Pretty strange to see support for gun control decease since VT.

Could just be the other side gaining support due to misinformed fears of a total gun ban. 

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 04, 2015, 10:04:28 PM

The more time I spend on this forum the more I'm into gun control. Flee is just too convincing and impossible to refute.

Sorry fam but nobody has the right to determine what private property another person can own so long as they are not actively interfering with another person.

The consequences of gun ownership in the United States have given appreciable enough reason to argue that having one doesn't really do anything productive and, at its worst, is responsible for mass killings of innocent people. I vehemently disagree with the idea that I'm depriving any person of their "Rights" by preventing them from attaining something created for the purpose of killing. You don't need a gun.

I'd also hardly say we have a *unique* problem with gun violence.

A pretty decent number of countries have a much bigger problem with gun violence than we do.

It's just that most of those countries have already put forward arms control laws that don't fucking work.

Or they're war zones.

[citations needed]

Cases such as Mexico obviously have bigger problems than simply the wrong people owning guns, so that comparison doesn't really work.

In every Western country comparable to the US, gun control has been overwhelmingly successful. Doesn't take an idiot to figure that banning the cause of the problem will prevent said problem.

Switzerland is a unique case at least partly because 'well-regulated militia' is a requirement, as opposed to a friendly, optional suggestion. And it's not some anti-government, black helicopter paranoia about averting a New World Order, but really is about defending one's country.

Quote

I vehemently disagree with the idea that I'm depriving any person of their "Rights" by preventing them from attaining something created for the purpose of killing.

You're denying a person of their RIGHTS by preventing them from doing something that has no direct or inherent impact on you or anybody else. It's essentially the same thing as a smoking or liquor ban.

>comparing smoking and drinking to owning a weapon

not even relevant

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 04, 2015, 10:24:25 PM

you can still have the right to personal ownership of a firearm without it being as easy to buy as toothpaste

But private business owners have no right to discriminate!

They should have to do business with any customer no matter how sketchy they look!

#intervene #Bernie #equality #fuckyourfreemarket

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You didn't even attempt to address his (valid) point.

Like Stephen Colbert said

"The definition of insanity is not changing anything, and expecting anything to change."

i wish i watched a single episode of his show

Quote from: I_IRONMAN_I on October 05, 2015, 12:16:35 AM

You know what's funny? You'll ban guns, and still get those nasty shootings. And what isn't a shooting turns into stabbings and possibly sword violence. What you gonna do then? Ban blades?

Spoiler

Because people can't just create their own blades/shivs and go on a killing spree.

Worst part is that if it happens, how're people gonna defend themselves? Hide and hope the killer doesn't find them? That's one horrifying game of hide n seek.

To be completely honest, I'd be glad to see a world with no weapons.

But if there must be weapons, I'd prefer they be guns.

Guns are a much less brutal weapon than those men have used historically.

It'd be nice. But the world is a huge prick and humanity has many savages, insane people, and the like.

A weaponless world would never suffice, for someone could simply pick up a rock and commit an act of violence.

Sorry fam but nobody has the right to determine what private property another person can own so long as they are not actively interfering with another person.

brb renting a cement truck and buying 2 tons of fertilizer