Precisely my point. People pro gun or against are going to have security against crazy people who want to kill them. This has nothing to do with their own personal view on guns.
If only Spike could see as clearly as you or I.
DeSantis for the win
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
Precisely my point. People pro gun or against are going to have security against crazy people who want to kill them. This has nothing to do with their own personal view on guns.
If only Spike could see as clearly as you or I.
It's interesting that they don't pass out guns to everyone in attendance, instead of such strict gun control.
Why would they do that again? Anyone well versed in firearms knows that not everyone is well versed in firearms.
It seems to be okay for the general public. Someone with a gun will be a good guy, so the more guns out there the better, statistically speaking, right?
I think it's fair to say that at a DeSantis rally, if everyone (analogous to the general public) were armed, there would be, say, 99,999 good guys with guns to just one bad guy with a gun.
Last edited:
One would think DeSantis would love the idea that 99.999% of his cult in attendance would be his good guys and also , that he has that unique option of standing his ground available to him.
Imagine if DeSantis picked out some poor shithead and 'stood his ground' in front of thousands of his fans........he'd instantly be larger than God.
I get that you're trolling here, but let me break it down very simply for you - because you've had this issue before when you and I went back and forth on gun laws. You seem to want to get into it again, so sure. Why not.
The whole argument of "good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun" is the solution in a world where gun control doesn't work - and here's the punch line - because there are already 100's of millions of guns in the wild. That's it. So the best solution is that an armed populace is a safe(r) populace.
Obviously, and no rational person would argue against this, a population with absolutely ZERO guns would be the safest way for things. And no, I'm not one of those "gotta have guns to protect you against the government" guys. The problem remains - and you gun control folks have never been able to solve this - that you can't get the illegal firearms off the street. You've got ZERO ways to do this. Zilch. Nada. So instead you want to go after the firearms I'm going to use to protect myself from the bad guys, like that's a solution I can live with.
The reason gun control works in places like airports or political conventions is because you can clear the area of firearms, and control access to firearms completely and unerringly to the event/location. So it works. Again, and I've already said this to you, if you could somehow magically ask everyone to step outside the US for a moment, and then remove all the firearms in the US, and then control everyone coming back in, you could create this safe environment.
But you can't.
So that's why politicians choose no gun events - because they can, and its the safest. But you can't do that with schools (or rather, you can if you treat them like airports) or the mall, or the movie theatre, or the grocery store, or night clubs, or fast food joints, etc.
If it still isn't clear, I'm not sure I can help.
How do you fit all that stupid in one head, Spike?
One thing that has come up before in our conversations on various topics is the idea of perfection vs. progress. What I mean is, you argue as if we would need perfect gun control, i.e. zero guns around, and since we can't then overall gun control is useless. But perfection is not required for progress--some have said it's the enemy of progress.
Australia made certain types of guns illegal, and gave citizens an amnesty (best word?) period to turn them in. Now, while there are certainly some illegal weapons remaining in Australia, their mass shooting problem is vastly improved. 1) there's simply not as many of those highly effective (for mass shooting) weapons around, and 2) when people are caught with them they are prosecuted (an incentive for compliance during the amnesty period) and the gun is removed from society--so the situation continues to improve gradually.
Now, I realize that no argument is going to have any effect on those persons who simply like their guns, and I know a few. I'm also a person who likes guns, but I would (and do) choose to comply with the law first.
I would absolutely agree that perfection is not required for progress. I'd even agree that in some cases, it is the enemy of progress. But in this particular example, you're asking me to accept some degree of decreased safety (increased risk) for me and my family - the one thing I will not compromise with you on - if I would just hold hands and make the world a better place for everyone. Sorry. You can get me to compromise on just about everything else in creation, but not my family's safety or well being. And by suggesting I give up my firearms to make the world a better place, while the bad guys still have theirs, is asking me to compromise that. Nuh uh. Nope.
Australia had no where near the vast number of firearms the US does, nor the types, nor the crime in urban areas where those guns perpetuate violence. And they still had shootings afterwards, and home invasions, and the like.
As for people who love guns, I love guns. I love my guns. But I have said several times (and can link to my posts saying so) that I would far prefer my child grow up in a world without guns. But that's unfortunately not going to happen.