If the Orlando murderers don't represent all....

[Smart_Guy]

View attachment 13371

He does not represent all gun owners. As of yet, I haven't heard this said. I guess some arguments meeting the meme's criteria were made as response against the already ancient trend of blaming all Muslims for what a minority of them does. So the meme should be: "If a minority of bad Muslims are always seen to represent all Muslims thru out history, why is it wrong to use one of their individual shooters to represent all gun owners now?"

I know that's wrong too, but it's just a response to the OP's meme's logic of what seems to be a double standard.

Please reconsider.

 

[FearGod]

Hummmmm??????????????
Food for thought when we seek to condemn based on one evil act.

Posted by one gun owner who knows MANY gun owners and neither
they nor I have ever hurt another human in any way.
Go figure.
Not one of my firearms ever loaded itself and killed anyone.
How 'bout that?
I, for one, don't commit mass murder for ANY reason.
Matter for fact I SOLD a gun to a DOCTOR who happened to be a MUSLIM
and wanted to defend his family and himself.
He was my doc at the time you see.

The problem isn't with the guns but with the person who may use it to harm than to protect.
But the law should force the gun owners not to carry their guns in public areas and to keep
their guns in home and business areas.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some proportion of gun owners will shoot people. the reasons are almost unimportant. some will be accidents, some personal hates, others through prejudice or obsession.
Gun control limits the number of people with access to guns. Probably much the same proportion of people from this smaller pool still kill people.
However the total number of killings and woundings reduces to match the lower proportion of gun owners.

The risk is always quite small, for being killed by gunshot. Americans clearly believe this small risk is well worth accepting as a background death rate. so as to continue their 2nd amendment rights.
This latest shooting will hardly change the annual statistics at all. LBGT folk do find themselves as targets anyway, and whether they are killed in groups of one or two or rare batches of fifty or so, will hardly change their statistical risk either.

It is more important that the innocent majority, still maintain their god given rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hummmmm??????????????
Food for thought when we seek to condemn based on one evil act.

Who do you think has made the argument in the OP?

Posted by one gun owner who knows MANY gun owners and neither
they nor I have ever hurt another human in any way.

I know a suprising number of people who have admitted to me that they've driven drunk. None of them have hurt anyone with their drunk driving either. What should we conclude from that?

 

[Augustus]

Forgive my abject stupidity, but given the states has ten times more people and a kazillion more guns.... shouldn't the figure given by the reporter be ... at least... 10 times more likely to get shot?

Not if they are worked out per capita (which they will be).

Posted by one gun owner who knows MANY gun owners and neither
they nor I have ever hurt another human in any way.
Go figure.
Not one of my firearms ever loaded itself and killed anyone.

It is a simple (and very unsurprising) fact that, in general, countries with very strict gun laws see far fewer shootings. Switzerland is very safe in general but has relaxed gun laws, and has 10 times more shooting deaths than the UK which in general is less safe than Switzerland.

If you have relaxed gun laws you have to accept that more dangerous and violent people will have guns and use them. You also have to accept that countless careless gun owners will have guns and people will die as a result. You have to accept that 'normal' and good people who are 'safe' gun owners will occasionally shoot people in a fit of rage or by mistake and ruin multiple lives.

People can choose their own laws in a democracy, and if people want laws that allow gun ownership then they can vote for them as is their right. The argument should accept that people's right to own guns comes at the expense of innocent people dying though. You can't say 'well I'm a careful owner so it is not my fault'. If you support widespread gun ownership, you do so in the full knowledge that many people are not careful or responsible but you are still happy enough to let them have guns.

I think people should be honest about this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He does not represent all gun owners. As of yet, I haven't heard this said. I guess some arguments meeting the meme's criteria were made as response against the already ancient trend of blaming all Muslims for what a minority of them does. So the meme should be: "If a minority of bad Muslims are always seen to represent all Muslims thru out history, why is it wrong to use one of their individual shooters to represent all gun owners now?"

I know that's wrong too, but it's just a response to the OP's meme's logic of what seems to be a double standard.

Please reconsider.

That isn't it either. Here it is:

Criminals can easily access whatever weapons are on the legal gun market, so you can't limit criminals' access to guns without limiting access generally. The legal gun market is the only source of criminal guns, so restricting the legal gun market stands a good chance of limiting criminals' access to guns.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That isn't it either. Here it is:

Criminals can easily access whatever weapons are on the legal gun market, so you can't limit criminals' access to guns without limiting access generally. The legal gun market is the only source of criminal guns, so restricting the legal gun market stands a good chance of limiting criminals' access to guns.

Nice! It could use more briefing to fit the meme tho

 

[BSM1]

Of course I would, but if all had guns, there would be bullets firing everywhere, there would even probably be more casualties.

Probably not, at least not on day two. But we can agree to disagree.

That isn't it either. Here it is:

Criminals can easily access whatever weapons are on the legal gun market, so you can't limit criminals' access to guns without limiting access generally. The legal gun market is the only source of criminal guns, so restricting the legal gun market stands a good chance of limiting criminals' access to guns.

Is this suppose to be a serious statement?

 

[idav]

First thing I thought is how horrible a tragedy it was,

Is this suppose to be a serious statement?

The idea is like make it impossible to get. Like red tape it like bearacracy does everthing else, oh need to be 18, check how about 21!?

 

[BSM1]

First thing I thought is how horrible a tragedy it was,

The idea is like make it impossible to get. Like red tape it like bearacracy does everthing else, oh need to be 18, check how about 21!?

And we are back to punishing the many for the actions of a few.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is this suppose to be a serious statement?

Which part do you disagree with?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I honestly wish that guns didn't exist somehow. They are a coward's weapon in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And we are back to punishing the many for the actions of a few.

Not punishing; mildly inconveniencing in a way that provides overwhelming benefit to society.

 

[jeager106]

I honestly wish that guns didn't exist somehow. They are a coward's weapon in the first place.

An inflammatory, insulting, ignorant, statement.
I too wish that in a perfect world of perfect people,weapons of any kind didn't exist.
Wish in one hand and $hit in the other and determine which fills up first.
I was a coward when I served 22.5 years as an armed police officer who NEVER
fired a shot at anyone, not once!
Never mind that I WAS shot at several times, attacked with knives, broken beer bottles,
guns, even had a BABY thrown at me!
Never mind I have SIX commendations for valor.
Never mind I have a letter of commendation from the director of the Ohio State
Highway Patrol for catching a man who killed a State Patrol Officer and never once
used my side arm.
I'm a coward huh?
Do you even have a clue that police are very often the FIRST at the scene of a fire?
I ran into a burning house and carried out an unconscious old lady and was
hospitalized with smoke inhalation. TWICE!
I don't carry a gun any longer but I sure have one handy. Not to create mayhem but to
to defend friends, family, innocents. Even YOU.
"Contempt prior to investigation dooms one to everlasting ignorance."
Please go procreate yourself.
Thank you for your kind response so full of agape love.

 

[jeager106]

Not punishing; mildly inconveniencing in a way that provides overwhelming benefit to society.

We have PLENTY of laws to regulate the sale of firearms.
"Mildly inconveniencing"?
Ever fill out a form 4473 prior to purchasing a firearm?
No? I'm not surprised. Lying on that form will get one admission to the 10 and 10
association. For FREE.
10 years and $10 grand if fines.
Didn't know that didja?
My 45 year old son lives in the City of Brotherly Love.
Philly Pa.
His residential neighborhood has been plagued with burglaries even with residents
at home!
He tried to buy a handgun for self defense.
He was denied as the laws where he is requires a background check.
Not an issue huh?
Well it is out there in the City of Brotherly Love.
Neighbors are interviewed by police to ascertain if anyone objects to him
having a firearm. No reason is needed.
If ONE nieghbor says he shouldn't have a firearm then that is that.
He won't legally buy one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

View attachment 13371

 

[jeager106]

ALL States MUST do background checks by licensed firearms dealers.

Brady Act anyone? Or have we already forgotten recent history.
NICS: Automating the Background Checks

Part of the Brady Act required the U.S. Department of Justice to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which can be accessed by any licensed firearms dealer by "telephone or any other electronic means" for immediate access to any criminal information on prospective gun purchasers. Data is fed into the NICS by the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, state, local, and other federal law enforcement agencies.

I repeat: I live in Ohio.
I cannot buy ANY type firearm without getting a computerized "delay", read
5 day waiting period.
I have NO criminal record.
I'm a disable cop ego I might suffer from P.T.S.D. and become a mass killer.
WHAT!
I do have P.T.S.D. Sooooo what? I don't even think about harming another...or me!
Same thing happens to veterans who served in any combat theater.
We give veterans machine guns, grenades, artillery, etc. but won't allow them
personal ownership of a .22 caliber rifle without a "delay" or an outright denial.
Really?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have PLENTY of laws to regulate the sale of firearms.
"Mildly inconveniencing"?
Ever fill out a form 4473 prior to purchasing a firearm?
No? I'm not surprised. Lying on that form will get one admission to the 10 and 10
association. For FREE.
10 years and $10 grand if fines.
Didn't know that didja?
My 45 year old son lives in the City of Brotherly Love.
Philly Pa.
His residential neighborhood has been plagued with burglaries even with residents
at home!
He tried to buy a handgun for self defense.
He was denied as the laws where he is requires a background check.
Not an issue huh?
Well it is out there in the City of Brotherly Love.
Neighbors are interviewed by police to ascertain if anyone objects to him
having a firearm. No reason is needed.
If ONE nieghbor says he shouldn't have a firearm then that is that.
He won't legally buy one.

I would call the inability to buy a handgun a minor inconvenience. The rest of your rant seems irrelevant.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An inflammatory, insulting, ignorant, statement.
I too wish that in a perfect world of perfect people,weapons of any kind didn't exist.
Wish in one hand and $hit in the other and determine which fills up first.
I was a coward when I served 22.5 years as an armed police officer who NEVER
fired a shot at anyone, not once!
Never mind that I WAS shot at several times, attacked with knives, broken beer bottles,
guns, even had a BABY thrown at me!
Never mind I have SIX commendations for valor.
Never mind I have a letter of commendation from the director of the Ohio State
Highway Patrol for catching a man who killed a State Patrol Officer and never once
used my side arm.
I'm a coward huh?
Do you even have a clue that police are very often the FIRST at the scene of a fire?
I ran into a burning house and carried out an unconscious old lady and was
hospitalized with smoke inhalation. TWICE!
I don't carry a gun any longer but I sure have one handy. Not to create mayhem but to
to defend friends, family, innocents. Even YOU.
"Contempt prior to investigation dooms one to everlasting ignorance."
Please go procreate yourself.
Thank you for your kind response so full of agape love.

The reason you carried a gun is because the cowards who start the fights often times carry guns... and you're not going to get very far if you are under-outfitted for the worst case scenario. As you stated, you weren't the one looking to actually USE the weapon in the first place. The one with violent intent is the "coward" I was talking about. I don't think you can argue that killing people from up to some hundred yards away takes as much bravery as doing it face-to-face, where the strength and skills of your opponent actually matter.

I should have made sure I expressed the idea that we need to use guns to fight against guns, because not doing so is completely foolish. So, making the choice of something dastardly in order to fight off the dastardly is certainly not cowardice - it is necessity that drives the choice at that point. You're not a coward to choose guns when others you're defending against have guns, you're being pragmatic.

However, it doesn't excuse a projectile weapon and violence perpetrated using it from being anything but cowardly. Bent on doling out violence and not sure if you can kill your intended target because he/she is very capable of defending themselves? Just use a gun!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Same thing happens to veterans who served in any combat theater.
We give veterans machine guns, grenades, artillery, etc. but won't allow them
personal ownership of a .22 caliber rifle without a "delay" or an outright denial.
Really?

I guess in your world, veteran suicide isn't a thing. In mine, it's a serious problem.