|
BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/6/2015 10:28:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
What you are telling me directly is you do not care how many children are killed or injured as long as there is no chance that you could be held responsible for killing a child through your negligence... That is all you are telling me and have been for the pages and pages and threads and threads... I am done with you
Him and other gun nuts on here do not care how many children are mowed down in a single shooting; just as long as they are allowed to have a gun. They do not care how devastating a mass shooting is, even if they supported the elements that allowed that shooting to materialize in the first place; just as long as they can have a gun. Basically, BamaD is being psychotic. Meaning, 'lack of any real emotion about an event that is truly saddening to the rest of us'.
Stop trying to win him over. What you should do is convince moderates. Using education, intelligence, and above all....honesty. More shooting and greater levels of violence with guns; the more likely moderates will swing over to liberals on gun control. The more conservatives behave dishonest, rude, and even threatening; the more moderates swing over to liberals for gun control.
Convince moderates by talking to BamaD. Let moderates see how BamaD responds to reasonable, sane, and thought filled discussions. I've placed many arguments on this and other threads. Used many facts to support those arguments. He and others have had a very tough time lining up counter arguments. Their best argument is "Fuck off, I like guns". Let them behave as they normally would: with fear, threats, insults, mindless attacks, and more fear after that. It really diminishes their half-decent arguments further.
If we do not voice our outrage, then we must be 'fine' with such mass shootings, right?
I've even tried a 'middle ground' area to which they can not handle either. They're politicals has a fatal flaw: Zero Sum politics. One side has to totally win and the other totally lose. They will not agree to even a middle ground compromise on anything. Therefore, just convince moderates you have the better argument and show their lame attempts at allowing mass shootings to continue.
Like you he cannot understand that disagreeing on methods does not equal disagreeing on intent. I already do all the things he wants, plus training. I don't need a law to tell me to use a gun safe. I don't need a law to tell me not to leave a gun in an unlocked care. I do need a law to tell me to have care insurance. I don't need any of your cockeyed laws to do what I should do. I even pointed out that criminal negligence is already covered and so a special law for guns would just cloud the issue for every thing else. Since I am not negligent with my firearms I am not the least bit worried about the personal ramifications of these laws. However they, like all gun laws, are aimed not at the criminal but at the victim. If someone is "playing" with a gun and accidently shoots someone, yes they should pay the penalty, however, like a car, once it is stolen their responsibility ends. Your calling me a gun nut has no effect on me at all because it only proves either that you are blind to reality or a gun nut is to you anyone who doesn't follow your party line.
|
|
|
|
