E46Fanatics - View Single Post

badfast · 01-11-2013, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Why is it that when the right argues emotionally regarding taxation or pro-life matters, they are extremists and "crazed" and yet when the left does it, it's completely normal?

Piers Morgan has had a gun debate on his show almost every night this week... in EVERY one of the debates, he brings up Newton, Aurora, and vivid images on screen of people crying and dead bodies being wheeled out on stretchers... He does this because it pulls at emotions and gives him a virtually automatic win... Even the most sound of points will fall flat when Piers yells "look at the bodies!". And that is PRECISELY what is wrong with this gun debate. Politicians are taking advantage of these situations and looking to push ridiculous legislation through.

Gun violence is a different from taxation, pro-life matters, and how many boxes of Sudafed one can buy. Why do you give the emotionally charged arguments any legitimacy? Piers has had a gun debate everyday this week and I have watched every single one. And bringing Auroa and Newtown up is relevant to the theme and focus of his debate. There is alot wrong with this debate and it doesn't just rest on Pier's shoulders. There are a number of members that have been ill-representatives to the gun community aswell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Sorry buddy but this is WRONG. 3% of gun murders in the USA are the result of 223 or 556 rounds fired from AR15s. Did it just so happen that they were used in the school shootings? Yes BUT SO WERE PISTOLS. Don't forget that both of the recent mass shootings were with rifles and pistols as their side arms.. Remember the arsenal that the folks at Columbine had?

Removing assault rifles just goes to show the ignorance of this argument and that it has nothing to do with logic

Chase, stop with the statistics. Both sides are equipped incredibly well with statistics. You will believe the ones that support your way of thinking and dismiss or find fault with the ones that don't support your views (don't worry, the other side is doing it also). And who cares if the guy had side arms? Did he use them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmax

Badfast, I think it will do something. First, Newtown affected us all, and no one needs an assault rifle with 50 rounds.

How many times in your life have you have a gun fight with large magazine toting criminals? If a criminal has 50 rounds and you want to help, I'm sure you could shoot him with one of your 5,10, or 15 bullets...unless you're a really bad shot! (sorry!)

It's the discussion we're having that will lead to some accomplishment...not just with guns or ammo (which evidently may be infringed), but a whole host of other things.

Haven't you guys noticed more single wacko types using assault weapons to kill many people? I'm sure none of you are involved in any of that, but come on...

If you're living off the land, alone in Alaska and want an assault weapon, I understand, but to protect yourself at the local mall...isn't a handgun enough?

Are some of you guys getting shot at a lot? If so, I'll back off...kind of peaceful here in NJ!

I don't think any kneejerk reactions will solve anything. American's tend to believe that there is a solution to every problem. And the solution is always touted immediately without any proper thought, study, or analysis.

I don't think anyone here heads down to the mall with an AR. But why should a guy from AK be allowed a rifle because he chooses to live off the land, but I can't have one in my home? Should the guy that lives off the land have magazine capacity restrictions? If not, why?

It is not fair to say you only 5 or 10 rounds to stop a criminal that outguns you and needing more is an indication of a bad shot. A gunfight is a very traumatic ordeal and hitting a moving fighting target isn't as simple as point and shoot.

Magazine capacity has been one of the issues out front, but I don't think that is the issue that needs to be addressed.