Does the Pulse Massacre make a good case for stronger gun control?
Posted by: RonaldTrumpkinWould stronger gun control have prevented this massacre from happening? Or would it have not made a difference? Please specify your decision in the comments.
Vote
28 Total Votes
Criminals won't be able to get guns as easily if they are not in such abundance, Nicole. Also, Argentino,if there was a ban on assault type weapons the likelihood of him killing 49 people would have been greatly reduced. Are you two deliberately dumb?
@maslow How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you're calling them dumb, for one. Secondly, guns will still be in abundance among criminals if they're banned, just like alcohol was during the prohibition era. Third, if others were armed in the nightclub, that never would've happened. Gun-free zones cause problems, not guns.
@NewLifeChristian: It seems those of your ilk think not calling him a "radical Islamic terrorist" is a big deal so you saying something inane shouldn't hurt your Christian sensibilities. Rationalizing that guns will still be in abundance is a defeatist attitude that the so-called criminals love. You are pandering to the criminal element. Real smart. Also, if the victims had been armed it would have been a f*@#king bloodbath, insipid little thinker. Now what is curious to me, Newliferadical Christian terrorist who promotes gun ownership and violence against his fellow Americans just where does your radical violent ideas reflect Christianity any more that a radicalized Islamic reflects a Muslims?
@maslow Really? You actually think I'm a terrorist for supporting the Second Amendment? Do you realize that I've never advocated for violence in my entire life? Seriously, get a life and stop trolling. This website already has too many of your type.
We could get rid of our gun rights ....Or deport all non-white citizens
NewLifeChristian you just advocated violence by saying the other people in pulse should have been carrying guns and there should have been a shoot out. That is promoting violence you moron.
Maslow hasn't demonstrated why promoting violence under the context of self-defense is necessarily a bad thing, merely assumed that it was self-evident based upon maslows worldview. Maslow doesn't take into consideration the fact that there may have been (and most likely were) gays in that club who would have loved to have had a gun (of ANY kind) so that they could defend themselves there in that moment and not THREE HOURS LATER. But maslow asserts that "you can't have a gun, you aren't capable of using one, in fact you'll most likely kill innocent people by accident so you should be slaughtered at the discretion of a religious psychopath until the police get there because, I know what's best for you". Narcissism at it's finest.
EZmint: A long time ago, I suggested a new logical fallacy, a reverse, if you will, on the argumentum ad populum fallacy, in which ideas are rejected solely because they are unpopular. I’ve seen many people arguing this recently and I thought I ought to expand and expound on my ideas. Therefore, I present the “stupid people are stupid” fallacy for your approval.
Ultimately, the heart of this fallacy, and it applies specifically to human behavior, is that the individual will reject any idea as inherently unworkable in any social situation because “stupid people are stupid”, or, that people make foolish decisions and therefore, holding anyone accountable to any standard which they might not choose themselves, is useless.
"A long time ago, I suggested a new logical fallacy" The only thing you should be suggesting is a large fry or small fry to go with that order.
EZminT: oh ouch , call the burn unit! Pathetic come back.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 