ilovefuzz.com

D.o.S. wrote:Its fair enough to point out I'm using shorthand between meetings but I brought those things up to illustrate that these sorts of things don't constitute "taking guns away" to me.

They're a step in exactly that direction - the same political hacks who suggest it are the same ones, and I quote, since you probably don't have YT in your meeting, one Nancy Pelosi..."Mr. and Mrs. America, if I had the votes, I'd have taken them all away."

Or the little things like banning the parts necessary to keep the guns running, or banning importation of same, or ammunition, or imposing impossible legal standards (California's "Microstamping" and similar things).

After a lifetime of watching the same folks calling for the things you're calling for also moving to take them away...I can't exactly be blamed for standing my ground on any of it.

Gun owners are never offered anything in exchange for these shackles on their freedoms, just incrementally taken away one bit at a time.

Disarm D'arcy wrote: Or is that just reserved to the annoying little French man you can’t argue with because you have no actual clue about the concepts you are using mistakenly?

Just reserved for the smarmy strawmanning Frenchman, you get a special place of nothing but snide comments, since that's all you're tossing.

Dude you’re talking out of your ass, using concepts you’re clearly confused about when I have dedicated years of my life to studying, understanding and handling said concepts.

It would be strawmanning if you hadn’t used the exact notions I’m talking about. All you’re saying is that I’m guilty of misreading you, and you haven’t provided more than a clearly poorly grounded argument as I’ve pointed out, or that i’m too foreign to have a say.

This doesn’t make what you say any truer.

Yawn, and you're not reading and just being another kid playing pseudo-intellectual games. Next.

rfurtkamp wrote:
Gun owners are never offered anything in exchange for these shackles on their freedoms, just incrementally taken away one bit at a time.

Well, nothing aside from a lower likelihood of ending up being shot.

rfurtkamp wrote:Yawn, and you're not reading and just being another kid playing pseudo-intellectual games. Next.

There. You have me. Busted. Shaaaaaaame.

Still haven’t provided an argument though.

D.o.S. wrote: Well, nothing aside from a lower likelihood of ending up being shot.

Assuming that such plans worked, of course.

But realistically, since we're not 15-24 year olds living in urban blight doing stupid things....not much risk from that anyway.

(To be fair, I was one of those once but I wised up and got the fuck out)

So basically, being asked to give something up with nothing gained...sorry, no dice.

Disarm D'arcy wrote: Still haven’t provided an argument though.

You'd just ignore it anyway and move on to something else. I know the game.

Take a look at countries with laws against firearm ownership that are largely homogeneous and a relatively low gap in terms of wealth between the rich and poor and then compare that to countries that have laws against firearm ownership with societies that are highly diverse and have a large gap between the wealth of the rich and poor.
The US would be more like Brazil in terms of crime with outlawing of firearms, not like Japan.
The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed with guns that are stolen/used by criminals that wouldn't have guns in the first place if laws actually worked in this regard.

repoman wrote:Take a look at countries with laws against firearm ownership that are largely homogeneous and a relatively low gap in terms of wealth between the rich and poor and then compare that to countries that have laws against firearm ownership with societies that are highly diverse and have a large gap between the wealth of the rich and poor.
The US would be more like Brazil in terms of crime with outlawing of firearms, not like Japan.
The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed with guns that are stolen/used by criminals that wouldn't have guns in the first place if laws actually worked in this regard.

Not saying I disagree with this assessment, but:

D.o.S. wrote:Also the argument against a law because it lacks a 100% success rate is an argument against laws in general.

Look at the data about accidental death by firearms. Again, compare US and Canada or even France - which in spite of gun control has one of the highest gun ownership rate in the OECD.

Your anecdotal impressions are not supported by facts.

rfurtkamp wrote:

D.o.S. wrote: Well, nothing aside from a lower likelihood of ending up being shot.

Assuming that such plans worked, of course.

But realistically, since we're not 15-24 year olds living in urban blight doing stupid things....not much risk from that anyway.

(To be fair, I was one of those once but I wised up and got the fuck out)

So basically, being asked to give something up with nothing gained...sorry, no dice.

I see where you're coming from but I think it's going to be a very difficult way out of the current with the current prevailing attitudes (beyond the ones were demonstrating)

tj lane and the girl who hated mondays, Brenda.

I gotta lotta readin' to do.

Disarm D'arcy wrote:Dude you’re talking out of your ass, using concepts you’re clearly confused about when I have dedicated years of my life to studying, understanding and handling said concepts.