Hillary banning guns?

telle said:
Do you have an issue with this Ally? Minority groups voicing their opinions?
You have been arguing for the legitimacy and importance of the Second Amendment quite adamantly in this thread.
Would you also be a champion for freedom of speech, freedom to organize and protest, etc?
Is one more vital than the other for the health of American democracy?

If you haven't read much on the topic, I would suggest googling "Minority rights, Majority rule" for any number of essays or books based on this key component of democracy.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point ally was trying to make.
 
Snack said:
Which ones for example?

One word changed, and suddenly it sounds like a desscription of Trump.

Jokes aside, a lot of deaths pr. year in the US are gun related, and some might even have been avoided if guns were more regulated than they are now, if you are "unaffected" by that, I dont know what to say.
Click to expand...

The thing about gun regulation is that the US is already heavily gun regulated.
If we are talking about knives, more peole are murdered each year by knives compared to rifles, so we should start banning knives first if you want to save more lives in my opinion.
 
FrozenWill said:
I think you missed the point ally was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Here comes Ally's lap dog, yapping away. Did you ever manage to read up (or watch) about European colonialism in the Americas? I'm guessing not, since you abruptly stopped responding after my detailed rebuttal of your ill informed argument in another thread.

On topic, I don't think I misinterpreted what Ally was saying but that is why I was asking for clarification. In my understanding he was stating that because of the way which the media sensationalizes gun violence in the US, a disproportionate amount of attention is given to advocates of stricter gun laws and victims of gun violence, while the vast majority (he stated 299, 999, 979 people) live their lives unaffected, without an opinion or strongly opposing any further gun regulations. So in his estimation, a minority of 20 million people are yelling that the sky is falling, despite the reality that everything is actually just hunky dory with the 300 million majority.

My point was that even if these statistics were true, the voice of that minority ought to be heard and not dismissed with such ease. His statement essentially scoffed at people who claimed their "world was torn apart because of guns". Does someone who lost family members due to gun violence not have the freedom to state their opinion on the matter? Losing a loved one is a terribly difficult thing to do with and it most certainly can feel like the world as you know it has been decimated. Add into the equation that the loss could possibly have been prevented through stricter regulation and it should be abundantly clear why these individuals are speaking truths without any sort of political or economic interests. Which is certainly not the case for lobbyists, such as the NRA who get to speak directly to law making officials and have their self-interested opinion on the matter heard with impunity.
 
FrozenWill said:
The thing about gun regulation is that the US is already heavily gun regulated.
Click to expand...
That doesn't stop you from shooting each other...
Maybe more regulations should be made
FrozenWill said:
If we are talking about knives, more peole are murdered each year by knives compared to rifles, so we should start banning knives first if you want to save more lives in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Nobody is talking about knives
 
telle said:
Here comes Ally's lap dog, yapping away. Did you ever manage to read up (or watch) about European colonialism in the Americas? I'm guessing not, since you abruptly stopped responding after my detailed rebuttal of your ill informed argument in another thread.

On topic, I don't think I misinterpreted what Ally was saying but that is why I was asking for clarification. In my understanding he was stating that because of the way which the media sensationalizes gun violence in the US, a disproportionate amount of attention is given to advocates of stricter gun laws and victims of gun violence, while the vast majority (he stated 299, 999, 979 people) live their lives unaffected, without an opinion or strongly opposing any further gun regulations. So in his estimation, a minority of 20 million people are yelling that the sky is falling, despite the reality that everything is actually just hunky dory with the 300 million majority.

My point was that even if these statistics were true, the voice of that minority ought to be heard and not dismissed with such ease. His statement essentially scoffed at people who claimed their "world was torn apart because of guns". Does someone who lost family members due to gun violence not have the freedom to state their opinion on the matter? Losing a loved one is a terribly difficult thing to do with and it most certainly can feel like the world as you know it has been decimated. Add into the equation that the loss could possibly have been prevented through stricter regulation and it should be abundantly clear why these individuals are speaking truths without any sort of political or economic interests. Which is certainly not the case for lobbyists, such as the NRA who get to speak directly to law making officials and have their self-interested opinion on the matter heard with impunity.
Click to expand...

Assuming that I have no understanding of European colonialism into the Americas because I didn't respond to your older post is pretty pathetic.

You can blame the media about portraying minorities in a false light all you want about their stances on certain laws, but don't act like the same doesn't happen to the people who hold the majority opinion. That would be complete ignorance on your part.

The lives lost your talking about being prevented through "stricter" gun laws has never worked. Which is why I stated several posts back about how Chicago has the most amount of gun deaths out of any state in the US while holding the strictest gun laws. This is a proven fact, yet you state that tighter gun laws will keep people safer.

I also mentioned that there are numerous amounts of people in the US that have saved their own lives, and others, because they owned a gun LEGALLY and defended themselves.

Again, you are saying people that hold the minority opinion are portrayed a certain way in the media but disregard the fact that the media does not show all of the times that people have been saved from people carrying. Another reason to believe that the media can portray things to be good and bad on both sides, not just the minority.
 
Snack said:
That doesn't stop you from shooting each other...
Maybe more regulations should be made

Nobody is talking about knives
Click to expand...

Why should more regulations be made concerning guns if more people are killed by knives every year?
 
FrozenWill said:
Assuming that I have no understanding of European colonialism into the Americas because I didn't respond to your older post is pretty pathetic.

You can blame the media about portraying minorities in a false light all you want about their stances on certain laws, but don't act like the same doesn't happen to the people who hold the majority opinion. That would be complete ignorance on your part.

The lives lost your talking about being prevented through "stricter" gun laws has never worked. Which is why I stated several posts back about how Chicago has the most amount of gun deaths out of any state in the US while holding the strictest gun laws. This is a proven fact, yet you state that tighter gun laws will keep people safer.

I also mentioned that there are numerous amounts of people in the US that have saved their own lives, and others, because they owned a gun LEGALLY and defended themselves.

Again, you are saying people that hold the minority opinion are portrayed a certain way in the media but disregard the fact that the media does not show all of the times that people have been saved from people carrying. Another reason to believe that the media can portray things to be good and bad on both sides, not just the minority.
Click to expand...
The deaths in Chicago has nothing to do with the gun regulations.
FrozenWill said:
Why should more regulations be made concerning guns if more people are killed by knives every year?
Click to expand...
What the actual fuck. You cannot be serious.
 
Snack said:
The deaths in Chicago has nothing to do with the gun regulations.

What the actual duck. You cannot be serious.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, if strict gun regulations "work" then why has it not worked with Chicago?
 
Alright another try:
FrozenWill said:
Assuming that I have no understanding of European colonialism into the Americas because I didn't respond to your older post is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...
So you know telle was right?
FrozenWill said:
The lives lost your talking about being prevented through "stricter" gun laws has never worked. Which is why I stated several posts back about how Chicago has the most amount of gun deaths out of any state in the US while holding the strictest gun laws. This is a proven fact, yet you state that tighter gun laws will keep people safer.
Click to expand...
A fact that has no relevance to this discussion.
FrozenWill said:
I also mentioned that there are numerous amounts of people in the US that have saved their own lives, and others, because they owned a gun LEGALLY and defended themselves.
Click to expand...
You can't seem to grasp the idea that maybe these people wouldn't have been in danger in the first place, if your gun laws were more heavily regulated.

It's as if you claim so desperately to your right to bear arms, that you cannot see the paradox of it. You have guns to protect you yourself, from people with guns...
FrozenWill said:
Why should more regulations be made concerning guns if more people are killed by knives every year?
Click to expand...
Because it might save lives. Just because knives are involved in more homicides pr year, it doesn't mean that guns aren't a problem that should be fixed.
 
FrozenWill said:
Of course it does, if strict gun regulations "work" then why has it not worked with Chicago?
Click to expand...
Because Chicago is corrupted by the gang inveroment. There are no logical link between stricter gun regulations and more gun related deaths. Surely you can see that
 
Snack said:
Alright another try:

So you know telle was right?

A fact that has no relevance to this discussion.

You can't seem to grasp the idea that maybe these people wouldn't have been in danger in the first place, if your gun laws were more heavily regulated.

It's as if you claim so desperately to your right to bear arms, that you cannot see the paradox of it. You have guns to protect you yourself, from people with guns...

Because it might save lives. Just because knives are involved in more homicides pr year, it doesn't mean that guns aren't a problem that should be fixed.
Click to expand...

You just proved my point with your last sentence lol

Guns clearly aren't the issue here, it's people who want to pass these "strict" laws that benefit no one but the criminal who gets his/her weapon illegally.
 
Snack said:
Because Chicago is corrupted by the gang inveroment. There are no logical link between stricter gun regulations and more gun related deaths. Surely you can see that
Click to expand...

You can't be serious...
 
FrozenWill said:
You just proved my point with your last sentence lol

Guns clearly aren't the issue here, it's people who want to pass these "strict" laws that benefit no one but the criminal who gets his/her weapon illegally.
Click to expand...
lmao what... how does that have anything to do with my last sentence of that quote? And we've been over this already, of course criminals will get their weapons no matter what regulations are in place, but your illusion of "gun deaths are only done by hardcore criminals" is just mind boggling. Ordinary US citizens have killed each other numerous times. And I trust that you see that as a problem. And I trust that you someday will get the chance to experience that heavier gun regulations might provide a change for the better
 
Unless you enjoy hunting animals with an AK, you shouldn't have too much of a problem with stricter regulations. Background checks and health records for the purchase of a firearm seems asinine when you look at it from a "I don't like doing more stuff to get stuff" perspective. I do realize that not everyone with a violent criminal history is always going to be a violent criminal, but taking away an individual's ability to purchase a firearm because they beat up an old lady a few years back certainly wouldn't hurt anything. Ally seems to just be arguing for the sake of arguing and those who think that stricter regulations(not banning guns entirely) wouldn't help at all (not even a little bit?) seem to be fine with not doing anything about how easily an unstable individual could purchase a firearm. If there's a chance that stricter regulations could help...even just a little, and said regulations wouldn't really affect you, then why do you fucking care?
 
Last edited:
FrozenWill said:
You just proved my point with your last sentence lol

Guns clearly aren't the issue here, it's people who want to pass these "strict" laws that benefit no one but the criminal who gets his/her weapon illegally.
Click to expand...
Stricter gun regulations wouldn't change much of anything for these individuals, but what about the guy with a history of mental health issues that just caught his wife cheating and would now like to purchase a glock? Sure, he can always turns to the black market, but don't you think he would be less likely to become van Gogh with a gun painting his masterpiece if he was denied the purchase of a firearm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top