View Poll Results: When if comes to children or guns which would you be willing to lose over the other.

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Would you choose to lose your children before losing your guns?

    0 0%
  • Would you choose to loose your guns, before losing your children?

    6 100.00%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
Thanks Tree8Thanks

Thread: In consideration of the divide in this nation regarding gun control which would you

  1. #1
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,462
    Thanks
    11940

    From
    Here

    In consideration of the divide in this nation regarding gun control which would you

    prefer to lose.......

    Your child?

    Your gun(s)?

    To many, this is what the divide appears to boil down to. People choosing one, over the other and various facsimiles of the same.

    It would appear some would suggest the shooting of children in their classrooms is a norm that should be tolerated in exchange for their interpretation of a right to keep and bear any arms they choose.

    Feel free to discuss why.

    "loose" in the second question is intended to read "lose".
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 3rd May 2018 at 10:37 PM.

  2. #2
    New Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    694
    Thanks
    243

    From
    UK
    Guns, cars, houses etc.. are all just materialistic items, yourself and children are not.

    After the Las Vegas shooting, a guy was interviewed the next day on the news as his wife was one of the victims. He said he was now more determined for the 2A and for more guns. To me, looking in from the outside, I was shocked by his answer. But cultures are different, it highlighted how indoctrinated he was with guns.

    In the news over a death, the reaction is normally the opposite by family members, some campaign to get laws changed/implemented to prevent further tragedies. So that guy's reaction seemed out of place to me.

  3. #3
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,462
    Thanks
    11940

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Guns, cars, houses etc.. are all just materialistic items, yourself and children are not.

    After the Las Vegas shooting, a guy was interviewed the next day on the news as his wife was one of the victims. He said he was now more determined for the 2A and for more guns. To me, looking in from the outside, I was shocked by his answer. But cultures are different, it highlighted how indoctrinated he was with guns.

    In the news over a death, the reaction is normally the opposite by family members, some campaign to get laws changed/implemented to prevent further tragedies. So that guy's reaction seemed out of place to me.
    It seems out of place to a lot of people, that some would put their firearms ahead of children, anyone of which could be their child. I fear the attitudes I have heard expressed by some who blindly support Amendment II as interpreted by the NRA (not the SCOTUS) are the result of how the NRA propagandizes any legislation regarding guns, as moves toward a total ban of guns. Other nations, including your own, have presented evidence that restrictions (and they are not total bans on any and all firearms) does have an effect on reducing gun wounding and death. Some in America want to try to sell the concept and sadly they sell it to quite a few people, that easier access to firearms has no discernible effect on not only making it easy for "law abiding citizens" (which is a meaningless meme, since no one is born a criminal, they are all law abiding, up to the moment they are not, INCLUDING a perfectly law abiding purchase of a firearm they intend (without telling anyone they are buying the weapon from) to use to take out as many people as they can, before they either kill themselves, are shot by law enforcement or some other person with a gun (still gun violence) or taken alive, unlike some others of a different skin color who seem to find themselves filled for of lots of holes for a lot lesser offenses or for having a telephone in their hand.

    No one can tell the intent of anyone with a gun in their hand, that is why more guns carried, legally, means there is no means to stop someone BEFORE they make their intentions known, by shooting someone. Yes, guns are a solution, but ONLY AFTER guns are the problem and someone is dead or wounded. Yes, there are claims that merely pulling out a gun stopped a shooting, but in a gun culture where everyone is eyeing everyone else to see if they make that "false move", who knows whether someone pulling out weapons is pulling it out to shoot a "bad guy" or IS a "bad guy"?

    For the religious, if Christ told them to put away their firearms the same way he told Peter Simon to put away his sword (pulled to defend Christ) would they come up with the same meme excuses they come up with currently?

    There are only three nations currently in the world that protect a right to keep and bear arms in their federal constitutions and I don't know if anyone would hold them up as shining examples of nations without serious firearms violence concerns.

    Attitude has a lot to do with it also, there are nations (Canada for example) where guns are prevalent in a relative sense, but there appears to be less of an attitude that they are some sort of hedge against a despotic government or their criminal fellow citizen/neighbors. While there may be some nations that totally ban firearms, from citizen ownership, there are plenty that allow them with restrictions and many of those have significantly lower rates of gun injury and death, that the U.S. They appear to be total examples of how a compromise can work and people can still own forearms, but with restrictions and in return children (and their teachers) can feel a much higher sense of confidence that they won't become statistics in what has become a norm or be attacked for being a victim of an attack or watching their fellow students wounded or killed and being attacked for "not understanding the issue", when they protest a lack of action on preventing them from being shot, not only in their own nation, but in places they go to learn how to make their way in the world and work toward a better world.

    The comments I hear from some of the people who claim any attempts to enact any gun legislation are the equivalent of total firearms bans, reflect the kind of mindsets that ironically should not be the type that mixes safely with firearms. It is also quite sad to see those who seem to believe, (not in their own minds, but by their actions and obsession about having a gun on their person 24/7) firearms magically make them "courageous", "brave" or "tough". Take their firearms away and they would be what.......castrated? To hear some of them speak, one might think so.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,326
    Thanks
    3840

    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    prefer to lose.......

    Your child?

    Your gun(s)?

    To many, this is what the divide appears to boil down to. People choosing one, over the other and various facsimiles of the same.

    It would appear some would suggest the shooting of children in their classrooms is a norm that should be tolerated in exchange for their interpretation of a right to keep and bear any arms they choose.

    Feel free to discuss why.

    "loose" in the second question is intended to read "lose".
    Your binary framing of the issue is noted.

    I would prefer that good people who love their children and who have skill with firearms be fully trained and licensed as defenders and protectors.

    I don't own a gun.

    Doesn't really fit your either / or thing, but sorry.

  5. #5
    Shitposting Rank 4 Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    21,040
    Thanks
    11264

    From
    Colorado
    For your scenario I'd say lose my gun(s), of course.

    But it's entirely unrealistic. Stating that school shootings are a norm, thus acceptable by law abiding gun owners is a glaring misrepresentation of both school shootings and gun owners.

    That misrepresentation makes up a large part of your schtick.

    What it sounds like is that perhaps you've accepted that people feel this way about the issue, regardless of how they really feel.
    Thanks from Otto Throttle

  6. #6
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,462
    Thanks
    11940

    From
    Here
    What Schtick are gun rights and the NRA folks pushing, but that children are LESS important then their firearms?

  7. #7
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,114
    Thanks
    8219

    From
    TN
    Without Guns in my home I very likely would have lost one of my Children in 1996.
    Thanks from Kallie Knoetze

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks
    3062

    From
    California
    Mr. Knot,

    Most definitely, I would loose my guns to defend my children. I think that is a no brainer.

  9. #9
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    503

    From
    Barsoom
    The questions posed are a complex question fallacy.

    Have you stopped shooting your children? Yes means the children were shot, but not anymore. No means you are still shooting your children.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  10. #10
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    45,527
    Thanks
    29904

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Then we should focus on gun registration - for all guns. Require that gun owners register all of their firearms, and require that all registrations be renewed every two years by bringing the guns to an agency that can certify ownership. Since every gun manfactured (going forward) will have an owner (whether it's the manufacturer, the store, etc.) it becomes very easy to determine the last valid owner of a gun used in a crime. This will drive up the cost of black-market guns, making them unaffordable to most low-level criminals.
    Thanks from kmiller1610

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. for your consideration...
    By webrockk in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 23rd April 2017, 07:11 PM
  2. For your consideration...
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 24th February 2017, 02:44 PM
  3. EBOLANOMICS - a consideration of the other impacts
    By mrmike in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd October 2014, 07:20 AM
  4. For your consideration:
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 16th September 2012, 04:20 PM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 18th June 2011, 07:08 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed