Annihilator (Gun Control Thread- NOT SHOOTINGS)

[FNH]

Alcohol is not guns. Alcohol can't be bought by an 18 year old and then used to kill 17 people in a school. You can compare them all you want, but one is demonstratebly more dangerous then the other. Maybe in the future when the culture has changed and we can allow the ownership of weapons without them being used in dozens of shootings a month then sure, we can relax restrictions. But now? They're literally easier to get then alcohol, and whose only purpose is to kill a living thing. Beer isn't designed to do that, ARs are.

Pretty sure I heard that NRA lady keep repeating self defense, like it couldn't be accomplished without assault rifles.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I’m not saying alcohol is exactly like a gun, but your motivation for banning guns is to save lives then you are a hypocrite if you don’t care about everything that can save lives and you are just going after low hanging fruit to say you have a cause to support. Alcohol is far and away easier to get. It’s sold in some form at just about every gas station, grocery store, etc. You only have to show an id for it and sometimes if you just look old enough they’ll sell you the poison. It’s only purpose is for recreational intoxication and in the wrong hands gets people killed, to the tune of 88k people a year including 28 daily by dui. Compare to 15,000 death by guns according to gunviolencearchive.org. According to the Washington post 1,077 have been killed by mass shootings since 1960.

[FNH]

As a society we deem the benefits of things like cars and alcohol to be worth the imperfections, including imperfect application. Guns are designed to injure and kill. Now there are a few situations in which that is a legitimate end (hunting, self-defense, etc.) but the fact is that injury IS the literal end goal. That is what makes guns different from a regulatory perspective. You can regulate other things in a variety of ways to mitigate their potential for harm, but with the guns the only solution is to restrict access.

So while other things get people killed when misused, or can be misused intentionally to kill people, nothing has such a disproportionately high effect on the deadliness of violent outbursts as guns -- readily available weapons designed to do lethal damage.

Like I said before I do not mind smart regulations, but the lazy “nobody should have them” is where I don’t see eye to eye on the issue. Make them a bit harder to get, raise the age, make me wait, make me fill out some forms and submit fingerprints etc. but let’s find a middle ground. I can purchase full auto, suppressors, sbs sbr, etc. but no one has an issue with those because they are harder to get. Hell i can buy a tank for 70k.

[Salodin]

Your understanding for why I want to ban -specific- guns, not all guns, is wrong. I'm not interested in preventing all gun deaths, because so long as they're available someone can die by them. What I want to do is curb gun deaths with regulation. If banning assault weapons lowers the rate of mass shootings by 10% (making up this number) then that's worth it imo. I don't think your right to own certain firearms is worth more then the lives lost because of the ease of access to those firearms.

Alcohol is the same way, and so are recreational drugs. Your conclusion about my hypocrisy is misguided because you think it's all or nothing, when it's not. My interest is in lowering the number of shootings nationwide, and if possible also reduce the number of people killed in each shooting. Banning assault weapons, or at the least their accessories can accomplish that. Banning certain modifications can accomplish that. Setting limitations to magazine sizes can accomplish that.

We can accomplish that and still leave recreational gun usage alone. Hunters don't need crazy tactical mods, don't need assault rifles, don't need 40+ bullet a mag. All legitimate uses for firearms would be left untouched with any of the above restrictions yet it's still fought tooth and nail, why? The best answer you can give is muh freedoms, when we have no problem restricting freedoms in a myriad of other issues around the country and globe. Guns should not be an exemption to this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

To your credit you agree with restricting the purchase of these weapons. That's great. It's also useless when loopholes exist to get around them, loopholes that we tried to close but we're blocked because of muh freedoms.

And therein lies the problem. We can't find a solution without going all in, but if this session of Congress can find a way then sure, I'll support that. Fat chance though, we couldn't even get bump stocks banned and everyone forgot about that until this happened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

She is so hot. Good role model for feminists too

she shits herself regularly though

Spoiler: show

like actual poop in her, uh, "pannies"

Spoiler: show

https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/781156872

Spoiler: show

I'm receiving word that she also eats "crap juice"

Spoiler: show

https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/942551011

[Salodin]

Her sphincter is loose...i wonder why...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I’m not saying alcohol is exactly like a gun, but your motivation for banning guns is to save lives then you are a hypocrite if you don’t care about everything that can save lives and you are just going after low hanging fruit to say you have a cause to support. Alcohol is far and away easier to get. It’s sold in some form at just about every gas station, grocery store, etc. You only have to show an id for it and sometimes if you just look old enough they’ll sell you the poison. It’s only purpose is for recreational intoxication and in the wrong hands gets people killed, to the tune of 88k people a year including 28 daily by dui. Compare to 15,000 death by guns according to gunviolencearchive.org. According to the Washington post 1,077 have been killed by mass shootings since 1960.

What a shitty take.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Again, recreational gun usage would not be affected by the majority of regulation proposed since MSD, so why the ferver against it? The only thing affected is target practice with the gun you use in CoD, and that is not worth the risk and loss of life we've had with them being legal. Why the opposition?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Obligatory I've never had an accident while texting and driving, so why are states making it illegal to do so? You're stepping on MUH FREEDUMSSS

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Infini]

I know this might be a long shot question but is is possible to push to have the 2nd amendment either removed or at least modified to be more relevant to todays world?

It's obvious that the NRA has been a cancer for years but it does feel like this time enough is enough and there might be a serious backlash against the ignorant bullshit the repulicans/NRA have pushed for many years.

[Day]

What a shitty take.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

What a shitty take

[Day]

I know this might be a long shot question but is is possible to push to have the 2nd amendment either removed or at least modified to be more relevant to todays world?

It's obvious that the NRA has been a cancer for years but it does feel like this time enough is enough and there might be a serious backlash against the ignorant bullshit the repulicans/NRA have pushed for many years.

No

[Zealot]

What a shitty take

Choke on a dildo.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Day]

Choke on a dildo.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Lose an election

[Zealot]

No

Completely possible, issue is probability not possibility.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Lose an election

I typed a reaction to this, said "too far," and stopped there.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Day]

I typed a reaction to this, said "too far," and stopped there.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Cool

[Zealot]

Cool

You seem touchy today, not like you.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

I know this might be a long shot question but is is possible to push to have the 2nd amendment either removed or at least modified to be more relevant to todays world?

It's obvious that the NRA has been a cancer for years but it does feel like this time enough is enough and there might be a serious backlash against the ignorant bullshit the repulicans/NRA have pushed for many years.

According to John Paul Stevens, the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment wherein we assume that everyone is part of the a well-regulated militia, came out of nowhere and shouldn't be interpreted as an unfettered right to firearms.

The problem is that no one cares about actual jurisprudence. Court protecting rights you dislike (gay marriage, health care, etc.) = activist judges, Court protecting rights you love (guns, not having to make gay people cakes, electing Bush over Gore) = upholding the Constitution.

You can flip that for Dems too, but at least the liberal Justices don't pretend to hide behind "textualist" interpretation.

[Day]

You seem touchy today, not like you.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Same