lol, I don't get why people waste their time on stuff like that either. It's like lying about yourself on the internet, and then going lololol I tricked u, when doing such a thing is a trivial achievement.
They should be more imaginative at least, and live their lives more freely.
yeah, I got suspicious pretty fast and one thing I don't take kindly to is someone wasting my time. That makes me more likely to make a person my 'special friend' hobby than them taking money or things.
I stopped trying to be civil when Kaijo simply started dismissing, belittling, or name-calling everyone who disputed his/her assertions. And though she throws data out there, she doesn't *read* (as syn notes) response except to repeat the same canned "solutions" that aren't. I think I've nailed it - she's terrified of guns, she tried to end herself with one, and now projects all that onto everyone else. The data is just fluff to rationalize the ideology.
The shootings have upset me a lot. I have kids (well, they're 20-something now but I get it, watched my mother lose three sons over the years to various illnesses). But it is pure witchcraft, much of what is being proposed: totally ineffective nonsense that is more likely to increase the violence.
I totally agree things can't stay the same and the NRA can go to hell. But I take an equally dim view of the Feinsteins and the Brady people, who sometimes remind me of the modern version of the aristocracy: the peasants are not allowed weaponry, only the powerful and rich.
Well, I suppose the intent was to get people to consider the option, and the very least Kaijo has posted some data on the thread, so the intent isn't as bad as say Vallen who just comes off as a populist blowhard with no real substance. (I hate populism where they just try to incite the mob into a reaction-- any reaction). Categorizing the rest of the world as a unilateral initiative is silly.
Nevertheless, the argument did seem to get too heated for whatever reason. I will admit that the recent shootings have fucked with my head, but I also know there's no magic wand like people claim. And as a moderate like yourself would understand.
The other thing is just the right to self defense as a principle. It doesn't matter how the statistics are if we respect one's right to choice. This is why we go to great lengths to make sure an innocent person doesn't get executed, even though statistically speaking, that doesn't happen that much. It's about the principle, and the basic rights of someone.
And against someone that's bigger and stronger than me, or they outnumber me, well, there's really only one kind of guaranteed way of force. Because they usually don't care about "please". :S
I know quite a few feminists (liberals/progressives) that believe firmly in the access to firearms for just that reason: force equalization.
I am getting the real sense I'm dealing with someone in the thread who:
1) Is irrationally terrified of guns
2) Attempted to use on on themself; projects this problem to everyone else
3) And like a temperance alcoholic, thinks that because they can't handle it, no one else can possibly be responsible about it. Ban it all.
Soccer mom Feinstein irrationality. I'm fairly centrist on the subject - I want stronger regulation, I want the loopholes closed, I even pass on the hi cap mag limit because its pointless and stupid (fire, reload, fire). But the poster resorted to personal attacks and what could be construed as personal threats almost immediately. Apparently unable to differentiate between moderates and pro-gun extremists, a sign of anti-gun delusionary extremism. Kind of amazing.