Google maps shows location of San Bruno shooting

Post by rocqua » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 7:35 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #127

rocqua wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed, a wrong idea. Nevertheless, it is an idea that needs to be addressed, not swept-aside. The same goes with all the other arguments I mentioned. If we just ignore these and say "There is no possible reason for owning guns" we are essentially arguing in bad faith. Generally, convincing people isn't helped by immediately dismissing their entire position as trivially wrong and deluded.

> Generally, convincing people isn't helped by immediately dismissing their entire position as trivially wrong and deluded. Who's doing that, though? Seems like a very small minority of people say "there is no possible reason for owning guns" and then refuses to elaborate when presented with possible reasons.

Post by mercer » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 7:48 AM UTC

asdsa5325 wrote: post #111

tomlock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is 12th in the world in per-capita gun deaths by country. Should we be satisfied with 12th?

We are 31st when you don't include suicide or accidents FYI.

Post by aaaaaaaaaaa12 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:03 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #98

matte_black wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as s…

The pro gun crowd is as irrational, if not more, than the anti gun crowd. Ever since the NRA in the late 1970s shifted its focus away from responsible gun use to guns as a means to fight against internal tyranny, the “Personal responsibility” aspect has fallen by the wayside. Any laws attempting to enforce personal responsibility (insurance, storage) as in other gun using countries (Germany, Switzerland) are promptly…

Post by lolsal » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

matt_the_bass wrote: post #118

lolsal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel alte…

One question that perhaps we should be asking is Should the right to bear arms include assault rifles or only lower power guns similar to what we’re available at the time of its writing? There seems to be general public agreement that the right to bear arms does not include RPGs or stinger missles, etc. Yet those are certainly arms. Why are assault riffles in the same category as shot guns?

Post by matt_the_bass » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

lolsal wrote: post #157

matt_the_bass wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One question that perhaps we should be asking is Should the right to bear arms include assault rifles or only lower power guns similar to what we’re available at the time of its writing? There seems to be general public agreement that the right to bear arms does not include RPGs or stinger missles, etc. Yet those are certainly arms. Why are assault riffles in the same category as shot guns?

I struggled for a long time with where I would draw the line here - I don't think it's reasonable for civilians to own nukes or other crazy weapons of warfare. I saw a suggestion that sat really well with me - civilians should be able to be just as armed as the police force. This does not mean I favor de-arming citizens or the police force.