• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is what the right doesn't get about gun control

Craig234

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
47,074
Reaction score
22,923
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
 
Dumb.
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
Click to expand...

What right wingers are we talking about here? Extreme? Moderate (like me)? Because that's one hell of a generalization.
 
A couple of observations.

'Law abiding citizen' is by now a well-worn phrase. For those who are pro-gun, it is defined as a gun owner who hasn't yet shot anyone. [Ed.: Yes, Gentle Reader, there are gun owners, law abiding citizens, who will shoot and kill someone. It happens many times each day.]

There are three components required for a shooting which results in death or injury to take place. A gun, ammunition and a shooter. If any single one of the three is eliminated, no one will be shot. Of the three, I prefer not to eliminate the shooter.

'The answer to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.' There's another answer. There's no need for a good person with a gun if the bad person doesn't have a gun.
 
Torus34 said:
A couple of observations.

'Law abiding citizen' is by now a well-worn phrase. For those who are pro-gun, it is defined as a gun owner who hasn't yet shot anyone. [Ed.: Yes, Gentle Reader, there are gun owners, law abiding citizens, who will shoot and kill someone. It happens many times each day.]

There are three components required for a shooting which results in death or injury to take place. A gun, ammunition and a shooter. If any single one of the three is eliminated, no one will be shot. Of the three, I prefer not to eliminate the shooter.

'The answer to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.' There's another answer. There's no need for a good person with a gun if the bad person doesn't have a gun.
Click to expand...

And that helps the 90lb unarmed good person against the 200 lb unarmed bad person...how?
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
Click to expand...

Everyone is a 'good guy with a gun' until the day they aren't. I wish I understood America's obsession with the things. Good argument:thumbs:
 
Bum said:
And that helps the 90lb unarmed good person against the 200 lb unarmed bad person...how?
Click to expand...

Come, come, Dear Sir. I don't believe I specifically ruled out, say, pepper spray, did I? Nor the ability to escape. Nor ... .

Regards.
 
Citation of all these former law abiding gun owners who become criminals, annually?
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! If I recall, we were discussing a situation in which neither person was armed with a gun. If I'm not mistaken, the example you provide does not fall within those limits.

I wish you well. Regards.
Click to expand...

Ah...you want to play the obtuse game; fair enough.

We can let this slide and ignore the fact that the pepper spray was ineffective.
 
Bum said:
Ah...you want to play the obtuse game; fair enough.

We can let this slide and ignore the fact that the pepper spray was ineffective.
Click to expand...

Hi! Last post for me on this thread. I'm content to let any readers of the thread come to their own conclusions, if any.

Regards.
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
Click to expand...

Leftists are infamous for their irrational fears and appeals to emotion. The first reaction insane leftists have whenever something happens they don't like is to violate the rights of everyone else who wasn't involved. When some idiot shoots someone these mentally diseased leftists seek to violate the rights of everyone else who owns a firearm, while considering the shooter the "real victim of society." Leftists do everything completely backwards. Which is why they praise criminals and condemn the law-abiding.

As long as the violent and mentally deranged leftists remain in the US I can think of no better reason than to be armed. These anti-American leftist idiots are the true threat, not firearms.
 
Bum said:
Well....why didnt you say so?

You can include harsh language and peeing your pants as well.

You keep your pepper spray....I'll go with what works for me.


Officer Shot After Pepper Spray Fails to Subdue Suspect – Active Self Protection
Click to expand...

I love how all the lower-48ers who visit Alaska swear by pepper-spray or bear-spray as opposed to having a firearm. Then they quickly find out that their spray only works if the bear is not aggressive. I get a huge belly laugh every year as these pepper-spray tourists are shipped back to the lower-48 after being mauled by a bear.

These idiots are walking through the Alaskan bush carrying a condiment as defense against a 1,000+ pound brown bear. It is truly surprising that more Darwin Awards are not issued to these morons.
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.
Click to expand...

No it’s not. So what’s the point of this thread? You start off with a false claim about a false generalization (I’m strongly against most proposed gun control and bans but I’m certainly not a right-winger).

You’re clearly not trying to persuade anyone to change his/her mind or have a rational discussion. What were you hoping to accomplish?
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for a lib to respond to How will you collect all the millions of AR-15's/Ak-47's that are out there?

How will you take them from people who want them?
 
Glitch said:
Leftists are infamous for their irrational fears and appeals to emotion. The first reaction insane leftists have whenever something happens they don't like is to violate the rights of everyone else who wasn't involved. When some idiot shoots someone these mentally diseased leftists seek to violate the rights of everyone else who owns a firearm, while considering the shooter the "real victim of society." Leftists do everything completely backwards. Which is why they praise criminals and condemn the law-abiding.

As long as the violent and mentally deranged leftists remain in the US I can think of no better reason than to be armed. These anti-American leftist idiots are the true threat, not firearms.
Click to expand...

And the first thing mentally deranged righties do after each predictable shooting is to rush out and stock up on more guns. You call that idiocy rational behaviour?
 
Craig234 said:
Here is the entire issue of guns for right-wingers, largely:

"A bad guy wants to shoot you. Would you rather have a gun and shoot him, or be unarmed?"

That's the whole topic.

There's a recent incident: youth football, parents arguing, a son of one of the parents gets a handgun and shoots a woman and girl.

Yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people; but there's a difference between "idiots with guns" and "idiots without guns". The incident of "parents argued at a youth football game and no one got shot" isn't the same story.

Right-wingers are infamous for lacking empathy, understanding, concern about others, especially outside 'people like them' they relate to. So to them, "idiots with guns" who shoot people is of no concern to them; they say, they're not an idiot, so it doesn't exist. Their only reaction would be to want a gun all the more, to shoot the idiot if he tries to shoot them. It's an argument for MORE guns.

All the 'extra' shootings - the road rage, and so on - they just think, well, they wouldn't do that, so they don't matter. They don't count. And if they matter, it's only as more reason to want a gun.

There are a lot of arguments on guns pro and con. But this is a basic problem for right-wingers, whose math just doesn't count any shooting except "good guy shoots bad guy." Guns are for shooting the bad guy who is after them, and that's the whole issue. All the parents having guns would be a solution, not a problem. By the way, you'll never guess what state it happened in.

Fort Worth, Texas shooting: 2 people injured when gunfire broke at youth football game - CNN
Click to expand...

It's not just about guns, that's only one issue. The right under trump has become downright cruel on many issues and let's not forget all the environmental rollbacks to help the major polluters pollute. I'm sure that's for the benefit of the country. After all who doesn't want dirty air and water?
 
pinqy said:
Mass killings. Why are you restricting the claim to mass shootings?
Click to expand...

What does it matter? Dead is dead, and the gun is the most commonly used and most efficient deadly weapon. America is suffering an epidemic and all I hear is whining; 'but the Constitution...'
 
snakestretcher said:
And the first thing mentally deranged righties do after each predictable shooting is to rush out and stock up on more guns. You call that idiocy rational behaviour?
Click to expand...

Yes. It’s completely rational. Except it’s not the shooting that triggers the buying, but the calls for confiscation and banning.

There is a rifle I’d like to buy in the future that could be classified as an assault weapon. If I thought an assault weapons ban was going to pass soon, I would buy the gun sooner. I may or may not want an AR-15 platform eventually. No current plans, but I might go that way. But, again, an assault weapons ban would have me buy one before the choice was taken away from me.

So if it is believed that a good is going to become scarce, short term demand will increase. That’s perfectly rational.
 
bongsaway said:
It's not just about guns, that's only one issue. The right under trump has become downright cruel on many issues and let's not forget all the environmental rollbacks to help the major polluters pollute. I'm sure that's for the benefit of the country. After all who doesn't want dirty air and water?
Click to expand...

In 1952, the year of my birth, London suffered a smog which killed an estimated 12,000 people. And that may be an underestimate. Can't wait to go back to those unregulated days of poisoned air if we repealed the Clean Air Act. I still remember how my mother's clothes smelt in winter, after walking home through smog-shrouded streets. Seems to me that certain cohorts of 'deregulate everything' America feel the same.
 
pinqy said:
Yes. It’s completely rational. Except it’s not the shooting that triggers the buying, but the calls for confiscation and banning.

There is a rifle I’d like to buy in the future that could be classified as an assault weapon. If I thought an assault weapons ban was going to pass soon, I would buy the gun sooner. I may or may not want an AR-15 platform eventually. No current plans, but I might go that way. But, again, an assault weapons ban would have me buy one before the choice was taken away from me.

So if it is believed that a good is going to become scarce, short term demand will increase. That’s perfectly rational.
Click to expand...

Right, so how many guns can you shoot at any one time? One or a dozen?
 
snakestretcher said:
What does it matter? Dead is dead, and the gun is the most commonly used and most efficient deadly weapon. America is suffering an epidemic and all I hear is whining; 'but the Constitution...'
Click to expand...


It obviously matters or you wouldn’t have specified. Is it possible the claim of legal purchase fails if not limited to mass killings?
You do realize that firearm homicides are a lot lower than in the 1990’s, right? So how is it an epidemic now?

And your disregard for the Constitution truly frightens me, because that disregard must also apply to free speech, free press, due process, search and seizure, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom