Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Automobiles aren't designed specifically to kill people, and a lot of legislation has been passed to increase safety. The same degree of scrutiny isn't to be applied to weapons that are designed to kill people really fast and in great number?
That's about the only part of your list I think is worth addressing. I understood the fact that you wanted to make it seem that my issue was the kids and not the guns, which - however ludicrous - would seem valid to some. The issue isn't about the kids. The kids are the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The issue with people talking about guns is the pro- "everything" gun lobby points to everything except guns. It's not that simple. People should NOT assume that I'm anti-gun because I'm against easily available high-powered weaponry that's used to kill elementary school children en-masse.
Bringing up Australia and Scotland as examples of legislation used to stop that type of killing has been ignored...likely because it's fact. I'm talking about stopping a particular type of murder that has affected other countries, and has been stopped in those countries. We need to do it here.
Common sense should dictate the actions taken. Gun legislation has never worked because it was enacted but not enforced, it never took into consideration or exempted what is currently owned in the US...there has never been a serious effort to establish standardized gun laws across the country. Why? Because gun legislation advocates are much less vocal and are much less likely to devolve into wild-eyed cavemen if told they have to be more responsible in society.
Extremist gun-rights activists miss that part. We are as responsible as a society as we are as individuals when it comes to this issue.
|
Why does it matter that automobiles aren't specifically designed to kill people? They sure seem to do a pretty good job of it. Why do you get to pick what gets applied to what? Oh, right, moral outrage > all, so therefore my point is invalid. Way to go, you win at teh intarwebs!
I asked you to cut the message-board attitude, and this is what I get. My point is invalid 'cause you say so. Ah, well, the proverbial horse to water...
Please note that I asked and tried to clarify, I did not try to make your point the kids and not the guns. I'm trying to figure it out 'cause you can't just fucking say it, and yes that's how ludicrous it is and why I'm trying to figure out if that's what the fuck you're saying or not. Sorry, I'm trying to figure it out 'cause I'd rather not just dismiss your points out of sheer moral outrage.
And here's the big point: It IS that simple, but not for the reasons you think. It IS that simple because these easily-available, high-powered weapons are the very same ones that have been available for decades, and you don't make driving illegal or restrict it further simply because one 80-year-old man drives through a farmer's market.
I know it's not the same thing, but it is, and that's on you if you refuse to see it. We'll win the vote on it, don't bet against it.
And the neighbors are starting to show up, so fuck it all for now, happy new year
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]