Perks apologizes for foul-mouthed barb during heated gun debate
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
Where is the but coming from? Sounds like you're making the point that councillors who are both foul-tongued and less than shining usually are anti-gun? If so, you haven't established your support for that -- nor its relevance.
Not so. Your words, and perhaps your belief albeit a mistaken one, but nothing like what I said. Perhaps you overlooked that the post you quoted was a reply to train, who did seem to imagine a relevamce?
As to characterizing Council members, I repeat:"…The Brother's Ford have records as both foul-tongued and less than shining Councillors, but seem to be pro-gun in this debate." That Perks might be equally undistinguished, as train said and intemperate of vocabulary is still a nugatory contribution to the topic. And of no relevance to gun-control or gun anarchy.
It really doesn't have anything to do with the Sportsman's, or any other show, and there's as much to be said against as for guns in that venue as in any other. But most definitely Sportsman's shows do not kill people.
That sort of analysis is very reassuring, until the first person who did pass the checks goes out and shoots someone. Like the legal pistol owner, illegally carrying, outside the Brass Rail who let his buddy miss the bouncer and kill a bystander.
People kill people. What can be said, is that the fewer the guns available, and the more rigorous the requirements for acquiring, owning, and using them, the fewer will be used by otherwise ordinary folks who just want to live in a tranquil neighbourhood—Sanford, Fla., comes inescapably to mind—but can get as angry or frightened as anyone. They won't suffer if their entertaining evening out watching dog trials and collecting fishing lodge brochures doesn't include rifles they can't afford on a convenient payment plan. And making them organize a special expedition to a dedicated business without a carnival component might bolster the thoughtful side of their ownership decision-making.
Guns are just slightly ahead of strangulation as a form of spousal homicide. Long guns are used more often than handguns. Married woman are 3x more likely to be killed by spouse than married men.
It's not that a male will automatically use a rifle to kill her but the presence of either weapon increases the chances that she will get shot.
Ford(s) is full of it. Let's hope their wives have easy access to a gun to protect themselves from these hotheads. At the rate that they easily lose their temper in public you can well imagine them snapping at their wives or kids.
whats a automatic assault type weapon?
im very curious to see where you guys get these names from and what they mean to you
clearly its time to ban anything that would enable someone to strange another human being, for example shoe laces, string, belts...or we can just create a strangling tool registry lol
Come on. Surely you can't really be suggesting, as a sensible contribution to the discussion, that because it would be ludicrous to ban shoelaces because of their potential as murder weapons, therefore it is just as ludicrous to ban guns because of their potential as murder weapons.
Perhaps you are trying to justify your I-wanna-be-able-to-kill position by implying that, if guns did not exist, there would be just as many murders, because people would find other ways to kill. Perhaps you are suggesting that none of the gun murders occurred simply because the gun was handy and because it is possible to kill someone by exerting a slight pressure with your finger for a fraction of a second.
The difference between shooting a human and strangling them is not much less than the difference between shooting an animal and strangling it. If you long to kill things, go and strangle a moose -- or a rabbit.
To be sure, of course, there's more fun to be had by shooting animals than by strangling them. Where you and I differ is that you think it's ok for society to bear the infinite harm of many gun-murders, so long as sportsmen can have their fun.
Let me respond for "us guys". I think you are just trolling. I don't think your question about automatic assault weapons is any more serious than your comparison of guns and shoe laces. What does the term "automatic assault weapon" mean to you?
Are you trolling or are you really that unaware? Hunting is not about feeling smarter than animals. Good grief.
Hey here's a brain freezer for you. If you eat meat that you did not kill yourself, you are eating meat from an animal that lived its life in an overcrowded prison and that died a scary and painful death. If you killed your own meat, you are eating an animal that lived a natural life and died quickly.
So which are you? A heinous supermarket meat eater, or a humane hunter?
Oh wait, this is the internet. You aren't allowed to admit your hypocrisy. So I'm sure you're either a vegetarian, or you think all hunters are drunk bubbas who shoot the legs off moose and leave them to bleed to death after taking a glory shot. D'uh.
So, you're telling us, when you fancy some meat to eat, you go out and shoot a moose, and then you eat it? And that makes you somehow "better" than us heinous supermarket meat eaters?
What if they took all your guns, would you still want to go and kill the moose, for meat, say with a spear? Now that would be real hunting. Or better still -- why don't you come back and tell us you killed the moose by strangling it. And then you ate it. That might earn you some respect. Although no, it wouldn't -- you'd still sound like a prize berk.
Here is the problem with the mindset of anti gun people like yourself, you believe that simply having a gun means someone will use it to kill someone else, which is simply not true. If i gave you a loaded handgun right now are you going to pick it up and shoot someone?
Go ahead and ban shoelaces, because if someone gets angry enough and doesnt have easy access to em no one will get strangled hahah
You just prevented a death hahaah
Btw i dont want to kill anything, ever. Not a deer, not a human being. But as a last resort id like to be able to protect myself if put in such a situation.
Im curious to know what the general population believes an "automatic assault type weapon" is, im not trolling. i just want to know where you get these names from and what classifies one as an "automatic assault type weapon". did you see it in a movie? news? is it a scary looking one? what is it...
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but there isn't much in the way of evidence that limiting the number of guns or the type or the number of owners increases or decreases crime. The studies on it go back and forth with practically every other factor mattering more to the crime rates than gun policy does, like poverty.oldjones said:
As for the decision making process, it takes about five months to get your license to buy a gun. I am pretty sure that's long enough to have given serious thought to whether or not you really want to buy one.
Once that person buys their first gun what's the point in throwing up obstacles to acquiring more? Does that second rifle make you twice as dangerous?
And what makes you think rifles are all expensive? A good quality .22 rifle can be had under $200 and there are good qualitycenter fire rifles to be had under $500. Most people can afford that without any payment plan. The boating section is where you want to crack down, but the firearms dealers, if this is your worry.
The only people who connect crime rates and guns are the gun supporters 'proving' there's no connection. I didn't even mention it. What I said was the when people are angry or frightened they'll use whatever's handy. If no gun is available, they won't use a gun, which is after all a machine for killing. And the victim can maybe benefit from bad improvisation.
If it took five month's per gun, you'd have made a point about impulse-control by statute. But that's all about the decision to become a gun-user/owner. Who can then buy a gun, like buying a car, pretty much as fast as the VISA terminal can process.
Nope. Just makes twice as many guns available. That may make gun use twice as likely some day. See above.
The crackwhore desperate for a $10 trick might have a different definition of "expensive" and what "…everyone can afford". Fortunately, a gun would be beyond his addled means. And even though I've happily been left with nothing more than memories after blowing hundreds of dollars now and then on dances, I can assure you that the carnival atmosphere where I purchased them had a lot to do with my decision-making at the time. Sellers have been using carnivals like the Sportsmans Show to juice their sales since the beginning of time. We need more thoughtful gun owners not more bedazzled ones.
Whatever the boat reference was intended to drive home, it missed. But I'd bet more than one spouse of a new boat-owner would support a drive for impulse control at the Show. But unlike cigarettes and guns, boats do not kill when used as intended. So extra precautions are quite sensible for both.
