Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Stupid gun control propaganda

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:24:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...

This is probably the worst attempt to legitimize gun control. I am pro gun control but this is a disastrous attempt . . .
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:24:04 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


This is probably the worst attempt to legitimize gun control. I am pro gun control but this is a disastrous attempt . . .

I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:24:04 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


This is probably the worst attempt to legitimize gun control. I am pro gun control but this is a disastrous attempt . . .

I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

The video basically subscribes to fear mongering, as if wielding a gun will inevitably lead to your own death. Basically, it's forcing a stigma on guns it does not deserve. Guns are not inherently bad. And I personally thought the attribution of all the displayed guns to those mass killers was very distasteful. It was a cheap way to make guns look bad.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The video basically subscribes to fear mongering, as if wielding a gun will inevitably lead to your own death. Basically, it's forcing a stigma on guns it does not deserve. Guns are not inherently bad. And I personally thought the attribution of all the displayed guns to those mass killers was very distasteful. It was a cheap way to make guns look bad.

Ill buy the first bit, not the last. "Guns are not inherently bad". The second, about it being distasteful I agree with.

It most certainly is playing on emotion. Regardless if this gun was used in a horrific way, the new owner has no responsibility or connection with the last use of the gun. Further, its doubtful that any gun used in any prosecuted crime was returned to sale (I may be wrong about that, but I would doubt it when entering the store).

I do want to make a bigger change in attitudes about guns, rather than work on more "control" issues. I feel that we are going in a very wrong direction encouraging people to get more guns, so how to reverse the marketing matters to me.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:46:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This got messed up a bit

I DON'T find it distasteful. I do find it difficult to anthropomorphize a gun.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:52:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 5:45:21 PM, TBR wrote:
The video basically subscribes to fear mongering, as if wielding a gun will inevitably lead to your own death. Basically, it's forcing a stigma on guns it does not deserve. Guns are not inherently bad. And I personally thought the attribution of all the displayed guns to those mass killers was very distasteful. It was a cheap way to make guns look bad.

Ill buy the first bit, not the last. "Guns are not inherently bad". The second, about it being distasteful I agree with.

It most certainly is playing on emotion. Regardless if this gun was used in a horrific way, the new owner has no responsibility or connection with the last use of the gun. Further, its doubtful that any gun used in any prosecuted crime was returned to sale (I may be wrong about that, but I would doubt it when entering the store).

I do want to make a bigger change in attitudes about guns, rather than work on more "control" issues. I feel that we are going in a very wrong direction encouraging people to get more guns, so how to reverse the marketing matters to me.

I agree man..
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 5:52:00 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 5:45:21 PM, TBR wrote:
The video basically subscribes to fear mongering, as if wielding a gun will inevitably lead to your own death. Basically, it's forcing a stigma on guns it does not deserve. Guns are not inherently bad. And I personally thought the attribution of all the displayed guns to those mass killers was very distasteful. It was a cheap way to make guns look bad.

Ill buy the first bit, not the last. "Guns are not inherently bad". The second, about it being distasteful I agree with.

It most certainly is playing on emotion. Regardless if this gun was used in a horrific way, the new owner has no responsibility or connection with the last use of the gun. Further, its doubtful that any gun used in any prosecuted crime was returned to sale (I may be wrong about that, but I would doubt it when entering the store).

I do want to make a bigger change in attitudes about guns, rather than work on more "control" issues. I feel that we are going in a very wrong direction encouraging people to get more guns, so how to reverse the marketing matters to me.

I agree man..

^with the bold part
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The one guy entering the store basically gave the ~"2nd amendment use it or lose it" rational that I have herd before. It is just about the worst reasoning behind getting a gun.

What we need is a reverse in the thinking about these devices. The gun-supporters should be all behind this too. Most people don't need a gun. Most people are not responsible enough to carry a gun with them at all times. All the rampant purchasing and use of guns is doing is making gun control more rational, and gun-supporters look like yahoos. Again, the gun-supporters should be right out in front on this score. They should be helping find ways to make the average person who has no real need for the gun think twice before getting it!
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 6:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:24:04 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


This is probably the worst attempt to legitimize gun control. I am pro gun control but this is a disastrous attempt . . .

I'm still laughing that they won't allow comments on the channel. Bunch of cowards afraid of even online confrontation.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 6:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 6:03:02 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:24:04 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


This is probably the worst attempt to legitimize gun control. I am pro gun control but this is a disastrous attempt . . .

I'm still laughing that they won't allow comments on the channel. Bunch of cowards afraid of even online confrontation.

I thought that was pretty funny too xD
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 6:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.

That school in Oregon isn't a gun-free zone. They allow students to carry on campus. There was actually someone there with a gun on him, but he (rightly) didn't get involved.

Umpqua Community College itself wasn"t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses"the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as "authorized by law," but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," Parker told MSNBC. "We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves."


http://www.politico.com...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 6:34:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.

That school in Oregon isn't a gun-free zone. They allow students to carry on campus. There was actually someone there with a gun on him, but he (rightly) didn't get involved.

Umpqua Community College itself wasn"t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses"the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as "authorized by law," but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," Parker told MSNBC. "We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves."


http://www.politico.com...

Damn.... this articles really kills pro gunners....
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 9:58:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 6:34:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.

That school in Oregon isn't a gun-free zone. They allow students to carry on campus. There was actually someone there with a gun on him, but he (rightly) didn't get involved.

Umpqua Community College itself wasn"t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses"the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as "authorized by law," but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," Parker told MSNBC. "We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves."


http://www.politico.com...

"School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as 'authorized by law'"

http://www.politico.com...

The mere perception that a place is gun-free is enough to make it a target. James Holmes the Colorado shooter passed up six nearby movie theaters that allowed guns and specifically targeted the theater with a gun ban.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:24:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 9:58:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 6:34:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.

That school in Oregon isn't a gun-free zone. They allow students to carry on campus. There was actually someone there with a gun on him, but he (rightly) didn't get involved.

Umpqua Community College itself wasn"t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses"the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as "authorized by law," but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," Parker told MSNBC. "We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves."


http://www.politico.com...


"School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as 'authorized by law'"

http://www.politico.com...


The mere perception that a place is gun-free is enough to make it a target. James Holmes the Colorado shooter passed up six nearby movie theaters that allowed guns and specifically targeted the theater with a gun ban.

Did Holmes say that himself? I've only seen speculation by rabid partisans that he may have chosen the theater for that reason.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:31:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pointing to Chicago as an example of why gun control fails is like complaining that you got lots of STD's from sleeping with 100 hookers when you only wore a condom three of those times.
Tsar of DDO
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:42:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:02:49 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 6:34:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:53:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 4:28:46 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't know... It works. What is your exact issue with it?

It works so well that the Oregon shooter passed the background checks. It works so well that the gun-free zone didn't stop him.

Hey, how's gun control working in Chicago?

Can you name a gun control measure that would have actually stopped the shooter?

You support the fact that all of his victims were disarmed sitting ducks. You support victims being defenseless.

That school in Oregon isn't a gun-free zone. They allow students to carry on campus. There was actually someone there with a gun on him, but he (rightly) didn't get involved.

Umpqua Community College itself wasn"t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses"the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as "authorized by law," but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," Parker told MSNBC. "We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves."


http://www.politico.com...

Damn.... this articles really kills pro gunners....

Eh, the article is kind of right and kind of wrong.

There' right in the fact that someone does have to be there, with a CCW in order to stop it, but they're wrong when they assume that they don't stop them at all, and they're totally wrong on the estimated number of defensive gun uses per year. The CDC puts it at least 100-200k per year. They're also wrong with the Pearl high school shooting. He wasn't "leaving" as though he were finished, he was changing locations. He still intended to keep killing people.

I was actually there for this one :
http://www.theblaze.com...