Democrats use guns to kill innocents while republicans use them for self defense

highli99 · Jun 27, 2016

Interesting blog by Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) addressing why there is no compromise on gun control:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

I think he makes some salient points! What think ye?

dreadpirate · Jun 27, 2016

I have two problems with what Scott says; Republicans are not defending themselves against Democrats, this is not a civil war. That is criminal versus non-criminal. Also, while 2A rights are very important, I simply don't understand why someone says that (1) an AR 15 is an assault rifle, it is not, and (2) I see no reason why I cannot (if I take responsibility for my actions) own an AR15 for recreation; this has nothing to do with me shooting up Democrats to defend myself. I think Scott makes a very dangerous categorization.

BeoBill · Jun 27, 2016

He's a cartoonist. Who (besides his family and friends) cares what he thinks?

Slowhand · Jun 27, 2016

Dupe...

highli99 · Jun 27, 2016

I took his main point to be that the two sides see the same point from very different, and probably irreconcilable points of view. He also pointed out that the majority of crimes involving firearms are perpetrated by a constituency represented by democrats, while the the constituency represented by republicans predominately uses guns for lawful purposes.

I saw logic in both of those points even if I don't see eye to eye with him on all issues, or even on his stance on gun control.

I also found humor in his caveat that he supports Hillary because supporting Trump in California would place him in physical danger. He's calling out the left in a very subtle way.

ryan_j · Jun 27, 2016

Scott is somewhat correct. It's the perception. A lot of the pro gun control debate is self-defense which may be against crimes committed disproportionately by racial minorities and illegal immigrants. Democrats want gun control, not because of these crimes, but because of so-called "mass shootings" which affect white, liberal areas, or some of their pet causes like the Orlando shooting with the LGBT community.

Again - this may or may not be reality but it certainly is perception and is why Scott claims that gun control will never happen.

highli99 · Jun 27, 2016

BeoBill said:
He's a cartoonist. Who (besides his family and friends) cares what he thinks?

I personally find his writing to be thought provoking, even though I don't share all of his views.

Nationally syndicated cartoonist are generally savvy business people for what it's worth. He's made a lot more money than I probably ever will...

ryan_j · Jun 27, 2016

BeoBill said:
He's a cartoonist. Who (besides his family and friends) cares what he thinks?

He is a storyteller and his cartoons are based on an observation of society. So while he may be writing fiction, he is also writing about social trends.

Bob A · Jun 27, 2016

BeoBill said:
He's a cartoonist. Who (besides his family and friends) cares what he thinks?

He's a wealthy entertainer who uses his observations of reality to create a surprise response in his audience. The surprise comes from the juxtaposition of reality and the viewer's previous assumptions.

Humor is a valuable tool in outlining and exposing faulty thought patterns.

His success indicates that he does this very well.

I personally very much enjoy the way he thinks, and I recognise that his essay has validity. insofar as it makes his audience consider their beliefs from a different perspective - one that aligns with mine, of course - I care what he thinks.

YMMV, of course.

bitterkenny · Jun 27, 2016

I think he mostly gets it. Here's exhibit A.

https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6267848.html

Don H · Jun 27, 2016

"Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country."

I thought Trump was for the rich people and Clinton was for the poor people (being poor herself, all those college, wedding and legal bills and all).

Jim12 · Jun 27, 2016

dreadpirate said:
I have two problems with what Scott says; Republicans are not defending themselves against Democrats, this is not a civil war. That is criminal versus non-criminal. Also, while 2A rights are very important, I simply don't understand why someone says that (1) an AR 15 is an assault rifle, it is not, and (2) I see no reason why I cannot (if I take responsibility for my actions) own an AR15 for recreation; this has nothing to do with me shooting up Democrats to defend myself. I think Scott makes a very dangerous categorization.

(1) results from the very public dissemination of ignorance and wilful lies, and which not only is not refuted by the 2A community, but is frequently confirmed and reinforced by it. I hear and read gun owners refer to AR-15's as "assault rifles" rather than the "modern sporting rifles" that they are. Words matter, and we have adopted the opposition's terminology; and

(2) Anti's have convinced the world that AR-15's are made and sold for only one thing, and that is to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. The firearms community does an absolutely terrible job of refuting that charge and educating the media, politicians, and public that AR-15's are modern sporting rifles used for recreation and competition. The false charges need to be refuted every time they are repeated, and the public needs to be educated.

bitterkenny · Jun 27, 2016

Jim12 said:
(1) results from the very public dissemination of ignorance and wilful lies, and which not only is not refuted by the 2A community, but is frequently confirmed and reinforced by it. I hear and read gun owners refer to AR-15's as "assault rifles" rather than the "modern sporting rifles" that they are. Words matter, and we have adopted the opposition's terminology; and

(2) Anti's have convinced the world that AR-15's are made and sold for only one thing, and that is to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. The firearms community does an absolutely terrible job of refuting that charge and educating the media, politicians, and public that AR-15's are modern sporting rifles used for recreation and competition. The false charges need to be refuted every time they are repeated, and the public needs to be educated.

What this says is that they are playing the long game, and we're still arguing semantics. We need to stop it and just say no. Not one more inch. What I've been asking anyone who says anything about pushing gun control is this: is there ever going to a point where we are going to be fine with the level of firearms deaths in this country? I mean, is the left suddenly going to be okay with gun deaths because it wasn't a mass shooting or didn't involve an "assault weapon"? Of course not. "Assault weapons" are targeted because it's politically viable (due to liberal fears of mass shootings) and it's a start.

So rather then trying to correct anyone from saying assault weapon vs. MSR or full-auto vs. semi-auto, or hi-cap mags vs. standard cap mags, just say "shut the F up and just admit you want to get rid of all guns." If they argue, ask "So if a shooting happens and it didn't involve an assault weapon or a mass shooting or a hi-cap mag, you're totally going to be okay with it?" Either answer is F'd up so let the shaming begin (that seems to be the only thing the looney left responds to.)

On the flip side, we have to be totally willing to say the number of firearms deaths today is ok because the benefits outweigh the negatives.

rob-cubed · Jun 28, 2016

And let's not forget that Virginia Tech involved handguns, and the firearm incident that created in the Brady group and resulted in Fed background checks was a .22 caliber revolver.

This is not about assault weapons, it never has been. It's about the grabbers taking away whatever they can, when they can, regardless of what tragedy just happened. AR-15s are an easy target because they look exactly like military rifles (even if we know they aren't). While it matters what we call the AR-15, it's more important to counter that it is one of the most widely owned, common firearms in America today. I think most people would be shocked to know how many ARs are out there in civil society.

highli99 · Jun 28, 2016

bitterkenny said:
What this says is that they are playing the long game, and we're still arguing semantics. We need to stop it and just say no. Not one more inch. What I've been asking anyone who says anything about pushing gun control is this: is there ever going to a point where we are going to be fine with the level of firearms deaths in this country? I mean, is the left suddenly going to be okay with gun deaths because it wasn't a mass shooting or didn't involve an "assault weapon"? Of course not. "Assault weapons" are targeted because it's politically viable (due to liberal fears of mass shootings) and it's a start.

So rather then trying to correct anyone from saying assault weapon vs. MSR or full-auto vs. semi-auto, or hi-cap mags vs. standard cap mags, just say "shut the F up and just admit you want to get rid of all guns." If they argue, ask "So if a shooting happens and it didn't involve an assault weapon or a mass shooting or a hi-cap mag, you're totally going to be okay with it?" Either answer is F'd up so let the shaming begin (that seems to be the only thing the looney left responds to.)

On the flip side, we have to be totally willing to say the number of firearms deaths today is ok because the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Jim12 · Jun 28, 2016

rob-cubed said:
And let's not forget that Virginia Tech involved handguns, and the firearm incident that created in the Brady group and resulted in Fed background checks was a .22 caliber revolver.

This is not about assault weapons, it never has been. It's about the grabbers taking away whatever they can, when they can, regardless of what tragedy just happened. AR-15s are an easy target because they look exactly like military rifles (even if we know they aren't). While it matters what we call the AR-15, it's more important to counter that it is one of the most widely owned, common firearms in America today. I think most people would be shocked to know how many ARs are out there in civil society.

I second that. Just based on the ignorant statements made by the media and politicians (and judges, i.e. "in common use") about what they're for, you can tell that neither they nor the public has a clue. Of course, the firearms community doesn't communicate very well.

Brooklyn · Jun 28, 2016

Bob A said:
He's a wealthy entertainer who uses his observations of reality to create a surprise response in his audience. The surprise comes from the juxtaposition of reality and the viewer's previous assumptions.

Humor is a valuable tool in outlining and exposing faulty thought patterns.

His success indicates that he does this very well.

I personally very much enjoy the way he thinks, and I recognise that his essay has validity. insofar as it makes his audience consider their beliefs from a different perspective - one that aligns with mine, of course - I care what he thinks.

YMMV, of course.

Quite so..it's called satire.. of course he's not as good at it as many think but he's not bad..

I stopped reading his stuff when management started quoting him...kind of like when liberals complain about big brother

Mike · Jun 28, 2016

highli99 said:
I personally find his writing to be thought provoking, even though I don't share all of his views.

Nationally syndicated cartoonist are generally savvy business people for what it's worth. He's made a lot more money than I probably ever will...

Don H said:
"Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country."

I thought Trump was for the rich people and Clinton was for the poor people (being poor herself, all those college, wedding and legal bills and all).

Did anyone get all the way down to the bottom of that page? Too funny and sad also.

*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

Democrats use guns to kill innocents while republicans use them for self defense

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Pre-Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Meh

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Meh

In need of moderation

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

I stand with John Locke.

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics