Not to start a second amendment debate but..

It probably will. I'm at a graduation and somebody says "London terror attack again, cars and stabbing" they were sitting behind me on their phone. So I turn to the guy in the couple we were with and say, "why not just use guns instead of stabbing?" Guy says "Jesus wags you really want to compare Great Britain gun laws to ours?"

Is that why? Or do you believe going through the channels to get a gun would call too much attention to lone wolf terrorists?

DWags wrote:It probably will.  I'm at a graduation and somebody says "London terror attack again, cars and stabbing"  they were sitting behind me on their phone. So I turn to the guy in the couple we were with and say, "why not just use guns instead of stabbing?" Guy says "Jesus wags you really want to compare Great Britain gun laws to ours?"

Is that why?  Or do you believe going through the channels to get a gun would call too much attention to lone wolf terrorists?

GB's gun laws are much more restrictive than ours.   Thus the use of bombs, knives and vehicles for mass killings.   I guess for some that's an improvement.  

Of course they didn't get that way all at once, the slow road to confiscation there is what prompted the hard line here versus any steps down the slope.  

Sort of like the seat belt law here, remember that one Wags?   You're the right age.   We were promised this would never, ever be "primary" enforcement.  How long did that last?   3 years?  5 years?   Granted it's saved lives but it's also become a huge $$ generator for government and another way for the police to pull you over if they suspect anything else.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:It probably will.  I'm at a graduation and somebody says "London terror attack again, cars and stabbing"  they were sitting behind me on their phone. So I turn to the guy in the couple we were with and say, "why not just use guns instead of stabbing?" Guy says "Jesus wags you really want to compare Great Britain gun laws to ours?"

Is that why?  Or do you believe going through the channels to get a gun would call too much attention to lone wolf terrorists?

GB's gun laws are much more restrictive than ours.   Thus the use of bombs, knives and vehicles for mass killings.   I guess for some that's an improvement.  

Of course they didn't get that way all at once, the slow road to confiscation there is what prompted the hard line here versus any steps down the slope.  

Sort of like the seat belt law here, remember that one Wags?   You're the right age.   We were promised this would never, ever be "primary" enforcement.  How long did that last?   3 years?  5 years?   Granted it's saved lives but it's also become a huge $$ generator for government and another way for the police to pull you over if they suspect anything else.

When they drop the helmet law while enforcing the seatbelt law you know it's not for public safety it's a money/power grab. But as far as gun laws, if that's why those assholes in GB weren't able to get out and shoot 20 people good for them.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

GB's gun laws are much more restrictive than ours.   Thus the use of bombs, knives and vehicles for mass killings.   I guess for some that's an improvement.  

Of course they didn't get that way all at once, the slow road to confiscation there is what prompted the hard line here versus any steps down the slope.  

Sort of like the seat belt law here, remember that one Wags?   You're the right age.   We were promised this would never, ever be "primary" enforcement.  How long did that last?   3 years?  5 years?   Granted it's saved lives but it's also become a huge $$ generator for government and another way for the police to pull you over if they suspect anything else.

When they drop the helmet law while enforcing the seatbelt law you know it's not for public safety it's a money/power grab. But as far as gun laws, if that's why those assholes in GB weren't able to get out and shoot 20 people good for them.

So your preference is to be shredded by a nail bomb over a gun shot or two? I'd have to think on that one.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

When they drop the helmet law while enforcing the seatbelt law you know it's not for public safety it's a money/power grab. But as far as gun laws, if that's why those assholes in GB weren't able to get out and shoot 20 people good for them.

So your preference is to be shredded by a nail bomb over a gun shot or two? I'd have to think on that one.

I'd rather have been in that restaurant against a knife not a gun. You would prefer the guy had a gun. Noted.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

When they drop the helmet law while enforcing the seatbelt law you know it's not for public safety it's a money/power grab. But as far as gun laws, if that's why those assholes in GB weren't able to get out and shoot 20 people good for them.

So your preference is to be shredded by a nail bomb over a gun shot or two? I'd have to think on that one.

This is such a bullshit argument.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So your preference is to be shredded by a nail bomb over a gun shot or two?  I'd have to think on that one.

This is such a bullshit argument.

Question sincerely asked.  Why?  

My take on it:
What is the difference between 22 dead by the bomb at that concert and 22 dead in a mass shooting?   The people are all equally dead.  I know the claim is that it's easier to kill 22 with a gun but I would argue that it's pretty damned easy to plant a bomb in a public place.  If triggered remotely you could argue it carries less risk to the perp too.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So your preference is to be shredded by a nail bomb over a gun shot or two? I'd have to think on that one.

I'd rather have been in that restaurant against a knife not a gun. You would prefer the guy had a gun. Noted.

I notice you didn't address the bomb or the large truck. Would you prefer facing one of those or a nutjob with a 5.56mm "assault weapon"?? And you're enough of a country boy to know that the 5.56 is essentially a dolled up .22.

This thread got highjacked pretty quick.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

I'd rather have been in that restaurant against a knife not a gun. You would prefer the guy had a gun. Noted.

I notice you didn't address the bomb or the large truck. Would you prefer facing one of those or a nutjob with a 5.56mm "assault weapon"?? And you're enough of a country boy to know that the 5.56 is essentially a dolled up .22.

Yeah, the bomb sucks, so if they hadn't had gun laws you'd believe those bombs wouldn't be strapped to suicide terrorists? And frankly I thought you smarter than wanting to face a gun vs knife.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I notice you didn't address the bomb or the large truck. Would you prefer facing one of those or a nutjob with a 5.56mm "assault weapon"?? And you're enough of a country boy to know that the 5.56 is essentially a dolled up .22.

Yeah, the bomb sucks, so if they hadn't had gun laws you'd believe those bombs wouldn't be strapped to suicide terrorists? And frankly I thought you smarter than wanting to face a gun vs knife.

Well you did notice that the British cops got over their aversion to guns? And with their gun laws there would have been no one else armed to help those getting slashed. We could debate it all day but the truth is out there - the madmen will find a way to kill no matter what the laws are.

What I don't get is why somehow having people die by being blown to bits or run over by a semi rather than being shot is some sort of an advance for civilization. Am I missing something there?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

Yeah, the bomb sucks, so if they hadn't had gun laws you'd believe those bombs wouldn't be strapped to suicide terrorists? And frankly I thought you smarter than wanting to face a gun vs knife.

Well you did notice that the British cops got over their aversion to guns? And with their gun laws there would have been no one else armed to help those getting slashed. We could debate it all day but the truth is out there - the madmen will find a way to kill no matter what the laws are.

What I don't get is why somehow having people die by being blown to bits or run over by a semi rather than being shot is some sort of an advance for civilization. Am I missing something there?

Because those people might die either way but at least England doesn't have a story a day (or week or whatever) about a 4 year old accidentally shooting their friend or any number of other terrible things that happen with guns that aren't terrorism.

Not that there's anything you can do about the whole gun thing anyway at this point in America. Your side won. The debate has been over for a long time.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

Yeah, the bomb sucks, so if they hadn't had gun laws you'd believe those bombs wouldn't be strapped to suicide terrorists?  And frankly I thought you smarter than wanting to face a gun vs knife.

Well you did notice that the British cops got over their aversion to guns?   And with their gun laws there would have been no one else armed to help those getting slashed.   We could debate it all day but the truth is out there - the madmen will find a way to kill no matter what the laws are.  

What I don't get is why somehow having people die by being blown to bits or run over by a semi rather than being shot is some sort of an advance for civilization.  Am I missing something there?

You left out the knife vs. gun comparison...which is what this thread was based on.

And I don't think anyone is saying that's a better way to die, or that it's an "advance for civilization".

Seems like you're trying to control the narrative for some reason.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well you did notice that the British cops got over their aversion to guns? And with their gun laws there would have been no one else armed to help those getting slashed. We could debate it all day but the truth is out there - the madmen will find a way to kill no matter what the laws are.

What I don't get is why somehow having people die by being blown to bits or run over by a semi rather than being shot is some sort of an advance for civilization. Am I missing something there?

Because those people might die either way but at least England doesn't have a story a day (or week or whatever) about a 4 year old accidentally shooting their friend or any number of other terrible things that happen with guns that aren't terrorism.

Not that there's anything you can do about the whole gun thing anyway at this point in America. Your side won. The debate has been over for a long time.

Gun rights are ahead for now, it will never be "won". Now if RBG and or Breyer retired and the Supreme Court went to 7-2 with Alito as the swing vote I'd be more confident. That might get us a 20-30 reprieve.

And while I agree that there are very few accidental knifings or bombings, there are certainly children killed daily in this country by cars. In driveways, forgotten in car seats, etc. - that doesn't implicate the car, but somehow guns are at fault in gun accidents. Different outlooks, different standards.

NigelUno wrote:You left out the knife vs. gun comparison...which is what this thread was based on.

Nigel accurate as usual.

Post #1

says "London terror attack again, cars and stabbing"

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:You left out the knife vs. gun comparison...which is what this thread was based on.

Nigel accurate as usual.

Post #1

says "London terror attack again, cars and stabbing"

Huh. I wonder if I could pick out a section and quote it.

What do you think?

Were nail bombs mentioned in the first post? Didn't seem to stop you from bringing those up.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Because those people might die either way but at least England doesn't have a story a day (or week or whatever) about a 4 year old accidentally shooting their friend or any number of other terrible things that happen with guns that aren't terrorism.

Not that there's anything you can do about the whole gun thing anyway at this point in America. Your side won. The debate has been over for a long time.

Gun rights are ahead for now, it will never be "won". Now if RBG and or Breyer retired and the Supreme Court went to 7-2 with Alito as the swing vote I'd be more confident. That might get us a 20-30 reprieve.

And while I agree that there are very few accidental knifings or bombings, there are certainly children killed daily in this country by cars. In driveways, forgotten in car seats, etc. - that doesn't implicate the car, but somehow guns are at fault in gun accidents. Different outlooks, different standards.

It's won, though technically not forever, but we'll get to that in a minute.

The problem is that it's so embedded in people's culture and how they define themselves fundamentally as a person that it will never change. Could they make it illegal? Sure, I guess. But they never would since a) they wouldn't win an election for 20 years and b) it wouldn't even be effective. There are 300 million guns in the country, and a favorite go to pro gun line is "oh if you made it illegal then only the bad people would have guns" but that's not really true since people that aren't bad people would still keep their guns illegally. Remember, this is fundamental to their being. They literally think they need a gun to survive in the face of the bogeymen that they've convinced themselves are always lurking in the shadows. They aren't going to give that up, even if you did make it illegal.

So, how could you change that and eventually not have guns floating freely and everywhere in this country? It would have to be a cultural shift and people's mindsets would have to change. That realistically is not going to happen in my lifetime and I doubt it would ever happen to be honest. It's just too embedded. So that's what I mean when I say that pro gun has won. There isn't anything anyone can do about it anymore other than try to make sure that the most dangerous amongst us don't get guns. But there's no way that will ever be foolproof.

I do think it's kind of funny that you use cars backing over people as your example since that is a problem, but it's long for this world. Eventually, if we get to a point where all cars are driverless, then that would be an exceptionally rare problem. Even without that there are steps being taken to avoid it, back up cameras, object sensors, etc etc. it would never totally eliminate the problem (short of being fully driverless) but it can be made more safe. Guns can't be and will always pose a threat either intentionally or accidentally.

LooseGoose wrote:

And while I agree that there are very few accidental knifings or bombings, there are certainly children killed daily in this country by cars. In driveways, forgotten in car seats, etc. - that doesn't implicate the car, but somehow guns are at fault in gun accidents. Different outlooks, different standards.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And while I agree that there are very few accidental knifings or bombings, there are certainly children killed daily in this country by cars. In driveways, forgotten in car seats, etc. - that doesn't implicate the car, but somehow guns are at fault in gun accidents. Different outlooks, different standards.

It's not even frustrating anymore. Kind of comedic.

Can you buy bombs at Dunham's?

And now, for something completely insane: Don't need to carry your license with you when you're carrying your concealed weapon anymore in Michigan.

Why? cause "good law abiding citizens" have been getting in trouble. I guess they can remember their pistols but not their license. What will that do for the police? "May I see your license?" Nope, don't have it.

I'm also hoping they consider allowing car drivers not to carry their license without penalty. Fish? Why have to carry it. It's good law abiding citizens who are getting in trouble for not remembering. Hell with making the DNR, the Cops, whoever's life more difficult, Knuckle dragger weapon carrier forgot his license, let him go.

dumb asses to get a reprieve for being dumb asses

And right on cue. Goose, is probably happy this guy had a gun and not a knife. I don't get it, but then, I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy here.

Disgruntled worker, with gun, not knife, kills 5 including himself

I was walking down the beach in Montague the other day with my wife and kids and dog. The only other people there are a handful of people fishing on the pier and this dude walks by me open carrying a pistol.
I don't know what my point is but it seemed really weird and out of place

Herbie Green wrote:I was walking down the beach in Montague the other day with my wife and kids and dog. The only other people there are a handful of people fishing on the pier and this dude walks by me open carrying a pistol.
I don't know what my point is but it seemed really weird and out of place

Did you wave and say "sorry about your dick, bro." ?

Herbie Green wrote:I was walking down the beach in Montague the other day with my wife and kids and dog. The only other people there are a handful of people fishing on the pier and this dude walks by me open carrying a pistol.
I don't know what my point is but it seemed really weird and out of place

That's what I'm saying about culture a couple of posts above. That dude thinks he needs that gun to stay alive. He believes in the boogeyman. What is that guy gonna do if someone were to actually make guns illegal? "Oh okay. You got me. Here you go." Nah. The only way that's ever going to go away is if people don't think like him anymore. That's not going to happen anytime soon.