Birth control, wombs, dead babies, idiots

[Sephie]

So my friend who was shot repeatedly and still has a bullet in his back should not have any say by your standards on gun control

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Sephie

So my friend who was shot repeatedly and still has a bullet in his back should not have any say by your standards on gun control

Exactly. A woman can get "shot" by sperm and suffer the consequences. Anyone can get shot by a gun and suffer the consequences. If I get pregnant, then I should have say in what happens to my body. If I get a wound, I would think I should also have a say. In both cases, I think I should have a say in what could prevent or cause such effects. Oh-k?

[jaketheshadowmaster]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

The baby = organ thing is a direct result of pro-abortion people saying babies are just clumps of cells that are part of their bodies. If it is stupid for one side to say it, it must be equally stupid for the others as well. We are just seeing here the end result of a long campaign to reduce the intelligence level of the debate.

And Rachel, abortion does have a higher mortality rate then natural childbirth. Most studies in support of lower morbidity rates don't compare equivalent populations and economic status. In addition, many deaths are missed when going over the death certificate data because the cause of death is misattributed, as was seen in this Finnish study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14981384

But that is aside from the fact that abortion is a slow motion campaign of genocide. 80% of african american pregnancies end in abortion. Can you imagine how much sooner we would have had a black president in the USA if the black population grew 5x more each generation then currently, and started in the 80's?

Basically, the live birth rate would be functionally even between the two groups in 1980, and by 2008 blacks would have a birthrate about 400% that of whites. It is no wonder the Democrats pushed so hard for it along with their Jim Crow laws and poll taxes.

even if some pro-choice people have said that a fetus is just a clump of cells, it is your idiot side that apparently thinks every clump of cells is an "organ." keep defending idiocy and racism. it's so classy and helps your argument so much.

[Crash Ichimonji]

Originally Posted by Sephie

So my friend who was shot repeatedly and still has a bullet in his back should not have any say by your standards on gun control

First off, I'm sorry your friend had such a horrible thing happen to him. My heart goes out to him.

Now, to answer your question, what was his opinion on guns AFTER the attack and what experience or knowledge does he have in the legal using of guns before and after? If his opinion on guns after the attack was 'Guns are the problem', then no. The reactionary opinion of blaming the tools and not the user is neither rational or valid by my count. Again, that's like blaming cars for drunk-driving accidents. How the assailant obtained the weapon (and whether they legally could) could validate at least that the opinion that current laws need to be enforced better.

Now, if your friend had/has actual experience in the legal use of guns and/or has a decent understanding of guns in their safe and legal use, then yes. And if his reaction after the shooting wasn't blaming the tools but the person misusing them, then the answer is also a yes.

My biggest issue with gun control is that we have too many lawmakers who know next to nothing or have virtually no experience in using a gun for legal purposes, yet they feel as if they are the actual experts on what guns private citizens should and shouldn't own. Sorry, when a lawmaker who has their own armed bodyguards and security personnel and has never even used a gun (much less for self-defense) is telling me that I don't need a gun to be safe, I feel they're wading into a subject they have no qualifications to be lecturing anyone on. When a lawmaker doesn't even understand that 'assault weapons' are ALREADY illegal (or simply ignores that fact just push the agenda of banning more types of guns based on purely cosmetic features, intentionally mislabeling 'standard capacity magazines' as 'high capacity magazine' and blaming the wrong weapons used in gun-crime primariy) yet says the they need to be banned, yeah, it's quite easy to tell who actually knows anything or has relevant experience in the legal use/ownership of guns.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Crash Ichimonji

First off, I'm sorry your friend had such a horrible thing happen to him. My heart goes out to him.

Now, to answer your question, what was his opinion on guns AFTER the attack and what experience or knowledge does he have in the legal using of guns before and after? If his opinion on guns after the attack was 'Guns are the problem', then no. The reactionary opinion of blaming the tools and not the user is neither rational or valid by my count. Again, that's like blaming cars for drunk-driving accidents. How the assailant obtained the weapon (and whether they legally could) could validate at least that the opinion that current laws need to be enforced better.

Now, if your friend had/has actual experience in the legal use of guns and/or has a decent understanding of guns in their safe and legal use, then yes. And if his reaction after the shooting wasn't blaming the tools but the person misusing them, then the answer is also a yes.

My biggest issue with gun control is that we have too many lawmakers who know next to nothing or have virtually no experience in using a gun for legal purposes, yet they feel as if they are the actual experts on what guns private citizens should and shouldn't own. Sorry, when a lawmaker who has their own armed bodyguards and security personnel and has never even used a gun (much less for self-defense) is telling me that I don't need a gun to be safe, I feel they're wading into a subject they have no qualifications to be lecturing anyone on. When a lawmaker doesn't even understand that 'assault weapons' are ALREADY illegal (or simply ignores that fact just push the agenda of banning more types of guns based on purely cosmetic features, intentionally mislabeling 'standard capacity magazines' as 'high capacity magazine' and blaming the wrong weapons used in gun-crime primariy) yet says the they need to be banned, yeah, it's quite easy to tell who actually knows anything or has relevant experience in the legal use/ownership of guns.

Oh-k, it's great you brought up cars, which require registration and licenses and regular inspections. And your license can be pulled if you drive drunk or in other circumstances. lulz

And if assault weapons are already illegal, why are they being regularly sold? Oh-k, it's a matter of definition. You don't need to know the difference between one car and the other to know a tank isn't appropriate for most people.

Oh well.

[Deadeye Dick]

You don't know about guns, girly. So sit down and go make me a sammich. Don't worry your pretty little head about guy stuff like guns and saving babies.

[Crash Ichimonji]

Originally Posted by OhZone

Oh-k, I always love when gun peoples bring up cars, which require registration and licenses and regular inspections. And your license can be pulled if you drive drunk or in other circumstances. lulz

And I love this argument the anti-gun crowd brings up like you just did. First off, there is no constitutional right to a car. Secondly, you don't need regular inspections or the registration of your car if you don't use it on public roads. Your license can be pulled, but you can still get it back eventually (depending on certain factors) and you can still do damage later again. My car-argument is that they are objects that if used incorrectly then they can cause injury or death but it is the user's fault for such horrible acts, not the tool.

Originally Posted by OhZone

And if assault weopons are already illegal, why are they being regularly sold? Oh-k, it's a matter of definition. You don't need to know the difference between one car and the other to know a tank isn't appropriate for most people.

Oh well.

Also not valid arguments. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean there isn't an illegal selling of them. Pot's illegal (in most of the US anyways) and people still do it. Just making something illegal and regulated doesn't mean there still won't be an illegal market for it. Gun bans disarm only one group of people: law-abiding citizens. Do you HONESTLY believe that when past gun bans went in effect, the criminals, mafioso, cartels, and so forth who were in the US turned in and/or registered their illegal weapons to abide by the law for their crime-committing?

"Good day youse police-guys. I'm here ta turn in my Thompson 1928 submachine gun cuz dey's illegal now. I'm only gonna commit crime with the guns that follow the new legislation of what's legal and what isn't now. Have a good day."

Comparing sporting rifles that have seemingly scary-looking features that have no relevance in the gun's ability to actually shoot to tanks is a poor analogy. How is a semi-only AK with a pistol grip and standard 30 round magazine vastly more dangerous than a stock-grip Saiga also chambered in 7.62x39mm possessing a low-capacity 10-round magazine? Now, people in favor of gun control could argue to just ban both guns. But then you're banning two guns both perfectly adequate for home-defense and for small game hunting (especially if the Saiga is chambered in other hunting rounds, and yes, you can swap out a Saiga's stock to give it a standard-looking AK pistol grip and stock).

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Crash Ichimonji

And I love this argument the anti-gun crowd brings up like you just did. First off, there is no constitutional right to a car.

Speaking of constitution, it says the right to have arms is for a well regulated militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Militia. Well regulated. Like cars are well regulated! lulz. It's not for random killing sprees or even to get the "bad guys."


As for your other BS, you know we're only talking some very minor basic stuff here, right? Banning the sale (not the current ownership) of what most people think are assault rifles and a little better background checking.

Very minor stuff.

Is your exaggerated fear more important than trying to curb the murders of babies? Your side loves babies that are not yet born, but I guess when they are born, they're just for target practice!

Originally Posted by Deadeye Dick

You don't know about guns, girly. So sit down and go make me a sammich. Don't worry your pretty little head about guy stuff like guns and saving babies.

Sit down and go? Guy stuff? hmmmm - You don't know dick! lulz

[MinNnimus]

- Reads thread -

- Drops jaw -

God. Can this be moved to Flame and Bullshit yet?

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Crash Ichimonji

it would be wise to leave that debate to the people NOT harboring irrational fears of an inanimate object.

I only want to comment on this last bit.

It's not irrational to fear an object that was created to kill people. It's a perfectly rational fear to have. In fact I would go as far as to say that anyone who is not at least a little bit afraid of guns should never be allowed to use one. If you don't fear the weapon then you can't possibly appreciate the seriousness of what it can do. If you don't fear the weapon, then you're naive, and it will kill you or someone you love because you've not treated it with the respect that it's due as an instrument of death. Let's face it, that's what it is, a weapon, an instrument of death. You call it a 'tool', that's foolish. Calling it a tool devalues it, lessens it's importance and downplays it's actual role. Don't sugar coat it like that, don't call it a tool, don't act as if it's not meant to kill. It's not meant to protect, it's not a shield. It's meant to destroy people that would do you harm. It's a weapon, fearing it is the first thing you should learn to do with it, from that fear comes respect and only by respecting it can you safely use it. So I don't ever want you to say it's irrational to fear guns again, because that fear is paramount in terms of it's proper handling.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

I only want to comment on this last bit.

It's not irrational to fear an object that was created to kill people. It's a perfectly rational fear to have. In fact I would go as far as to say that anyone who is not at least a little bit afraid of guns should never be allowed to use one. If you don't fear the weapon then you can't possibly appreciate the seriousness of what it can do. If you don't fear the weapon, then you're naive, and it will kill you or someone you love because you've not treated it with the respect that it's due as an instrument of death. Let's face it, that's what it is, a weapon, an instrument of death. You call it a 'tool', that's foolish. Calling it a tool devalues it, lessens it's importance and downplays it's actual role. Don't sugar coat it like that, don't call it a tool, don't act as if it's not meant to kill. It's not meant to protect, it's not a shield. It's meant to destroy people that would do you harm. It's a weapon, fearing it is the first thing you should learn to do with it, from that fear comes respect and only by respecting it can you safely use it. So I don't ever want you to say it's irrational to fear guns again, because that fear is paramount in terms of it's proper handling.

Agreed.

[Sephie]

Considering until the moment of firing it wasn't a criminal with a gun but an angry person with a gun, and that an angry person with a gun is a lot more damaging than an angry person without a gun, I think that the gun was to blame in that instance.