Virginia Democrats pass gun ban

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
For me it's more about want than need.

I can't think of any reason to ban any specific gun. The gun itself doesn't do anything.

Fully agree with you. We would need directed energy weapons at least.

In this case, I think it's about the politicians/ lobbyists etc. moving into the state and not really representing Virginians. For me, it's students that skew local elections. Nationally, I don't want a handful of heavily populated states dictating. A lot of nuance for this issue.
Thank you for being honest and acknowledging both that it’s a WANT and that it won’t do shit if we have to fight the government.

We have congress which is supposed to represent the states equally - the senate despite population, and the house where the states are broken down into lots of little pieces that each have a representative so that different cultures within the state are all represented. Other elections are supposed to be majority rules.

Up until recently I’ve always lived places where my vote was effectively meaningless - big state, big city, large population, solidly on one side of the fence, whatever - because the way politics work means that a vote from Montana weighs more than one from Brooklyn. That isn’t really fair either is it? On another metric my vote didn’t matter because baby boomers and older had bigger numbers than my age group. Now my age group has the bigger numbers and most don’t bother to vote. It’s never going to be a perfect system. It wasn’t DESIGNED to be.

I’m not really sure what you mean “not really representing Virginians” if they live there they ARE Virginians. A states demographics changing, or the younger people having different ideas doesn’t mean the popular vote doesn’t represent “real Virginians” - it means the definition of “real Virginians” is changing.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
Slippery slope argument. What happens when if the assholes start using shotguns, .45 or 30.06?
If they use a gun that has a valid use otherwise - which those do - the argument changes.

@weskrongden the majority of these mass shootings have been with ar’s and similar.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
323
If they use a gun that has a valid use otherwise - which those do - the argument changes.

@weskrongden the majority of these mass shootings have been with ar’s and similar.
Totally incorrect.


You might not want to trust what you hear from the mainstream media and Democratic politicians.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
47 mass shootings using assault style weapons, out of 117 shootings - that’s 40%. The article you cited conveniently doesn’t give the number of people killed in any of these incidents. When these types of guns are used the death toll rises exponentially. That’s a problem for me.

As previously stated there are many valid uses for handguns and shotguns. If ALL the shootings occurred with them I still wouldn’t support banning or limiting there use because of this. But that isn’t the case either. So while I understand your passionate about this you might want to work on your argument a bit, because right now it is coming off a bit much like a temper tantrum.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
323
47 mass shootings using assault style weapons, out of 117 shootings - that’s 40%. The article you cited conveniently doesn’t give the number of people killed in any of these incidents. When these types of guns are used the death toll rises exponentially. That’s a problem for me.

As previously stated there are many valid uses for handguns and shotguns. If ALL the shootings occurred with them I still wouldn’t support banning or limiting there use because of this. But that isn’t the case either. So while I understand your passionate about this you might want to work on your argument a bit, because right now it is coming off a bit much like a temper tantrum.
It's not a temper tantrum, you aren't informed on the issue. You can fire off just as many rounds with a pistol and reload them almost instantly, just like an AR. The main difference is accuracy and power over range, which doesn't really matter for your mass shooter scenarios.

But let's say we accept that ARs are deadlier. If I knew there was going to be an attack on my life today and I could choose to defend myself with an AR or a handgun, I'm going to take an AR.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
Who gets to define valid use and wouldn't going out in the yard and popping off a few rounds be a valid use?
Not when weighed against costs. Think of it as a cost/benefit analysis like we use for like everything but most easily identifiable in business. That’s how I do.

Who gets to define valid use? As with anything else the whole community with outside expert opinions weighted more.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
It's not a temper tantrum, you aren't informed on the issue. You can fire off just as many rounds with a pistol and reload them almost instantly, just like an AR. The main difference is accuracy and power over range, which doesn't really matter for your mass shooter scenarios.

But let's say we accept that ARs are deadlier. If I knew there was going to be an attack on my life today and I could choose to defend myself with an AR or a handgun, I'm going to take an AR.
I’m informed enough for what I need to know. I know the right to bear arms is important, I exercise it. I know the responsibility to prevent mass slaughters is equally important. And somewhere between the two lies the answer. The right of a child or really any innocent person to life isn’t less important than the right of a gun owner who wants to shoot off ar’s in his backyard and neither are more or less important then the right to defend oneself which is enshrined in our constitution. Balance, in all things is required. So is compromise.
 






Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,604
Not when weighed against costs. Think of it as a cost/benefit analysis like we use for like everything but most easily identifiable in business. That’s how I do
To some the fun/skill of shooting is worth more than the money.
outside expert opinions weighted more
Fuck the outside experts... they're almost always bought and paid for.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
323
I’m informed enough for what I need to know. I know the right to bear arms is important, I exercise it. I know the responsibility to prevent mass slaughters is equally important. And somewhere between the two lies the answer. The right of a child or really any innocent person to life isn’t less important than the right of a gun owner who wants to shoot off ar’s in his backyard and neither are more or less important then the right to defend oneself which is enshrined in our constitution. Balance, in all things is required. So is compromise.
No, you don't know anything about the issue or firearms. All you did was throw out a bunch of cliches. In 2018, the amount of people killed from a mass shooting was 373 people. Do you know how statistically insignificant number that is? The fact is the vast majority of gun related deaths are not mass shootings and are handguns.

And I just explained to you in a mass shooting scenario, a handgun is just as effective. It can fire off as many rounds and reload just as fast as an AR. The big difference is accuracy and power over range. A mass shooting in a school or nightclub or office, it does not matter if you use a handgun or AR. They can inflict the same amount of damage.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
To some the fun/skill of shooting is worth more than the money.

Fuck the outside experts... they're almost always bought and paid for.
I didn’t mean costs as in money. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I meant costs as in your fun vs the death toll that arises from the same instrument.

It’s really fun to drive 120mph, however, when you do so the rate of accidents increases along with the fatality risk so collectively we came together and said, sorry but 70mph is what’s reasonable and that’s how fast you can drive. It isn’t all about us and our fun.
 






Lurking009

Established
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
386
Can you provide a reason that a private citizen would need an AR-15 or similar type of gun?

I’m not anti gun. I think the right to own guns is important (I exercise that right myself) however, I can not think of any reason for an AR-15 or similar. I just can’t. To fight a corrupt government? It won’t do anything against the type of weapons the government has.

Also the MAJORITY of people is the MAJORITY. No matter what geographic region of the state they live in. I never understood that argument either.
Can you provide a reason for most of the things you own - especially the non-essentials like more clothes, cars, tv's, computers or even food than you need? Do you own a house? Does it have a yard? Do you have pets? If so... why. None of these are actually needed.

When you start going down the path of questioning what others 'need', that same question can be pointed right back at you... and then legislated against because someone else feels you don't need all the things that you have. The Constitution provides for gun ownership, therefore it's a right. If a person legally owns any type of gun, they don't owe you an explanation.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
Can you provide a reason for most of the things you own - especially the non-essentials like more clothes, cars, tv's, computers or even food than you need? Do you own a house? Does it have a yard? Do you have pets? If so... why. None of these are actually needed.

When you start going down the path of questioning what others 'need', that same question can be pointed right back at you... and then legislated against because someone else feels you don't need all the things that you have. The Constitution provides for gun ownership, therefore it's a right. If a person legally owns any type of gun, they don't owe you an explanation.
No they don’t owe me an explanation. But the constitution was also written at a time when guns like this didn’t exist. Things change. Lots of amendments have been made to the constitution over time as things changed.

It’s not like I’m out there advocating for any of this. As previously stated I whole heartedly agree with the right to bear arms. However I see the argument over limiting access to certain types of weapons as well. Owning a gun is a right but it is also a responsibility. When people neglect the responsibility part that comes with the right it creates problems - the outcomes of which we are now seeing.

I can drive my car 120mph without posing a risk to anyone’s life. Others can’t. Therefore I am not allowed to because trying to figure out who can and who can’t do so responsibly is impossible. It may be stupid, but it is what it is.

Equating a weapon with the potential to kill to an extra pair of shoes is a bit of a stretch, no?
 






Lurking009

Established
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
386
Equating a weapon with the potential to kill to an extra pair of shoes is a bit of a stretch, no?
No, it's not a stretch. You want a new pair of shoes, someone else wants a new rifle because they happen to enjoy shooting. That's the free society we live in.
 






Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,604
I didn’t mean costs as in money. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I meant costs as in your fun vs the death toll that arises from the same instrument.
No unnecessary deaths arise from my instruments. JS
It’s really fun to drive 120mph, however, when you do so the rate of accidents increases along with the fatality risk
The roads not being designed for that kind of speed is also a factor.
Then what is?
Mental health could be a start, but that's another slippery slope I don't want to go down. Sometimes freedom is messy.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
5,445
We seriously don’t live in a free society though. We say we do but we don’t. There are like a bajillion laws already on the books limiting our freedoms in a bajillion ways. Yet this seems to be the only issue that most “freedom” lovers seem to care about or argue about.

16 year old kids can’t buy lighters for chrissakes. There’s a million valid important reasons to have a lighter. I see no one pissed off about this. But one, tiny inconsequential example, of all the ways we are decidedly not free.

Freedom is great. It’s important. But where your right to freedom ends is when it rubs up on one of my rights. That’s how it works. Deciding where that line is drawn is the issue. We have a right to own firearms but we also have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Finding a balance is what’s needed when people aren’t responsible in exercising their rights.

@Lurker you truly are all about freedom. Even when we disagree I have a massive amount of respect for that and you as a result. I have never once in all these years seen you contradict yourself. The same can not be said for the majority of these gun right freedom lovers.

@Lurking009 shoes can not kill people. Atleast use a more appropriate comparison.
 






Last edited:
Top