>expecting anything else from any democrat candidate
>ever
smh tbh fam

How dare you. So my gun, sitting behind me in its locked case with the magazine separate and the ammunition in another container, is a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately? Are you saying someone is going to come take my gun and use it for nefarious purposes, or are you suggesting that I--as well as all other gun owners--are going to become indiscriminate killers based solely on the fact that we own a gun? Tell me, which amendment came directly after the freedom of speech, again? You know, that one that seemed more important to the foundation of our country than the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure?

I'm sorry, but as a left-leaning gun owner I'm so sick of the ignorance about firearms. Stop trying to take away my sport just because you don't understand it. But hey, while we're on the topic, how about this lovely little piece of news? Apparently there's a petition being sent to the White House to ban the AR-15 platform because it's the single biggest reason for gun violence (in their opinion) based on anecdotal evidence from its presence in several high-profile incidents. That in and of itself would be stupid enough...but the Orlando shooting didn't even involve an AR-15! HERP!

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/13/narrative-fail-orlando-islamic-terrorist-use-ar-15/

I'm not disagreeing, though in the extreme/stretch case, we can talk about WMD's. They don't do much when left alone, but I feel a lot more comfortable when people (ie countries, neighbors, gangs, etc.) don't have them at their disposal.

FYI: I do have a gun permit and did go to a shooting range less than two weeks ago. While I don't see myself ever owning a gun for anything other than target practice, I'm not opposed to responsible people (who remain responsible) owning them. I just don't know how we can keep them out of the hands of people who seek to do harm in a consistent manner.

I'm assuming if they're breaking into your home to steal your gun, their intentions aren't great. I'd rather not find out.

Also, "for those who desire to kill indiscriminately", not "will influence owners to kill indiscriminately". They mean two different things. The former suggests a pre-existing disposition to do harm. The latter is just stupid.

True, it would probably reduce the rate of some small-time gun violence, but on the other hand, think about how damaging it would be to remove people's right to concealed carry and protect themselves against others who attack with illegally-acquired arms. I'm sure the ratio of lives saved to lives lost won't be quite the same.

>le inanimate object meme
Please. Besides, crimes of passion are aided by weapons of convenience. Banning guns and making them illegal won't stop any psycho who's particularly motivated to get one, but it might for someone who gets one simply because it's easy to acquire. Obviously banning guns is a bad idea and not the way to go about things, but suggesting that it literally wouldn't save a single life is beyond absurd.

Argue semantics if you want, but you're not saying anything by attacking someone's choice of words with an unsubstantiated opinion. I think psychology in general is largely bullshit, so calling anything "pop-psych" doesn't mean anything. So if you wanna throw opinions in the mix, there's mine.

Here's hoping she never has to. This whole thing came totally out of left field - that's the scariest part.

Heeere we go.

He said this literally nowhere.

Also filed under "shit nobody ever said".

Jesus Christ, chill out. I don't know what got into you but you either didn't read his post, did read it but only gleaned buzzwords off it, or got paranoid and started reading into it way more than he wrote.

Now that's fucking stupid, but nothing surprises me when it comes to petition-starting liberals. People just don't have a clue what they're arguing about.

This, this, a million times, this. There are so many ways gun control laws can be improved, from mandatory firearms training to required psychological evaluations. Improving the process is totally doable, and people should be focusing on this instead of "wah gunz r bad, other cuntrys dont have gunz" horseshit.

Meanwhile, liberals blame "toxic masculinity" and male violence for the attack, and the U.S. is more at fault than any middle eastern country.

Again, I did not get any of that from a single thing he posted at all. You're having a trigger attack, calm down.

As well as those who do follow the law, right up until they don't, and suddenly have a destructive weapon at their convenient disposal.

Here was Kiro's post, or rather, the relevant sentence:

So, as said, guns are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately. Full stop. Feel free to glance up, read it over again, then glance back down here and read it again. My gun is not a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately. Pointing that out is the entire object of my replies.

Sorry, I'm looking at that whole piece every which way and still not seeing any suggestion that guns, as objects, are dangerous to people, let alone...

...anything to suggest he's referring to guns owned by responsible individuals like you. On the contrary, he's talking about guns being a "tool for those who desire to kill indiscriminately" which is just a fact. Pretty sure it's just to be taken at face value.

Anywho...