Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What is the function of a gun? [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)323. The problem can not be guns.
The problem is guns and what happens when there are far more guns in this country than in any other first world, developed democracy.
That's your opinion, in spite of facts which show otherwise. Remove the tiny handful of misusers that commit gun violence and leave the 300 million guns, and all the sudden theres no gun violence.'
That proves it.
You want to write off 30,000 incidents as a statistical non-figure but other countries have 1/100th of that number. Even when adjusted on a per capita basis, the rate is still 6-7 times over other countries in those instances.
More focusing on the extent of the problem, and ignoring the nature of the problem. Color me shocked.
You can try to frame into your 99.9% populist terms, but the numbers don't lie, that we do have a gun problem in this country. Far worse than any other country similarly situated to us. You can play No True Scotsman, you can swear up and down, "But I'm a good guy with a gun!", you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "La la la la". It doesn't change the actual figures no matter how you frame the debate.
Again, that's your opinion. Facts show otherwise. I've framed it both in percentages and in raw numbers in this subthread.
Either way its framed, shows that it is not a gun problem.
And you claim a lack of "real solutions" from gun control proponents. Funny thing, though. After Sandy Hook, a bill was introduced. Manchin Toomey. It did not confiscate all guns in this country. It did not repeal the Second Amendment. It did not force a national registry of guns. By all indications, it was a common sense background check bill that seemed to be in line with popular opinion in this country.
Yes, and attached to it, was one of those solutions which you know wont fly, one which you know wont work, and one which just aggravates people - an assault weapon ban.
Now, if you are glad that Manchin Toomey failed, your whole "I only want moderate, 'common sense' gun control" argument gets thrown out the window. If you supported Manchin Toomey and were disappointed it failed, then the blame rests not on us, but on the gun-enthusiast community. Because they sank it, not us.
Oh, I don't know about that. I don't think personally, that the federal government has any business regulating a purely intrastate transaction, seing as they were never granted that authority. I think if you want to go state by state and try to enact UBC at the state level go right ahead. However, should any hypothetical bill have a registration component that's a deal breaker. If you want to blame someone, blame the bunch that attached an AWB to your favored bill.
You're not so much interested in supporting moderate, common sense gun control measures as you are labeling any and all gun control measures as "certain to fail, misguided, short sighted, and routinely outlandish" and investing heavily for their defeat. You guys lost whatever moral high ground you claimed to hold when Manchin Toomey failed. I'm sorry.
Yeah, and you guys lost any high ground you had and might ever have, when you decided to make the issue about the average gun owner who does not and will not commit gun violence, instead of the .1 percent of misusers responsible for 100 percent of gun violence.
Exactly what do we "need" you for? Apparently we "need" you for something, but you don't really explain what we "need" you for. If we needed you to support a moderate, common sense measure like Manchin Toomey, guess what? You failed us. You're completely useless.
To get any legislation passed. Were you under the impression that you could do it without us?
Newsflash: You can't and you wont. If you think otherwise, what are you here complaining about then huh?
Now I love the little segue into gun porn regarding automatic weapons vs. semi-automatic weapons when I never even suggested confusing one for the other. Guess what--guns can kill people rapidly and efficiently. Even non-automatic ones. That's what they are designed in good part to do. That's what I've been saying all along, and you refuse to concede that obvious point.
Oh yes you did Tommy. Don't play dumb, it doesn't suit you. You said:
And again, I think there's a distinction between "illegal use" and "misuse". AR-15 designers (as well as designers of other guns) designed that gun to rapidly and effectively shoot its bullets into the intended targets
What you said right there, suggests confusing them, deliberately. The designers of the AR designed it to shoot bullets at a rate decided by the user. Just like they designed it to fire at a target decided by the user.
Only automatic weapons are explicitly designed to fire rounds at a high rate, one which is NOT decided by the user, and is in fact decided by the design of the weapon.
You've done all sorts of rhetorical contortions and gymnastics regarding "misuse" but honestly, think about it. Soldiers on the battlefield, what are they given as weapons? Naturally, guns. They are given something they know has an intended use of killing the enemy. They aren't given cars to mow down their opponents. They aren't given something that could potentially kill but wasn't designed for their purpose. No, they are given actual killing machines--guns (plus bombs and other specifically designed weaponry that are less available or attainable in the civilian world).
When soldiers on the battlefield are routinely armed with civilian legal firearms, you might get close to having some sort of point. But since you haven't done that, and it will never happen...that dog just isn't going to hunt.
You might think I'm being petty on calling you out on your use of the word "misuse", but it really goes to the heart of your defect in your entire argument.
I don't think you're being petty. I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Theres no defect in my argument.
The 99.9 percent that do not commit gun violence have a voice in this, no matter how much you don't like it.
Regardless of whether the killing is justified or not, guns are killing machines.
And yet 99.9 percent of people that own them do not kill anyone or commit gun violence. That makes your statement whether true or false, irrelevant.
Look Tommy. We exist. We're here and we're not going away. We have a voice in this debate.
If I were you I'd get used to it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
333 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
you will get nowhere without the support of Democratic gun owners. +1 [nt]
Ichigo Kurosaki
Oct 2015
#37
Why do we always see pictures of human beings as targets in shooting competitions..
madinmaryland
Oct 2015
#227
What about the obstacle course, urban warfare, type shooting that is becoming popular
Hoyt
Oct 2015
#259
You act like there is absolutely nothing to fear with the conditions we face now.
boston bean
Oct 2015
#39
Thats what the parents/family and friends of the latest victims of mass murder thought too
workinclasszero
Oct 2015
#78
A whole lot more families and friends lost people to garden variety murders.
Lizzie Poppet
Oct 2015
#155
Statisically, about 30 people die every day in the U.S. in alcohol related car crashes.
Adrahil
Oct 2015
#188
Not funny, but the repubs are making voting far more harder to do than getting a gun. So thanks
madinmaryland
Oct 2015
#230
If it's the intent of the designer that matters, lots of guns were made with no such purpose in mind
Lizzie Poppet
Oct 2015
#75
Actually I do. I am concerned that the cats will grow opposable thumbs and come
madinmaryland
Oct 2015
#318
"Every gun owner is up for scrutiny now imo. Why a person owns them cannot simply go unremarked."
Brickbat
Oct 2015
#85
I would bet its near 100% of the mass shooters practiced target shooting.
riderinthestorm
Oct 2015
#137
In the 12th century they were weapons of mass destruction and were owned by the 1%'ers of the time..
madinmaryland
Oct 2015
#233
Oh. Ok. Then you agree with the OP. I misinterpreted what you said, then. I'm sorry. nt
madinmaryland
Oct 2015
#237
target shooting is nothing more than improving one's ability to kill more accurately
DrDan
Oct 2015
#103
no one is claiming all gunowners kill something/someone - only that the purpose of a gun is to kill
DrDan
Oct 2015
#111
If the 99.9x percent are suspect in your eyes, due to the actions of .0x percent...
beevul
Oct 2015
#198
And horseshoes is even more insidious and evil: It's practice for killing people with skinny necks.
cherokeeprogressive
Oct 2015
#242
A person has the right to kill in self defense if he is facing an attacker who ...
spin
Oct 2015
#277
Bookmarked for later. This has potential to be epic. You have hit the nail on the head. nt
Electric Monk
Oct 2015
#4
If you want to absolve yourself of having to talk about gun violence....
Tommy_Carcetti
Oct 2015
#74
Zero summing it into white hate/black hat is a foolish way of thinking of it.
Tommy_Carcetti
Oct 2015
#313
The problem is still guns, no matter how you want to move away from it.
Tommy_Carcetti
Oct 2015
#322
Shooting at paper targets could reasonably be considered practice killing.
MillennialDem
Oct 2015
#10
The purpose of all weapons is to injury or kill. Hence the name "weapon". I find that the gun
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#19
Yeah, fencing is a real problem here in New Haven! All these fencers are going around
CTyankee
Oct 2015
#331
That reminds me, I've got to file some papers away in a three ring binder.
Tommy_Carcetti
Oct 2015
#71
Primarily to kill people. Secondarily to instill fear in a terroristic manner.
onehandle
Oct 2015
#24
What's wrong with shooting a rapist, home invader, stalker or other violent criminal?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#25
Rights aren't subject to precentages or wild speculation about being disarmed by ninja burglars.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#77
or your little brother, a random shoplifter, or that guy who just got car jacked.... and that
bettyellen
Oct 2015
#267
If you believe you can prohibit a thing to all based on the misues or abuse of a scant minority then
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#279
"And no country has similar levels of gun violence" Not the least bit true..
EX500rider
Oct 2015
#186
John Prine said it very well in a song about the death and destruction of a small town
loyalsister
Oct 2015
#182
Alert us, the next time some maniac uses a crossbow to turn a classroom into a slaughterhouse. (nt)
Paladin
Oct 2015
#73
Demonizing the mentally ill isn't helpful, and abouta third of people will have it in their lifetime
frizzled
Oct 2015
#149
Not a lot of armed home invasions in unincorporated counties out in the middle of nowhere
Algernon Moncrieff
Oct 2015
#282
In 30 years of firearm ownership none of mine have done those things either.
EX500rider
Oct 2015
#311
A gun - like a sling, bow, or throwing arm - delivers a projectile to a target
Algernon Moncrieff
Oct 2015
#157
The function of a gun is to send a projectile out of its muzzle at a high rate of speed
Waldorf
Oct 2015
#202
Did it ever occur to you that it's obviously a weapon, so why refute it? n/t
Decoy of Fenris
Oct 2015
#239
If guns are designed solely to kill, then are the majority of them somehow defective?
X_Digger
Oct 2015
#240