Gun Control was/is about emotion and discussion

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Xanadu, Dec 12, 2014.

  1. Xanadu

    Xanadu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was gun control really about trying to control guns, or was it about amplifying emotions in the gun- and non-gun owner?
    It was clearly about amplifying emotions in the gun and non-gun owner too, because a revolution can only grow by an increase in emotions in a population.
    Because when a revolution occurs, there is chaos, and chaos leads to order, and when that new order is in place, the real gun control starts.
    This is who gun and non- gun owners never should be part of a revolution, which is very hard because things like fear, curiosity (news and politics) or chaos increase level if emotion in millions.
    An increase in emotions in a majority can lead to a revolution.
    One of the most effective ways to prevent a revolution is to stop commmunicating. Because than emotions are dropping, because the spread of emotion drops.
    Gun control increased emotions and communications in society over the subject.
    A lot of forums started a gun control topics when the subject gun control came on the political agenda and in the media.
     
  2. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The difference between war and peace is that in war you attack someone else before they can attack you.

    In this sense, society is never in a state of pure peace. So when a government tries to obtain a total monopoly on the means of force, immediately several questions arise.

    just my rambling stream of consciousness in response to your rambling stream of consciousness
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It should be about the obvious: there is an innate interest in guns but that interest leads to drastic harm. You've been shown the evidence so why are you asking the question?
     
  4. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is what's obvious, over 300 million guns in the country that are not going anywhere. Get used to it. The drastic harm you are referring to is criminals killing criminals. That is the bulk of the stats. Responsible firearm owners will not be painted with the same brush as the street thugs.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given we have to refer to increased crime rates (ceteris paribus), you have to argue that guns create criminals! Hardcore argument you've got going there...
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    11,221
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is nothing new, and it has been going on for decades.

    For a lot of people, it is really all about control. There are people in this country that want to control everything, from what we wear and what we think to what we buy and what we do for a living. And often times they use demonizing and attempts at legislation to affect that is considered ot be "good" and "bad".

    And they attempt this in many different ways. From "Saturday Night Special" laws which place arbitrary laws on how much you are allowed to sell a gun for, to "assault weapon laws" which primarily deal with how a weapon looks instead of anything else. They make the item itself (be it a gun, a class of automobile or the source of a fuel) to be the enemy, not the people who may misuse them.

    And we see this all to often in how politicians react to them. 2 decades ago an attempt was made to recall a corrupt politician in California. But the defenders instead twisted it into claims that it was not a recall but a vote to allow "assault weapons" back into California. Voters were so confused as to what the vote was actually about in the first place, that they let a corrupt politician stay in office because they used fear that it was an attempt to overturn a gun law.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page