Give up my guns?

[LS1Z28]

Back when I was young, you rarely heard of mass shootings. Back then it was even easier to get your hands on a gun. Mental illness was just as prevalent and was more likely to be undiagnosed and untreated. You have to ask yourself what happened over the past couple decades to ramp up the number of mass shootings?

To me the answer is clear. The world has shrunk through the explosion of the internet and social media. Within a few hours of these atrocities everyone knows the name, face, and the amount of fatalities caused by these psychopaths. The media makes these people famous nearly instantaneously.

The Virginia Tech shooting was the deadliest school shooting in the history of our country. It was done with 2 common handguns. The shooting this past week was done with a common shotgun and pistol. Even if all the scary looking "assault rifles" are banned, there will still be a very real need for armed security in schools to help minimize these tragedies.

We need adequate security in our schools. We need to find a way to suppress the shooter's identities without hurting the 1st amendment. We need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill without hurting the 2nd amendment. A lot of people need to come towards the middle and start having real conversations about how to make these things happen.

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh! I'm sorry I wasn't clear! My fault for not letting you know that an AR15 is a type of gun. So, yes, they are included in the word "gun", when I talk about it in my post up there..

I'm glad that's all you had to say against it. That implies that you saw how ilogic it is to judge "necessary to all" things that can and are used to kill(purposely or unpurposely, and in very large numbers), but are needed to you, while at the same time judging "unnecessary to all" things that can and are used to kill too, but aren't needed to you.

So you need an AR15. Why?

 

[NeoTrader]

So you need an AR15. Why?

So you didn't see how illogic it is and chose to continue being illogic.

It doesn't matter why I think I need one, my opinion is that I need one.

The same way I can question your need for cars and you can give me all the reasons in the world to try to justify that need, but I could simply argue until the end of times that you shouldn't have a car, no matter how much you think you need it, because "everyday lots of people(including many children) die in car crashes/accidents/murders/terrorist attacks/DUI and so on. So that would make your alledged need for a can irrelevant and no matter how this affects your life, you should give up that need and find some other way of transportation.

The point is: you don't have to justify your need to others. You should do whatever you think it is best for you, even if that means doing something that other person considers potentially dangerous and not worth the risk. Because nobody should be able to tell you what you need or not. So my eventual opinion about cars shouldn't affect your ability to get one.

That goes both ways. Because, as I said before, it is illogic to judge "necessary to all" things that can and are used to kill(purposely or unpurposely, and in very large numbers), but are needed to you, while at the same time judging "unnecessary to all" things that can and are used to kill too, but aren't needed to you. Unless you're a dictator, of course. Then what I just wrote in this last part makes complete sense.

 

[futurecurrents]

So you didn't see how illogic it is and chose to continue being illogic.

It doesn't matter why I think I need one, my opinion is that I need one.

The same way I can question your need for cars and you can give me all the reasons in the world to try to justify that need, but I could simply argue until the end of times that you shouldn't have a car, no matter how much you think you need it, because "everyday lots of people(including many children) die in car crashes/accidents/murders/terrorist attacks/DUI and so on. So that would make your alledged need for a can irrelevant and no matter how this affects your life, you should give up that need and find some other way of transportation.

The point is: you don't have to justify your need to others. You should do whatever you think it is best for you, even if that means doing something that other person considers potentially dangerous and not worth the risk. Because nobody should be able to tell you what you need or not. So my eventual opinion about cars shouldn't affect your ability to get one.

That goes both ways. Because, as I said before, it is illogic to judge "necessary to all" things that can and are used to kill(purposely or unpurposely, and in very large numbers), but are needed to you, while at the same time judging "unnecessary to all" things that can and are used to kill too, but aren't needed to you. Unless you're a dictator, of course. Then what I just wrote in this last part makes complete sense.

Well I want a bazooka and a rocket launcher. I just want them so I should be able to have them. According to you. Which is fucking insane.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Well I want a bazooka and a rocket launcher. I just want them so I should be able to have them. According to you. Which is fucking insane.

Damn it. You win. We will maintain the status quo. No bazookas or rocket launchers. Sigh. Sniffle.

 

[NeoTrader]

Well I want a bazooka and a rocket launcher. I just want them so I should be able to have them. According to you. Which is fucking insane.

It is not. However, if you misuse it, you should be held accountable by your actions accordingly. Just as in the case you fill a car or a truck with explosives, which has been done more than once and would have an even more catastrophic result if misused(whole buildings were brought down by vehicles filled with explosives). So if someone really wants to kill people with the firepower of a bazooka or a rocket launcher, he can do it with a bomb, a car filled with explosives and many other alternatives(which has been done again and again). Which brings us again to the point that "banning the purchase of rocket launchers and bazookas" will stop people who wouldn't try to kill others with the firepower of bazookas and rocket launchers(which I'm hoping is your case here) from getting them. Otherwise, if you are someone willing to do it, no law in this world will stop you from doing it, as reality has showed us again and again. (You can be sure that every incident of bombs and cars filled with explosives that destroyed whole buildings were not allowed by law when they happened).

Have you ever heard of incidents with such weapons? I'm guessing no... But someone from the military could have stole them, for example, who knows...) But this is not a problem and there is not a demand for law abiding citizens for rocket launchers and bazookas, so you're simply digressing here, since you can't prove your point with the guns that are demanded by this part of the population. (Even though this is a secondary issue, the main issue is what I wrote above.)

Plus, we have a lunatic down in North Korea with nuclear weapons and even he hasn't used them to kill people(and he is a murderer with the head that has a size o a baloon). But we don't have to go that far.

 

[futurecurrents]

It is not. However, if you misuse it, you should be held accountable by your actions accordingly. Just as in the case you fill a car or a truck with explosives, which has been done more than once and would have an even more catastrophic result if misused(whole buildings were brought down by vehicles filled with explosives). So if someone really wants to kill people with the firepower of a bazooka or a rocket launcher, he can do it with a bomb, a car filled with explosives and many other alternatives(which has been done again and again). Which brings us again to the point that "banning the purchase of rocket launchers and bazookas" will stop people who wouldn't try to kill others with the firepower of bazookas and rocket launchers(which I'm hoping is your case here) from getting them. Otherwise, if you are someone willing to do it, no law in this world will stop you from doing it, as reality has showed us again and again. (You can be sure that every incident of bombs and cars filled with explosives that destroyed whole buildings were not allowed by law when they happened).

Have you ever heard of incidents with such weapons? I'm guessing no... But someone from the military could have stole them, for example, who knows...) But this is not a problem and there is not a demand for law abiding citizens for rocket launchers and bazookas, so you're simply digressing here, since you can't prove your point with the guns that are demanded by this part of the population. (Even though this is a secondary issue, the main issue is what I wrote above.)

Plus, we have a lunatic down in North Korea with nuclear weapons and even he hasn't used them to kill people(and he is a murderer with the head that has a size o a baloon). But we don't have to go that far.

Yeah, ok, you are a total nutjob. Get help and stay in Brazil or your mom's basement or wherever..

 

[NeoTrader]

Yeah, ok, you are a total nutjob. Get help and stay in Brazil or your mom's basement or wherever..

How about discussing like an adult instead of running away because you can't argue?

I didn't try to offend you in anyway and answered all your posts politely, even though we have opposite opinions. If you are so civilized as you claim to be, since you claim to know what should or not be allowed in a given society, you should know how to argue like a civilized member of a society, especially with someone who disagrees with you, instead of simply calling the person a nutjob, stupid or any other offense, simply because you have no valid arguments to defend your positions anymore.

 

[futurecurrents]

How about discussing like an adult instead of running away because you can't argue?

I didn't try to offend you in anyway and answered all your posts politely, even though we have opposite opinions. If you are so civilized as you claim to be, since you claim to know what should or not be allowed in a given society, you should know how to argue like a civilized member of a society, especially with someone who disagrees with you, instead of simply calling the person a nutjob, stupid or any other offense, simply because you have no valid arguments to defend your positions anymore.

Sorry, anyone who thinks we can have a bazooka because we want one , is a whack job. You are a whack job. Typical irrational gun nut.

 

[NeoTrader]

Sorry, anyone who thinks we can have a bazooka because we want one , is a whack job. You are a whack job. Typical irrational gun nut.

I could argue just the same that you are a megalomanic who has a dellusion of being a dictator, whose logic is based in a fantasy world that everything that suits his needs, but is responsable for the deaths of thousands of people every year, in a number much higher than guns(including bazookas and rockets launchers) is justifiable, simply because he thinks so.

But when other people think that something that can be deadly too is needed, it doesn't matter, and their needs are simply irrelevant when compared to his opinion. This is a classic description of megalomania, a characteristic very common to all dictators.


But I chose not to do that, because this wouldn't be productive and I prefer to have a reasonable, civilized and polite argument, no matter how unreasonable I believe the opinions on the other side are(and I believe yours are completely unreasonable, but I have no problem argueing with you in a polite way despite that).

So, what is it going to be?

Are you going to counterargue and adress the points I made with concrete and polite arguments?

Or are you going to keep running away from a civilized discussion and hide behind a stream of childish offenses like teenagers usually do when they can't argue anymore?