Making no honest effort to understand someone of a differing opinion makes you an asshole, that's why they would de-friend you, mot because you have an honest differing of opinion.
You mean like you just did? You aren't making any effort at all to understand the differing opinion that shinozzola posted, you're just deriding it. If you're going to criticize someone else for something, you'd better make sure that your criticism is accurate and that you're not doing the same thing that you're criticizing them for.
Don't be silly, the point of the discussion was that armed men protect the president's daughters yet he derides the Idea of armed men guarding the public's children. The argument of "Who" enacted the legislation is a dodge of the question.
Armed men protect the
President and his family because past presidents have been assassinated. It works because they have a limited number of individuals to watch, have multiple personnel to guard each one, and can dictate that their security arrangements take predicence. That solution won't work very well at a school.
Not true. Under proposed laws on semi-automatic rifles that look "militaristic-y" enough to be called assault rifles, these rifles would be removed from homes upon the passing of the grandfathered owner. Under it, if I died, my family would have to remember to surrender my weapons to the cops or face a swat team. I could not pass the guns down to my children as is customary.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/175785/tentative-gun-control-bill-would-require-rifle-registry/
The article you cited says nothing about rifles that look "militaristic-y". It says, specifically, that specific characteristics (such as a telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, or a pistol grip) on a semi-automatic rifle would qualify it to be banned. Surprise, surprise, they don't mention swat teams raiding the homes of families who don't turn in their guns either. It doesn't help your argument any to say things that aren't even mentioned in the article you're supposedly using as a source.
No gun group is suggesting abandoning all gun laws. Cheap shot!
This has nothing to do with what he said.
Bullshit! Citation seriously f*cking needed! Don't mind sprinkling in some bare faced lies do you?
What was that saying about glass houses and stones?
By the way, here's something for you to consider. Since 1979, more than a hundred thousand US children have died from gun violence
[1].
I've never heard the NRA claim such a thing. Citation needed. The program that the NRA made is very mild target practice. Look at it before you bash it and give people a false impression of it.
I like the wording here. "I've never heard". By the way, it was the executive director of the NRA, Wayne LaPierrre who said,
"Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?" I'm surprised he didn't call out Halo or Borderlands while he was at it. No, he didn't blame just violent video games for it, but it was pretty high on his list of things to blame for school shootings.
People don't learn their non-empathetic anti-social behavior by watching videos or playing video games. The learn it by living in dysfunctional families and neighborhoods. You're a pretty disturbed individual to even entertain the idea that seeing something can make you a bad person.
Not according to the NRA statement I linked above. LaPierre talked about violent video games and movies, then claimed that fantasizing about killing people was the filthiest form of pornography. I'm not sure that it's possible to get more blatant than that.
Again that you portray the believers of weird conspiracies, if there really are any, as mainstream is dishonest. It does not further the discussion.
Actually, he didn't make that portrayal at all. So it's you who isn't furthering the discussion.
We are a melting pot that has many poverty and other issues. We have not learned to get along very well. How many of these victims are bystanders in gang drive-by's? Gangs and hi crive high poverty neighborhoods aren't going away. They cannot be fairly grouped statistically with the wealthy suburbs or the rural farmlands. The U.S. is not homogeneous.
You just got done talking about how dysfunctional families and neighborhoods were a core part of the problem. Now, here, you're apparently saying that it's an insoluble one - that the neighborhoods (and by extension the families that live in them) aren't going away. If that's true, then what do you propose to deal with school shootings, given that you're against additional gun control? Incidentally, the problem is that these school shootings are not happening in gang-ridden, high-crime, poverty-stricken neighborhoods. Columbine was not, Newtown was not, Virginia Tech was not.
The citizens of the U.S. own lots of things way out of proportion to the rest of the world. How many of the next seventeen countries would you want to live in?
This is beside the point, and irrelevant to the discussion. Most of the things that you refer to are not deadly weapons.
I find it disturbing that you would mis-characterize the opposing opinion group in this way. The term "some people" is a sneaky way of creating straw men of a very small minority of gun owners. Amongst gun owners, there is not a consensus over the best course of action to address the real problem of gun violence and mass shootings. Many of us do think additional regulations are needed, but the majority of us are fearful of being railroaded by dishonest portrayals of gun owners by anti-gun people that life in safe happy neighborhoods. We know that we are as a whole, safe responsible people and we do not want to give up our rights because of the actions of a few.
He isn't. The fact of the matter is that the people who make up stuff like that are themselves part of the problem. They tend to be among the most vocal opponents of gun control in any form, and they delude themselves into thinking that the only way to solve the problem is to make guns even more common than they already are.
Until you can define what an "assault" rifle is without referring to pictures or "fashion," we can't even take what you say seriously. You haven't even tried to learn enough about the issue, and the only thing you've shot off is your mouth. The first ban was simply an attack against a few producer's of certain models of rifles. The firepower was not an indicator of it's inclusion to the ban list. Rate of fire was not included on the ban list. The shape of the plastic parts was the greatest indicator of a rifles inclusion on the ban list. Because of this the ban was useless and did nothing but anger the shooting public. It did not really address any issues of gun violence. Google fastest cowboy shooting videos and see if 1860 weaponry was all that slow. In one, a 13 year old boy shoots targets faster with a 1870 model lever action rifle than another man can shoot them with a machine gun. So is the 1870 45 cal henry repeater an "assault" weapon now?
I think you need to start citing sources for your claims. By the way, seriously, you're citing a youtube video that you couldn't even be bothered to link?
By the way, you can't hose down an entire room full of people with a lever action rifle, but you can with an automatic weapon. So it frankly doesn't matter which is better at target shooting.
The only things that should be on the table are things that would actually have helped prevent these acts of violence. Virginia tech or Columbine shootings would have occurred regardless of the proposed bans on assault rifles of clip sizes.
Maybe, but given the number of times you've been caught being deceptive in this post, I'm no longer willing to take your word for it.
By the way, the Newtown shooter used a semi-automatic AR-15 model rifle, the
Bushmaster XM-15Wiki. Except for being semi-automatic, it's basically the same as the M16 rifle, models of which have been standard issue for US soldiers since 1963.
How f*cking dishonest! First off, who gives a flying crap what dumbass Reagan did? The non-imbicilic know that the issue is that the term "assault rifle" is not well defined. The problem is that it is very difficult to define assault rifle as used in the common vernacular without including nearly everything, or falsely excluding only machine guns that shoot full auto as these are already highly regulated, and illegal for the common person to own. I think this author knew this an was just yet again trying to get in some cheap shots.
I think we can safely define the rifle the Newtown shooter used as a semi-automatic assault rifle. So that's a good starting point for the definition, don't you think?
Again.. straw man up the wazzoo. Nobody is claiming that we want a Somalia type society.
He didn't say that anyone was claiming such a thing.
Yeah, sure. You sound just like the old Archie Bunker type of racists, with "Some of my best friends are n...." No if you were not really anti gun, you would have portrayed the average gun owner in a more truthful fashion instead of the deceitful display of propaganda that you have spouted.
You are not one to talk about how other people sound, given the way you've come across through this entire post.
Until we have universal health care that includes mental care, you're just posing for the cameras and you know it. Until you actually address the causes of men growing up to lack empathy and turn into psychopaths, then you've done nothing. The proposed bans are known by both sides to do nothing statistically significant to prevent the violence such as the Sandy Hook Massacre. The proposals are simply to piss off the gun owners and nothing else. Learn the terminology and the mechanics of the guns. If you ask gun owners to sacrifice their rights for the good of society, it must include a clear definition of what and a good direct effect on the why. That is not too much to ask, and we should not have to resort to dishonest propaganda and pandering by extremists on both sides of the issue.
You would have done better just to respond with this paragraph. It's far more coherent and concise than the rest, and far less insulting. Most of the rest of your post sounds like you were responding emotionally rather than thinking rationally.
