone from a person wanting to own a legal firearm to a person wanting to buy an illegal firearm? Have your intentions changed? If you wanted to purchase a legal firearm for lawful purposes, then why would you refuse to go through legal means?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Wait so now you've gone from a person wanting to own a legal firearm to a person wanting to buy an illegal firearm? Have your intentions changed? If you wanted to purchase a legal firearm for lawful purposes, then why would you refuse to go through legal means?

Because the gummint has robbed you of your rights, innit?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by skunk

Because the gummint has robbed you of your rights, innit?

But education requirements, diversion intervention, and formalization of a background check don't rob one of their rights. In fact, it protects them because it increases safe handling and it prevents diversion (which helps avoid future legislation that is restrictive to responsible, legal owners). If someone isn't willing to learn how to operate a tool, which, while inherently safe on its own, is inherently and exceptionally dangerous when used incorrectly, then that's their own ignorance, and not lack of 'right'.

(and personally, much like I wouldn't want someone driving 75 MPH next to me on the freeway without any sort of driving education or someone running a chainsaw a few feet away from me who is going by what they saw on TV, I wouldn't want someone on a range near me who didn't have at least minimal competency from basic safety training). We require education for a lot of things...especially machines that pose danger when not used correctly.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Wait so now you've gone from a person wanting to own a legal firearm to a person wanting to buy an illegal firearm? Have your intentions changed? If you wanted to purchase a legal firearm for lawful purposes, then why would you refuse to go through legal means?

I'm just repeating the argument often presented by gun advocates when the issue of restrictions come up. Seems that what gets proposed is met by a version of, "that won't do any good because it won't stop the criminals from getting guns."

I actually don't ascribe to that negativity. I believe that good often arrives in small steps and that one shouldn't base whether something gets done by the fact that somebody will circumvent the rules.

But many gun advocates don't see it that way.

I just wanted to prepare you for that.