The thread about guns and stuff like that!

[LadyValerie]

Originally Posted by vihris-gari

Why exactly are you holding anti-gun people solely at fault for that? Doesn't that just deflate the argument for both sides equally?

What? Why would someone in favor of guns... dismiss... an argument in favor of guns...

[vihris-gari]

Originally Posted by Rob "Klister"

im making this argument because you said "Whether they make guns or not would depend entirely on how much political pressure there is on them. You seem to be assuming a very low level of pressure on them, and that's not really fair to the argument." the reason why there is low pressure is because of the money the politicians are getting. pretty straight forward.

i never said we should make it easier for everyone to get guns. i'm not sure where you're getting this.

Well, it sounded like you were using this to argue against gun policy reform. I don't know why you would be making such a big deal out of how "big and bad" the gun companies are otherwise.

But if you're not actually using that argument to justify the status quo in U.S. gun policy, then what are we even arguing about? I don't really know what you're trying to argue as far as whether gun policy should be tighter or not. I'm just trying to argue that it should be tighter.

[vihris-gari]

Originally Posted by LadyValerie

What? Why would someone in favor of guns... dismiss... an argument in favor of guns...

Well, sorry if I'm having trouble following you right now, but I don't see how that was an argument in favor of guns. Just because guns aren't the sole method of homicide doesn't mean we should make them more readily available. That's kind of like saying, "Well, drunk driving isn't the main reason people die in car accidents, so we should be more lenient on drunk driving."

[Rob "Klister"]

Originally Posted by vihris-gari

Well, it sounded like you were using this to argue against gun policy reform. I don't know why you would be making such a big deal out of how "big and bad" the gun companies are otherwise.

But if you're not actually using that argument to justify the status quo in U.S. gun policy, then what are we even arguing about? I don't really know what you're trying to argue as far as whether gun policy should be tighter or not. I'm just trying to argue that it should be tighter.

i was using the argument against the ban handguns idea and how it will never happen is all.

as far as making guns easier to obtain, i'm against. the back round checks and 3 day waiting period were good ideas, though almost unaffective.

[vihris-gari]

Originally Posted by Rob "Klister"

i was using the argument against the ban handguns idea and how it will never happen is all.

Just because a reform is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Unless you actually think it's better for handguns to be legal than illegal, why would you dismiss the idea of banning handguns just because a bunch of greedy companies would oppose it? That seems pretty absurd.

[LadyValerie]

Originally Posted by vihris-gari

Well, sorry if I'm having trouble following you right now, but I don't see how that was an argument in favor of guns. Just because guns aren't the sole method of homicide doesn't mean we should make them more readily available. That's kind of like saying, "Well, drunk driving isn't the main reason people die in car accidents, so we should be more lenient on drunk driving."

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

[Rob "Klister"]

Originally Posted by vihris-gari

Just because a reform is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Unless you actually think it's better for handguns to be legal than illegal, why would you dismiss the idea of banning handguns just because a bunch of greedy companies would oppose it? That seems pretty absurd.

you can attempt all you want, it wont happen. money rules the world, in case you haven't noticed, and the gun mans have a shitload of it. its absurd to think gun mans aren't buying votes to thwart your little attempts.

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Cigarettes are taxed extremely highly and they make a large amount of income though. Not everything that makes a lot of money is unregulated in an economic sense.

[vihris-gari]

Originally Posted by LadyValerie

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

I think the idea is that it's much more useful to single out guns than other things which are impractical to even restrict at all (i.e. knives, baseball bats, razor blades). Anyone can obtain a sharp or blunt object to attack someone with. But a projectile weapon is much more convenient, and also much easier to control since they aren't an integral part of our daily lives.

Of course, you may be referring to things like tasers, mace, brass knuckles, etc. I'm not really sure. You'd have to be more specific.

[Rob "Klister"]

Originally Posted by LadyValerie

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

how would you make it harder to obtain, say knives? they're everywhere. theres no way to regulate flow of any kind.

even if you couldn't buy one, you could make one. all you need is a piece of metal and a sharpening stone.

edit:ninja'd by vg