jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (18 posts)

The gun did something good!

  1. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    The story:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit … obbers-nbc

    How did that gun get the moral fortitude to do something good?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You know I support gun rights and oppose anti gun legislation but what do you think this proves? I don't believe anyone is under the illusion that such events do not occur. What the other side believes is that the overall effect of guns is more negative than positive, one incident isn't going to have any weight on that debate.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because it is portrayed almost as if the gun is the problem, in fact many claim that it is.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, idiots will be idiots....meaning that it only takes an idiot to blame an inanimate object for something someone else does.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is this the "it's the person not the gun" argument because that is simply not true, both play a part, have you ever seen what a full clip from a full auto can do? The weapon plays a significant part in those crimes just as it plays a significant positive role in the example you give

          As I understand it most pro gun legislation people support the ban of handguns and fully automatic weapons, handguns are short and inaccurate in inexperienced hands innocents are often hit by accident. Full Autos are hard to control and the ricochets are terrifying, just ask the people of places like Compton that took to sleeping in their bathtubs to avoid being hit by stray rounds, the sort of guns people are trying to ban are the sort that can significantly contribute to tragedy.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The gun does not pull it's own trigger. Not even an automatic. I am familiar with automatic weapons fire.

          2. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of all the fire arms one can own handguns may be the most important of all.  Lethality and Concealablility.   And yes I am talking about the gun as a tool for killing people because history demonstrates - time and again - the necessity of doing so.

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Kinda hard to hit a dove or quail with, though. lol

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              i completely agree and carry myself but their short barrels and small body grip make them very inaccurate especially in panic situations with civilians who probably have not faced them before, in those situations the handgun becomes dangerous to a wide range of people in the vicinity.

          3. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is a fine example of someone who has no real clue about firearms, firearm laws, firearm shooters, and anything to do with the subject and yet still feels compelled to comment on the subject anyway.

            Approximately 200,000,000 handguns in the country. Because about 100,000, or one out of every 200 handgun owners do something bad with their guns, the poster feels that punishing the other 99.50 percent who do no one any harm by banning their guns is a reasonable approach. This is the best he can do.

            The poster simply doesn't know, understand, or realize that if EVERY handgun was to magically disappear today, by tomorrow morning there would be several million new handguns in the hands of rapists, muggers, home invaders, burglars, mass killers, terrorists, white-sheeted bigots, gay bashers, gangbangers and anti-Semites. He doesn't know how this is possible, but he's sure that banning handguns is going to solve all kinds of problems.

            He also doesn't understand the accuracy of a handgun. It's not the gun... it is the shooter who determines the accuracy. With the amount of handguns in American hands he should be able to point to millions of innocents who are killed each year by law abiding citizens who are missing their targets. But he can't. He can't point to hundreds of thousands. Or thousands. Or even hundreds. All he can do is point to bad guys who don't follow the law anyway, and attempt to make the argument that the actions of lawless people is the determining factor on how much freedom law abiding citizens have.

            And he doesn't have a clue as to what fully automatic weapons are yet he wants them "banned". These have been highly regulated by the federal government since 1934, and to own one legally one has to jump through multiple hoops and be extremely squeaking clean. Since each one is registered with the federal government they are able to track them quite well -- and in the past almost 80 years there have been TWO of them used in crimes. I seriously doubt that any fully automatic weapons were being shot in Compton. More info about this subject can be found on one of my hubs.

            Those who are firearm enthusiasts also love the 1st Amendment. The freedom to communicate allows us to easily spot those to whom little attention should be paid.

  2. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    And at the age of 71 too. lol

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Next I will get griped at by someone for using Newsbusters as a source.

      Just hide and watch...........

      1. 0
        rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Newsbusters?
        I only read The New Yorker

        1. 0
          rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Cagsil, I didn't know i could do that.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Ricky, you should be able to edit your previous post, fix the italics. It's the bracket at the beginning which is wrong.

          2. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're welcome. smile

        2. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          For the cartoons?

          1. 0
            rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            For international affairs and science.
            They're generally obamazombies in domestic politics.

 
working