The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 12:24pm

The armed janitor/teachers argument is just plain nonsense.  I have a cousin who served two tours of duty.  When he came back and retired from the armed forces he became a member of his hometown swat team.  He no longer is in law enforcement.  He left because he said the dangers these people have to face (including highly skiled and trained swat teams) is significant.  The weapons are much like their own.  His words, "There is no need for civilians to be carrying around these very deadly weapons.  None whatsoever.

I agree with your entitled comment.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 12:29pm

"It's not an "all or nothing" debate at all.  They are simply examples that demonstrate the absurdity of the liberal argument that claims to be interested in public safety and children's safety"

Yes, your argument is an all or nothing argument.  We can ban things that pose a danger to the public.  And, yes, these weapons do pose a danger to the public as illustrated time and time again.  There is no reason to have them available to the public.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 9:02pm

  Let's see a person cannot get the generator started because they are afraid to know on the door?  What they will be yelled at for waking someone in the middle of the night?  Please that is silly.  The fear makes no sense.  If he needed to borrow a generator then he could have knocked. 

Goldfish

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 9:09pm

  So what danger do they pose?  None.  Actually less than 2% not much when looking at the big picture. 

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 02-21-2013 - 3:43am

The armed janitor/teachers argument is just plain nonsense.

Except where it's entirely relevant.  Who better to empower as a line of defense than the people who work at the establishment and have a vested interest in their own safety as well as the safety of their charges.

He left because he said the dangers these people have to face (including highly skiled and trained swat teams) is significant.

So "I'm afraid" is now justification for not protecting our children?

The weapons are much like their own.  His words, "There is no need for civilians to be carrying around these very deadly weapons.  None whatsoever.

And we're supposed to take the word of someone who's "afraid" to define what's appropriate for other people to defend themselves?  If he actually said what you claim he said, then it's a demonstration of how bad the training is for our military...if they can actually compare an AR-15 type gun to the automatic weapons our military is armed with. Btw...clue to your cousin...all guns are deadly weapons, by their very nature...and so are knives...cars...hammers...the list goes on and on and one.  Deadly if the person wielding this instrument has deadly intent.

Btw..."deadly intent" could also apply to the woman firing at an assailant to stop a rape or to stop an intruder, as the woman in Georgia did to stop the intruder from doing who-knows-what to her and her small children.  thank God that liberals didn't take away the right to the gun that saved her and her family.

Liberals should be ashamed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 02-21-2013 - 4:02am

Yes, your argument is an all or nothing argument.  We can ban things that pose a danger to the public.


No, it's not an all or nothing argument, it's an argument based on facts and statistics.  Of course guns pose a danger to the public...but then so do drugs, alcohol, cars, etc...the list is too exahustive to include.  But to liberals focus on the top ten?  The top five?  No...the focus their hypocritical, uninformed rage on the thing that kills a MINISCULE number of people each YEAR...and try to ban that thing, rather than the "things" that actually kill expontially MORE people each year...even though their twisted agenda defies the FACTS and is in direct opposition to the Second Amendment.


Liberals are haters...liberals are fools.





iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 02-22-2013 - 1:00pm

I didn't say he compared it to a military weapon.  You are making up arguments again.  He stated that the type of weapons being used are highly dangerous.  When bullets can penetrate through steel like a knife to butter you have a potential hazard to the public and to the police who are suppose to protect the public.  These things need to be banned from the general public for everyone's safety.  Someone refusing to have them banned because it interfers with them shooting at empty cans is what you call an entitlement issue.  There is no better word to describe it.  

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 02-22-2013 - 7:39pm

  Any higer caliber bullet will penetrate steel plate.  You see there many different grades of steel.  A.223 cannot penetrate but a 7.62 might.  A SPEAR can go through a car door.  These are things one should know.  So some politician cannot lie to you.  The .223  has very poor penetration not enough mass.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

 

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 4:48am

I didn't say he compared it to a military weapon.  You are making up arguments again.  He stated that the type of weapons being used are highly dangerous.

You said..."He left because he said the dangers these people have to face (including highly skiled and trained swat teams) is significant.  The weapons are much like their own."...comparing weapons like the AR-15 with those carried by SWAT officers.  This is incorrect because SWAT does not carry AR-15 type rifles...they do, however, use shotguns, the type of gun that Joe Biden thinks you should buy and shoot off your balcony to scare away intruders.  And unless you're talking about the fuzzy pink guns that shoot moonbeams and fairy dust, one could say that all guns have the potential to be highly dangerous...but then, so are cars.

When bullets can penetrate through steel like a knife to butter you have a potential hazard to the public and to the police who are suppose to protect the public.

Through steel?  You realize that steel armor fell out of favor because arrows and lead balls fired from hundreds of feet away could pierce it, don't you?  So let's start with a ban on bows and arrows and matchlock rifles.  And if you're afraid of "steel piercing" bullets being a potential hazard to the public, then why do you want your police using them?  Or are you also suggesting that the police disarm as well?  But as I said, a car is a FAR more potential hazard to the public than any gun, so if you're interested in saving lives, why not try to get all those cars off the roads?

These things need to be banned from the general public for everyone's safety.

Guns are used every day to defend people's safety, so your suggestion only endangers people's lives.

Someone refusing to have them banned because it interfers with them shooting at empty cans is what you call an entitlement issue.  There is no better word to describe it

You could try "Constitutional."

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 9:58am
No, not all guns are made the same. Hunting guns and hand guns at least serve a purpose (hunting and protection) but specific assault weapons made for the purpose of killing many in a short period of time which also poses a danger to those who are hired to protect us should be banned. They serve no purpose in the hands of the general public.

Pages