What is the end goal for the left on the 2nd?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Individual responsibility plays a key role in rights.

Irresponsible people will do irresponsible things, regardless of laws or edicts brought forth from government.

So, arm more of 'em?

Name me a time when people haven't been irresponsible.

Name me a law that would make people responsible.

There are numberous laws that mandate conditions for public safety and achieve that by limiting public exposure to unsafe situations. For example, gun control laws that would make it really hard to purchase a gun without strongly valid reasons.

Do criminals obey these laws?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Individual responsibility plays a key role in rights.

Irresponsible people will do irresponsible things, regardless of laws or edicts brought forth from government.

So, arm more of 'em?

Name me a time when people haven't been irresponsible.

Name me a law that would make people responsible.

May I add one?

Name me a time a government disarmed its populace and it turned out as a boon for the people.

Yeah, still looking. . . .

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

If you’re honestly looking at gun crime you must ditch the suicides.
Suicide is not a gun crime.
Some countries with the highest suicide rates are especially unarmed, Japan South Korea etc.
Some countries with the lowest suicide rates are heavily armed, Venezuela Honduras etc.

Gun control affects more than just crime, and so it makes sense to address more than just one aspect of the US's gun problem.

I was initially posting about gun deaths, and several times tried to steer the topic back to the wider issues, but at the same time I have been responding to people who have been disregarding parts of the overall problem.

Historically, this mindset has kyboshed any attempts at political debate in the USA because everyone is trying not to look at the true picture. It has also meant that issues that could be sorted out quickly and succefully administered against, have lasted perpetually as the debate goes in circles of irrelevance.

As an example, for decades there has been debate about health-care in the US, but every single debate is not about the issues of caring for the health of people, but is in fact only about insurance and who pays it. It has gotten to the stage that you cannot talk about heath-care in the US without everyone starting arguments about insurance and monetary issues.

Posting about rates of suicide that don't involve firearms, is beside the point. Gun suicides are part of the gun problem, people who 'off' themselves by swallowing house bricks, or whatever, are not.

a reply to: chr0naut

Again you read things but dont comprehend.

You are arguing something that is not in the discussion in the US, all of those laws you would probably support are presented as if we take firearms away from law abiding citizens then crime will drop.

We all know thats a lie and thats why we oppose it, because if its not about fixing crime then it must be about control.

By their very actions we have seen that these professional politicians do not care if we live or die.

a reply to: chr0naut

America doesn’t have a gun problem.
The left can’t ever prove it and certainly not a sheep farmer from a different country.
Their whole argument is flawed blatantly twisted logic and feelings.
Americas problem is people trying to take away inalienable rights of the citizens here, like the left has been trying to do for decades and is also the topic of this thread.
They won’t ever stop trying and they won’t ever succeed.
There’s half a billion guns here, you’d think they would see the impossibility of grabbing them even from a logistics standpoint.
Add to that trying to grab them while under fire and it becomes an unbelievable pipe dream.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Individual responsibility plays a key role in rights.

Irresponsible people will do irresponsible things, regardless of laws or edicts brought forth from government.

So, arm more of 'em?

Name me a time when people haven't been irresponsible.

Name me a law that would make people responsible.

May I add one?

Name me a time a government disarmed its populace and it turned out as a boon for the people.

Brunei
Fiji
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Nauru
North Korea
Seychelles
Solomon Islands
Vatican City / Holy See
Japan
Australia
New Zealand

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

America doesn’t have a gun problem.

I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

The left can’t ever prove it and certainly not a sheep farmer from a different country.

The left, all the other countries in the world, and even right-wingers from the USA have already proven it.

The proofs are in the statistical data collected by the crime fighting and health agencies of the USA.

Their whole argument is flawed blatantly twisted logic and feelings.

Reeeeeepublican away there. You are sounding somewhat triggered.

Americas problem is people trying to take away inalienable rights of the citizens here, like the left has been trying to do for decades and is also the topic of this thread.

If it is possible to take away those rights, then they aren't, by definition, inalienable.

They won’t ever stop trying and they won’t ever succeed.
There’s half a billion guns here, you’d think they would see the impossibility of grabbing them even from a logistics standpoint.

There's also 228 billion trees that can be made into bows and arrows. They'll never overrun the first nations when there's so many weapons to hand and proud warriors to wield them.

Add to that trying to grab them while under fire and it becomes an unbelievable pipe dream.

Why couldn't they just drone those terrorist insurgents from a bunker somewhere?

Only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Again you read things but dont comprehend.

You are arguing something that is not in the discussion in the US, all of those laws you would probably support are presented as if we take firearms away from law abiding citizens then crime will drop.

We all know thats a lie and thats why we oppose it, because if its not about fixing crime then it must be about control.

By their very actions we have seen that these professional politicians do not care if we live or die.

People who want to take up arms against enormously superior forces are the ones who don't don't seem to care if they live or die.

I'd much rather try negotiating, peaceful protest and passive resistance in that situation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Again you read things but dont comprehend.

You are arguing something that is not in the discussion in the US, all of those laws you would probably support are presented as if we take firearms away from law abiding citizens then crime will drop.

We all know thats a lie and thats why we oppose it, because if its not about fixing crime then it must be about control.

By their very actions we have seen that these professional politicians do not care if we live or die.

People who want to take up arms against enormously superior forces are the ones who don't don't seem to care if they live or die.

I'd much rather try negotiating, peaceful protest and passive resistance in that situation.

sucking toes isn't my thing. You can live on your knees, or die on your feet. Those of us who choose to be armed, have that choice, those like you do not. Your only option is to get down on your knees and do your best to make those who rule over you happy. You do you.

originally posted by: chr0naut


I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

I have owned this .22lr pistol for a long time, over 20 years. I have shot possibly 1000 rounds through it.
In all that time, it has never once went off or fired a round without me pulling the trigger.

Once you do enough research, and fully comprehend how a firearm functions, you may learn that a gun is an inanimate object, not capable of thought or action by itself. In order for it to do anything other than just lay there, you have to pick it up. When someone is shot, or multiple people are shot, it's not because of a gun, it's because of a person who pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at the person who got shot. It's basic physics. Check into it.

Know the source of Democrats and the rest is easy to figure out.

x.com...

a reply to: network dude

ZOMG!

liTTeraLLy shaKing RN!

You've given me PTSD from your weapon of war!

a reply to: JinMI

It's got a fully automatic clipanzie. Totally bad ass.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

I have owned this .22lr pistol for a long time, over 20 years. I have shot possibly 1000 rounds through it.
In all that time, it has never once went off or fired a round without me pulling the trigger.

Once you do enough research, and fully comprehend how a firearm functions, you may learn that a gun is an inanimate object, not capable of thought or action by itself. In order for it to do anything other than just lay there, you have to pick it up. When someone is shot, or multiple people are shot, it's not because of a gun, it's because of a person who pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at the person who got shot. It's basic physics. Check into it.

The bit I put at the end was to indicate that it was sarcastic.

... and only an average of 50 rounds/year?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

I have owned this .22lr pistol for a long time, over 20 years. I have shot possibly 1000 rounds through it.
In all that time, it has never once went off or fired a round without me pulling the trigger.

Once you do enough research, and fully comprehend how a firearm functions, you may learn that a gun is an inanimate object, not capable of thought or action by itself. In order for it to do anything other than just lay there, you have to pick it up. When someone is shot, or multiple people are shot, it's not because of a gun, it's because of a person who pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at the person who got shot. It's basic physics. Check into it.

The

bit I put at the end was to indicate that it was sarcastic.

... and only an average of 50 rounds/year?

this one doesn't get much range time. My Ruger is the favorite, followed by the TX22. But seeing you argue how awful guns are, then going to great lengths to prove NZ also has guns is comical. Are the guns in NZ safer? Better behaved? Perhaps the ammo sold there is the non aggressive kind. Either way, your arguments circle back on themselves, and really don't make much sense.

a reply to: network dude

As another user put in a different thread, on a different subject but it applies to all of this nature,

Why not make laws to fix (X) rather than making laws to take away people's rights?

Very simple concept that most people can't even comprehend, or choose to ignore all together.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: network dude

As another user put in a different thread, on a different subject but it applies to all of this nature,

Why not make laws to fix (X) rather than making laws to take away people's rights?

Very simple concept that most people can't even comprehend, or choose to ignore all together.

that's because there is a group of people who are easily led, and have a track record of slurping up whatever the establishment pukes out. Every narrative, no matter how loony toons it might be, is championed and argued for. Men can have babies. Sure, why not. Securing the border by leaving it open, sure, why not. Coordinating with AG's across the nation to have your political opponent jailed? Sure, why not.

When the aliens come, and they start eating us, these pinheads will be screaming for Alien Rights! And calling us greyphobics for not wanting them to make us the next meal.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

I have owned this .22lr pistol for a long time, over 20 years. I have shot possibly 1000 rounds through it.
In all that time, it has never once went off or fired a round without me pulling the trigger.

Once you do enough research, and fully comprehend how a firearm functions, you may learn that a gun is an inanimate object, not capable of thought or action by itself. In order for it to do anything other than just lay there, you have to pick it up. When someone is shot, or multiple people are shot, it's not because of a gun, it's because of a person who pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at the person who got shot. It's basic physics. Check into it.

The

bit I put at the end was to indicate that it was sarcastic.

... and only an average of 50 rounds/year?

this one doesn't get much range time. My Ruger is the favourite, followed by the TX22. But seeing you argue how awful guns are, then going to great lengths to prove NZ also has guns is comical. Are the guns in NZ safer? Better behaved? Perhaps the ammo sold there is the non aggressive kind. Either way, your arguments circle back on themselves, and really don't make much sense.

Compare the statistics for gun homicide in the respective countries.

In 2017, the USA had 12.25 gun deaths per 100,000 population. In 2017, New Zealand had 0.74 gun deaths per 100.000 population.

The year before, New Zealand had a total of 9 gun deaths. That same year, the USA had 38,658 gun deaths.

However, after law changes subsequent to the Christchurch mass shooting, New Zealand's gun death rate has been virtually non-existent.

NZ guns must be safer than US guns.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

I see, so it's the guns that have a people problem?

Bullets want to fly free, but people just keep getting in the way and get them all bent out of shape.

I have owned this .22lr pistol for a long time, over 20 years. I have shot possibly 1000 rounds through it.
In all that time, it has never once went off or fired a round without me pulling the trigger.

Once you do enough research, and fully comprehend how a firearm functions, you may learn that a gun is an inanimate object, not capable of thought or action by itself. In order for it to do anything other than just lay there, you have to pick it up. When someone is shot, or multiple people are shot, it's not because of a gun, it's because of a person who pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at the person who got shot. It's basic physics. Check into it.

The

bit I put at the end was to indicate that it was sarcastic.

... and only an average of 50 rounds/year?

this one doesn't get much range time. My Ruger is the favorite, followed by the TX22. But seeing you argue how awful guns are, then going to great lengths to prove NZ also has guns is comical. Are the guns in NZ safer? Better behaved? Perhaps the ammo sold there is the non aggressive kind. Either way, your arguments circle back on themselves, and really don't make much sense.

Look at the statistics for gun homicide.

NZ guns must be safer.

It's only sensible to license potentially dangerous machinery, and the users of that machinery, and to limit access to only those qualified and trained.

Looks like the people with guns in NZ are more dangerous when they are the police. They are licensed to kill. Qualified and trained police in NZ that use guns to kill people with.
NZ police licensed to kill

It's okay though, they are licensed and trained.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: network dude

As another user put in a different thread, on a different subject but it applies to all of this nature,

Why not make laws to fix (X) rather than making laws to take away people's rights?

Very simple concept that most people can't even comprehend, or choose to ignore all together.

that's because there is a group of people who are easily led, and have a track record of slurping up whatever the establishment pukes out. Every narrative, no matter how loony toons it might be, is championed and argued for. Men can have babies. Sure, why not. Securing the border by leaving it open, sure, why not. Coordinating with AG's across the nation to have your political opponent jailed? Sure, why not.

Yeah, Americans, eh!

When the aliens come, and they start eating us, these pinheads will be screaming for Alien Rights! And calling us greyphobics for not wanting them to make us the next meal.

... the above narrative was brought to you courtesy of "Looney Tunes"...