SpokenTruth said:
To face palm or not to face palm? You just missed the whole point just as KLAMarine did. |
I got the point, but I don't think you got where I took it. Yes, you could just ban all guns based on your original statement, that's one way to look at it. The problem is why weapons were made in the first place, and who made them. To remove guns you're just asking for other weapons to be used, or for new even more efficient weapons to be made in there place, unless you create a perfectly equal society this time around, which you won't be able to do. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, not just the statement in a bubble.
vivster said:
Sometimes a solution can be worse than the problem. I mean what kind of things have guns in civilian hands actually fixed? You can actually draw a really great parallel here to the middle east. Remember when shipping lots and lots of guns to a fragile region did not solve anything and instead fucked up everything for everyone forever? Same can be seen in the US. Notice how the effort currently is to de-arm everyone to fix the problem that was introduced by guns? The US hilariously gets really furious when it doesn't manage to de-arm other countries. But yeah, self reflection and noticing big fat irony is not a strong suit of the men in power. |
So you're saying the weak should pay reparations to everyone who's died from a man made weapon? Are the weak to blame for all this, since it's they who created weapons in the first place so they had a more equal chance, if not advantage, to defend themselves?
The problem I think a lot of the gun haters don't understand is that many would give up their guns if there was a reasonable plan that would guarantee their safety as well as the safety of others. No plan comes close to accomplishing that though, and simply saying less people will die isn't good enough when it comes to each individual person and their own safety. If less people die, but one of those who dies is a past gun owner, who now was defenseless against the weapon used against them, then why give up their gun in the first place?
Paperboy_J said:
If you're weak, get strong. Isn't that what conservatives like to tout anyways? |
The minority of boneheads maybe, but in general conservatives do think you should do what you can to strengthen yourself in many ways. Obviously some can't physically or mentally reach the same level of strength though, which is why things like weapons got created. No system that the people will agree to live in will fix that problem either. Taking away guns at best will just be a temporary fix.
SpokenTruth said:
So you get the point and then talk about things that are not the point. Why? It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns. It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric. You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point). I retorted that your logic equally meant we could ban guns (also, not the point). I never said we should ban them. It was a continuation of your own logic based on the nullification. Banning them or arming everyone has nothing to do with the point. Oh, and your plastic bag / insurance fraud analogy? That's a non-sequitur. |
Well what was the point in saying "If guns don't kill people, people do.....then guns don't protect people, people do."? Especially since you directed it at the NRA since they are using that as a scapegoat to allow guns in your eyes. It would only make sense if you thought having guns was a bad thing. Considering it's people protecting people, why would you need guns?
If it has nothing to do with people having guns or banning guns, then it really doesn't make any sense. You're not nullifying anything if you're not proving they're wrong, and the only way to do that is to prove things would be better without guns, since their point is that bad people who use guns kill people, not good people with guns. The slogan is just a shorter, more to the point version of that.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 23 August 2019
