Gun Control activists
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
237 comments displayed.
#53 to #2
-
ogdonaldengel (08/30/2015) [-] 
Why not just ban guns so that NOBODY can get them? What do people even need guns for? Why not just stop being a pussy and learn how to properly defend yourself if you're that concerned. There is no reason for guns, they really shouldn't be used by anyone for any reason.
#67 to #53
-
ScottishMinor (08/30/2015) [-] Look at Australia and France. Why guns when no guns allowed?
#601 to #67
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
Guns aren't completely banned in AUS, but since the heavier regulations came in, they've not had a single school shooting.
You can argue that guns don't kill people, people kill people, all you want, but you can't argue with the statistical fact that tighter gun control lowers spree shootings.
You can argue that guns don't kill people, people kill people, all you want, but you can't argue with the statistical fact that tighter gun control lowers spree shootings.
#608 to #601
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] At the cost of raising all other crimes, way to go. You didn't even try any other solutions, you live on a continent where 97% percent of the fauna is lethal but you're afraid of guns and give in to a knee jerk reaction.
#64 to #53
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] We do know how to properly defend ourselves, it's called shooting the bad guy.
#155 to #64
-
mynameiswut (08/30/2015) [-] So why are there more good people killed every time than bad people? I mean come on look at other countries that do have guns and (almost) nothing happens there because of different rules they have. Either ban it, or get your **** together murica.
#192 to #155
-
urmomsagrot (08/30/2015) [-] You rarely if ever hear about the "good guy" shooting the "bad guy" in defense. Nobody (anti-gun) cares because they can't push their agenda with it. Why are more good people killed? Because you almost always have to wait till the act is underway before you can react. "Good guys" can't just go into Chicago and start removing kebab. And don't start this "other countries with guns!" **** . Those other countries that people always throw into the statistics with America have 1/3 or less of a population than we do. Of course we are going to have more occurrences as well as more coverage with the way our Media works.
#160 to #157
-
mynameiswut (08/30/2015) [-] well, the other option was get your **** together. EDUCATE people and make sure they are mentally stable for a "piece of metal and plastic"
#164 to #160
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] Lets break down the numbers from the CDC
There are roughly 32,000 deaths a year is the US and declining from Gun Violence
60% Are suicides thats 19,200
3% are accidentals that's 960
4% are justified that's 1,280
33% are homicides that's 10,560
80% of homicides are gang related. That's 8,448
>That leaves 2,112 in a society of 312 million people.
>That leaves a 0.00010256410256 chance of death by gun.
>0.000009846153846 if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and not planning a crime.
Our **** is mostly together, the places with tight restrictions on gun rights and big one party governments seem to be our problem spots.
There are roughly 32,000 deaths a year is the US and declining from Gun Violence
60% Are suicides thats 19,200
3% are accidentals that's 960
4% are justified that's 1,280
33% are homicides that's 10,560
80% of homicides are gang related. That's 8,448
>That leaves 2,112 in a society of 312 million people.
>That leaves a 0.00010256410256 chance of death by gun.
>0.000009846153846 if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and not planning a crime.
Our **** is mostly together, the places with tight restrictions on gun rights and big one party governments seem to be our problem spots.
#310 to #164
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
The "gun control vs. gun freedom" part seems misleading. Murder rates have been dropping nation-wide for years across the board (as the demographic says), so when a state like Texas or Florida drops by 30% and the nationwide drop is 28%, it's hard to say without going back to the original data whether that's within the margin of error. I'm on the fence for gun control or not, and think that the decision should be based on sound data.
TLDR: Not all of the stats listed above are convincing arguments for de-regulation.
TLDR: Not all of the stats listed above are convincing arguments for de-regulation.
#431 to #310
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] How about detriot and Chicago that recently had their laws against concealed carry revoked and saw massive decreases in crime
#250 to #159
-
cannibalvegan (08/30/2015) [-] I used to be antiguns because it makes it easier for people to kill, but then I heard someone say that the criminals will still obtain guns even it they are outlawed and if normal citizen can't have guns the criminals will basically rule everything because they are the one's with the guns. That really made sense to me so now I'm all for guns.
#297 to #250
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
I'm glad you see that. Sadly, this is what most people for "banning all guns" don't realize. "Ban guns" does sound good, but it basically just takes the guns out of law abiding citizens. In fact, when raids are done on gangs, a lot of the time the guns they own (pistols, assault rifles) weren't obtained legally.
#588 to #297
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] only 4 percent of guns used in crimes are purchased legally
#603 to #250
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
80%~ of all firearms used in shootings are stolen from people who purchased them legally. Tighter gun regs would result in lower gun crime. This is a fact compounded by literally every other country in the world that's changed its gun regulations in the last century.
#613 to #603
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] Your focus is only on gun crime though, that's the problem, tunnel vision
#435 to #250
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
the problem with that is banned guns = higher gun prices on the black market. if the criminal can dish out that amount of money (which is likely very high) then i dont see why he should even be a criminal in the first place. sounds like you just formed an opinion based off what someone else said rather than doing the research yourself.
#508 to #435
-
cannibalvegan (08/30/2015) [-] Like previously said, there are already tones of guns in circulation anyway and big time criminals like the maffia has plenty of money.
#463 to #435
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
The guns are already out there, they have no need for the black market to obtain them.....so your point may apply to a few up and comers, but not to established criminals. Also, cops wont be allowed to go door to door. Accepting the current situation and proliferation of guns in America is the first step towards finding a happy medium. Banning guns will only prevent gun sales and shut down gun stores to new owners, once again making it difficult for good, legal owners to defend themselves.
#448 to #435
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] They would still have them though, and the gangs already have plenty. So the rest of us would be at their mercy. You want to create a monopoly on force.
#611 to #596
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] The true problem is our politically motivated dishonest media who are shills for the democrat party
#626 to #625
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] They have an antigun agenda, over 80% of the media identify as democrat/liberal, so whenever they do cover guns it is always in a negative light, ehcne you never hear of the 500k times a year they are used for defense.
#628 to #627
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] True enough for hard news, but the opinion shows are where they really hammer their agenda, look at piers morgan
#190 to #155
-
fuelnfire (08/30/2015) [-] Different rules? If guns are legal, they're legal. Switzerland, Canada, have fairly similar gun laws ( canada more so with california) and nothing happens. More good people are killed, because good guys dont walk around looking to kill people. That's like saying muggers steal from more people than good guys. Like, no **** .
#322 to #155
-
randomzdude (08/30/2015) [-]
Maybe because "good" people aren't shooting to kill and really are just trying to DEFEND themselves.
#342 to #155
-
captaincapital ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-]
and how do you know more good people are killed than bad people? I'd liek some statistics there mate instead of baseless assumptions
if ur talking about criminal shootings you know very ******* well banning guns will do nothing, they'll still acquire it.
if ur talking about criminal shootings you know very ******* well banning guns will do nothing, they'll still acquire it.
#432 to #64
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
you do realise gun control doesnt have to be about *taking guns away permanently*. but at the very least, you can agree that there needs to be tighter restrictions right? don't mock the entire gun control movement without understanding what the term "gun control" even means.
#436 to #432
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] When you say tighter restriction what you mean is banning aesthetic features (scary looking guns) and making it more expensive for people to excesses their rights. Fact is the new restrictions that get proposed don't deal in reality
#429 to #285
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] Accidental deaths are incredibly rare if you ever bothered to look at the actual numbers
#98 to #53
-
stankape (08/30/2015) [-] The only weapon that humanity ever decided was too much to use was the nuclear bomb, and their's still several nations that keep them around just in case. By making guns illegal, the only thing you will do is stop people who follow laws from being able to defend themselves. Would it be nice to go back and settle all arguments with fist fights? that's still debatable, either way, it'll never happen and their's no point in trying to regress the average person that just wants a way to keep themselves, and their families safe.
#130 to #101
-
OsamaBinLadenz (08/30/2015) [-] "There's" means there is what? Complete your sentence or put quotation marks around "there is" in your sentence, please. One should never correct others unless they are sure of their capability to do so properly. Correcting this was just annoying, pointless, pedantic, and, if one were to ask me, rather condescending. I've grown past my grammar Nazi days, and I encourage you to follow suit.
There are 3 instances in which I allow myself to correct others' English now. The first instance is when someone wants to be corrected, so as to improve their skills in English. The second instance is when someone types so incorrectly that it genuinely disgusts me, and even then I will let it slide if they aren't being a ******* . The third and current instance is when someone, such as yourself, feels a dire need to take it upon oneself to correct another person's English, resulting in what amounts to a bothersome experience for all, maybe excluding the corrector. In your instance of correction, no instance of the three above instances applies
Your comments were pedantic, bothersome, and, if I were asked, slightly condescending. In, in the future, simply ignore small mistakes and continue browsing the internet instead of being a generally displeasing person to encounter, please and thank you.
There are 3 instances in which I allow myself to correct others' English now. The first instance is when someone wants to be corrected, so as to improve their skills in English. The second instance is when someone types so incorrectly that it genuinely disgusts me, and even then I will let it slide if they aren't being a ******* . The third and current instance is when someone, such as yourself, feels a dire need to take it upon oneself to correct another person's English, resulting in what amounts to a bothersome experience for all, maybe excluding the corrector. In your instance of correction, no instance of the three above instances applies
Your comments were pedantic, bothersome, and, if I were asked, slightly condescending. In, in the future, simply ignore small mistakes and continue browsing the internet instead of being a generally displeasing person to encounter, please and thank you.
#134 to #130
-
OsamaBinLadenz (08/30/2015) [-] As a continuation, I also am lenient to those who correct their own English after noticing a mistake. For example, I accidentally included a second instance of "in" within my previous comment, which I had intended to correct, but missed when revising the sentence, it would seem. However, I'm correcting that in a fair amount of time, which would've been okay had you done so, yourself.
#320 to #53
-
GeneralLeeInsane (08/30/2015) [-] Being worried about guns, when cars kill more people.
If you're that concerned about guns, get a car... Statistically speaking, your car is more likely to kill a gun, than a gun is to kill you.
If you're that concerned about guns, get a car... Statistically speaking, your car is more likely to kill a gun, than a gun is to kill you.
#94 to #53
-
bluwizard (08/30/2015) [-] **bluwizard used "*roll picture*"**
**bluwizard rolled image** This is bait, I know this is bait. But:
We can't stop people getting weapons. We cant stop people from crossing our borders what makes you think weapons wont be smuggled illegally?
Now they guys that want to do whatever they want have weapons, and you don't.
The police you say? They have literally declared that they are not here to protect the individual, they are here to protect society. You will call them, you will be shot and they will take your **** (or do whatever it is they want to), the cops will find them and either imprison them or kill them, but you will be dead, or severely wounded.
Now if you had a gun, you could have defended your home.
Even better, if they knew you, and everyone around you had weapons. They may not feel so bold as to try and come up to you and try **** .
But what keeps people from panicking or crazy people from going postal? Well for one, as long as you don't act like a fidgety paranoid psychotic, things will go just fine. They did in the west (despite the western movies depictions there was rarely any gunfights). As for the psychotics, any of these recent people would gotten maybe half the clip off before taking a shot from 9 or 10 other people (if they were properly trained to use the firearm, which they should be).
Hook, line and sinker. Let's see if I can reel you in instead.
**bluwizard rolled image** This is bait, I know this is bait. But:
We can't stop people getting weapons. We cant stop people from crossing our borders what makes you think weapons wont be smuggled illegally?
Now they guys that want to do whatever they want have weapons, and you don't.
The police you say? They have literally declared that they are not here to protect the individual, they are here to protect society. You will call them, you will be shot and they will take your **** (or do whatever it is they want to), the cops will find them and either imprison them or kill them, but you will be dead, or severely wounded.
Now if you had a gun, you could have defended your home.
Even better, if they knew you, and everyone around you had weapons. They may not feel so bold as to try and come up to you and try **** .
But what keeps people from panicking or crazy people from going postal? Well for one, as long as you don't act like a fidgety paranoid psychotic, things will go just fine. They did in the west (despite the western movies depictions there was rarely any gunfights). As for the psychotics, any of these recent people would gotten maybe half the clip off before taking a shot from 9 or 10 other people (if they were properly trained to use the firearm, which they should be).
Hook, line and sinker. Let's see if I can reel you in instead.
#576 to #53
-
rowdeemunkee (08/30/2015) [-] Your right, getting rid of guns magically will erase world conflict
#139 to #53
-
Juigiknows (08/30/2015) [-] Think i'm the only human here that agrees with you lol.
Even if you're trolling. Canada is perfectly. PERFECTLY. fine without the law.
Even if you're trolling. Canada is perfectly. PERFECTLY. fine without the law.
#542 to #53
-
thatonecommunist (08/30/2015) [-] why don't we just take it a step further and ban dying all together! then nobody will die!
#484 to #53
-
durkadurka (08/30/2015) [-] Sorry bud, not everyone living on the planet is a young male in good physical condition. Like the popular saying goes, Samuel Colt made men equal. If grandma wants to stop the hoodrats breaking into her her house, she's gonna need some firepower.
#467 to #53
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
I wish this would work. But guess what. The drug dealers, gangs, thieves, illegal aliens, and prostitution rings down the street arent going to say "hey man! I stole these guns! I dont legally own them, but since they arent allowed anymore, I'll turn them in!"
Gun laws dont effect these people. They effect ME and others that have guns for self defense against those assholes down the street legally. The criminals that arent caught, arent idiots. They arent gonna use a gun thats registered under their names for crime.
Gun laws dont effect these people. They effect ME and others that have guns for self defense against those assholes down the street legally. The criminals that arent caught, arent idiots. They arent gonna use a gun thats registered under their names for crime.
#418 to #53
-
dekkeret (08/30/2015) [-] It has nothing to do with defending yourself or being able to go shoot beer cans with Jim-Bob down by the gully. Our right to bear arms exists so that when our government becomes too corrupt and tyrannical that we will be able to forcefully take it back.
An armed citizenry will act as a check in extreme cases. Take that away and feds will have carte blanche. Imagine our founding fathers standing up to the British with pepper spray.
An armed citizenry will act as a check in extreme cases. Take that away and feds will have carte blanche. Imagine our founding fathers standing up to the British with pepper spray.
#413 to #53
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
even if you make all guns illegal in the US and Canada or wherever else, guns will still get around illegally, you think criminals and drug cartels are all going to adopt a sword and shield? and when even law enforcement is out gunned because they don't have any guns because its the law, then the entire country is buggered
#321 to #53
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
Because people are too *********** in today's day and age to admit they didn't really buy it for self defense, they just bought it for the fun of shooting. I don't plan on ever killing another person in my life, doesn't stop me from enjoying a day at the range from time to time
#289 to #53
-
pwnfrnzy (08/30/2015) [-] Then criminals will still have guns via the Black Market.
Banning something gets rid of legal means to defend yourself from a man with what is often an illegally obtained firearm, and in doing so, criminals will be able to **** **** up even more.
You really are retarded and want to die, don't you?
Have fun trying to fisty-cuffs a nig-nog with an automatic rifle.
Banning something gets rid of legal means to defend yourself from a man with what is often an illegally obtained firearm, and in doing so, criminals will be able to **** **** up even more.
You really are retarded and want to die, don't you?
Have fun trying to fisty-cuffs a nig-nog with an automatic rifle.
#177 to #53
-
elsenortamatoe (08/30/2015) [-] This is bait
Why not just ban all drugs so that NOBODY can get them? What do people even need drugs for? Why not stop being a pussy an learn how to properly live with out them if youre concerned. There is no reason for drugs, they really shouldn't be used by anyone for any reason.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Drugs are a tool that has a purpose, banning them hurts people. And illegal drugs are illegal, so why do they still exist?
Why not just ban all drugs so that NOBODY can get them? What do people even need drugs for? Why not stop being a pussy an learn how to properly live with out them if youre concerned. There is no reason for drugs, they really shouldn't be used by anyone for any reason.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Drugs are a tool that has a purpose, banning them hurts people. And illegal drugs are illegal, so why do they still exist?
#174 to #53
-
lodisboeg (08/30/2015) [-] Well, I mean, in Sweden we've had strict gun control for like ever. You need a license, which is pretty hard to get both to get a gun legally and to shoot a gun legally.
People still get guns and shoot each other, though, so....
(Recently organized crime people have started throwing hand grenades as well. Apparently you get them as a bonus when you buy guns in the balkans)
People still get guns and shoot each other, though, so....
(Recently organized crime people have started throwing hand grenades as well. Apparently you get them as a bonus when you buy guns in the balkans)
#76 to #53
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
And I suppose you're going to crack down on illegal arms sales like the government? Because we've seen how that works. Anti-gun laws only work on law-abiding citizens. You're not eliminating crime. You're only making it harder for law-abiding citizens to properly defend themselves.
#426 to #2
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
ill always be against guns. ppl will find all sorts of excuses to keep guns around (either using skewed data or diverting the issue) but the truth is, its worked in other places so it can work here. whether that means tighter restrictions or no guns at all, something has to be done. you people can't honestly say that there's not a single thing wrong with guns right now or else people wouldn't even be debating over it.
#501 to #426
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
The problem that I have with the anti-gun movement is it blatantly ignores the people and focuses on the object. As the video stated, guns are inanimate objects. They can't do a damn thing on their own. They also don't influence people one way or another. I own several guns, and I have no desire, no thought, of killing people. I own them because they're interesting, and they're fun to shoot. Another common argument I hear is, "Guns are made ONLY to kill people! Why even own something that's made to kill?!" implying that one can't enjoy shooting as a sport. People who make such arguments never, ironically, make the same argument towards archers, sword collectors, or other ancient weapon enthusiasts, or even martial artists for that matter. Therefore, giving a psychotic person access to a firearm is not what made that person psychotic. I understand the anti-gunners' stance, I really do. I sympathize with it. But that does not mean that I agree with it. Blaming an inanimate object is a disservice to our society, to the victims of shootings, and even to the criminals. Yes, something needs to change. Incidents like Sandy Hook are inexcusable. But I would guarantee you everything I have that if there had not been a person behind that gun, Sandy Hook would have never happened. It cannot be stated with any certainty that an incident like Sandy Hook would have never happened if there were no guns in this country. The greatest massacre at a school in US history occurred in 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan. Thirty-eight children and six adults were killed, and 58 others were injured. This was all done with a bomb.
#560 to #501
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
But that's the heart of the issue. Guns are so readily available and easy to come by that anyone who is unstable (and let's face it, America has has a poor mental health track record (medical care *cough* *cough*)) can go get military grade weapons and do what they like when they like. Hell, even Pokémon fans are no exception as was demonstrated by the pair of championship competitors in Boston ( who were caught before they did anything thank god) The fact is, there are many fanatics in the US. And they are all wanting to prove prove a point, all they gotta do is pull they trigger.
#19 to #2
-
clavatnine (08/30/2015) [-] We can't put people in prisons anymore without people from irrelevant European countries complaining about how the US has a lot of people in prisons while simultaneously glorifying their government who won't even put down a mass murderer.
#5
-
anon (08/29/2015) [-]
The gun control crowd doesn't want to ban guns, they want to ban people from owning them.
#173 to #5
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
Government officials don't count as people?
They want to ban guns from public use on the argument that guns cause violence, which is far from the case given a minimal amount of unbiased research into the subject. The only fact that anti-gun activists have is that banning guns correlates with reduced gun crime. It does not however correlate with a reduction in violent crime, and there is data that shows a correlation to firearm regulations and increases in violent crime rates.
It's like banning vaccines on the basis that there is a slight correlation with autism. With every ban or regulation comes a wave of unintended consequences that get swept under the rug. It does more harm than good.
They want to ban guns from public use on the argument that guns cause violence, which is far from the case given a minimal amount of unbiased research into the subject. The only fact that anti-gun activists have is that banning guns correlates with reduced gun crime. It does not however correlate with a reduction in violent crime, and there is data that shows a correlation to firearm regulations and increases in violent crime rates.
It's like banning vaccines on the basis that there is a slight correlation with autism. With every ban or regulation comes a wave of unintended consequences that get swept under the rug. It does more harm than good.
#323 to #294
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
So, all gun owners are inherently extreme right conservative backwoods rednecks? Nah, let's just totally ignore reality on this one, why don't we
#550 to #5
-
heilhotwheels (08/30/2015) [-] That's also not whats being mocked here. It's the idea that we should ban guns from being in the hands of civilians because they are dangerous. Thus implying that the gun itself was responsible for the actions of a human
#88 to #41
-
civilizedwasteland (08/30/2015) [-] The government still has them and I guess people are scared of that being the case
#77 to #41
-
jewfrosdsd (08/30/2015) [-]
Well the thought is even if you ban guns, similarly to drugs, criminals will find a way to obtain them regardless of legality.
#503 to #41
-
durkadurka (08/30/2015) [-] Banning something doesn't mean you've successfully kept it out of people's hands. Plenty of things are banned yet obtained with regularity.
If people want something enough, they will find a way to get it.
If people want something enough, they will find a way to get it.
#325 to #41
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
If you ban guns, criminals can still get them illegally, it does absolutely nothing to keep them out of the hands of people who don't give a **** about the law
#329 to #325
-
talpss (08/30/2015) [-] Pretty much. I don't think people with mental illnesses or felonies or that are irresponsible should be allowed to have guns (which I'm pretty certain is already the case), but other than that, there should be no restrictions. There's really not more gun control can do to prevent these shootings. The best thing one can do is to have officers patrolling schools (which is done in alot of schools) and allow people to carry firearms to defend themselves in public. There's probably some stuff I'm missing, but to me that seems like all that can be done without completely destroying our rights.
#330 to #329
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
Felonies are iffy. If your crime is violent in nature, and you've proven yourself to be a danger to others, then no, no guns for you. But if all you're guilty of is non-violent offenses, and there's no indication on your record to show you might go in and rob a place at gun point, or shoot someone in anger, why should you be prohibited?
#336 to #334
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
But under that logic, anybody with a speeding ticket should be banned, too, because speeding is irresponsible behavior that puts people at risk. Like I said, unless you've shown that you're a likely danger to yourself or others, there shouldn't be major restrictions
#132 to #41
-
thaple (08/30/2015) [-] You're generalizing a bit. Its not that gun control activists don't want people in general to get guns, they want more strict regulations on who can and can't get a gun. The average person who just wants to defend there own would still be able to get a fire arm, just not if they are proven to be irresponsible with it, or otherwise ********** rat levels of crazy.
#119
-
cerig (08/30/2015) [-] Its not rocket science, all the previous high profile shootings within the past 5 years alone have been due to mental instability and mental diseases. As such maybe a psychiatric evaluation should be included into the background check you need to purchase a gun. It opens up a niche market for psychiatrists to actually do some good in the world. And if some nut goes off his rocker theres an easily blamable expert who can be studied to make amendments to the law.
#558 to #119
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
you know that doesn't make sense right? obviously murderers are not mentally sane but most of the time it only figured out after the shootings, if it would be so simple to figure out who will be murderer then there wouldn't be a single one what you suggest is not a bad idea but wont solve anything just a little more security
#142 to #119
-
xxkelevraxx (08/30/2015) [-] not saying you are wrong, only playing devil's advocate.
But how many of those guns were legally obtained? and how many were licensed to own/carry?
But how many of those guns were legally obtained? and how many were licensed to own/carry?
#145 to #142
-
cerig (08/30/2015) [-] Quite a large number of them; not all of them, but enough to make a significant number to reckon with.
Bryce Williams - Bought his after Dylan Roof did the SC church shooting
Dylan Roof - Bought his legally thru a NC legal loophole
Adam Lanza - Had his mother buy them legally in her name
James Holmes - Bought his legally from 3 different stores
Seung Hui Cho (Vtech) - Bought his legally months before shooting despite a well documented history of mental illness
I'd like to research my point more but its like 2:00 am by me
Bryce Williams - Bought his after Dylan Roof did the SC church shooting
Dylan Roof - Bought his legally thru a NC legal loophole
Adam Lanza - Had his mother buy them legally in her name
James Holmes - Bought his legally from 3 different stores
Seung Hui Cho (Vtech) - Bought his legally months before shooting despite a well documented history of mental illness
I'd like to research my point more but its like 2:00 am by me
#150 to #145
-
xxkelevraxx (08/30/2015) [-] only reason I didn't research was it was late. lol buut
Adam Lanza - Had his mother buy them legally in her name. they were not in his name nor his = illegally obtained/unlicensed. but that's one of 5
Adam Lanza - Had his mother buy them legally in her name. they were not in his name nor his = illegally obtained/unlicensed. but that's one of 5
#154 to #150
-
cerig (08/30/2015) [-]
Actually it counts as legal through the family system because users dont have to be listed like an automobile driver even if its in someone elses name. After all how many times have kids accidentally killed other kids with daddy or mommy's gun? Plus all those parents that teach their kids how to hunt and shoot, i doubt the gun owners license is in their kids names
#587 to #154
-
durkadurka (08/30/2015) [-] He shot his mother, the legal owner, with one of the weapons. I'm not sure I agree that you can consider the way he obtained the weapons to be legal. They were purchased legally, sure, but a stolen car purchased legally does not make for a legal activity.
#163 to #154
-
xxkelevraxx (08/30/2015) [-] they can use the gun in presence of a licensed gun owner but if they weren't purchased by the user then I believe it's illegal. could be wrong, though. but hey. I'm going for my FAID card to exercise my 2nd amendment right and I'm going on record saying I would not be opposed to a psych evaluation if it were req.
#104
-
JonathanNowFuckYou (08/30/2015) [-] World's biggest and most committed strawman argument. I'm on the side of gun owners but who the **** is this supposed to be aimed at? Anybody who has to be told that an inanimate object is not dangerous isn't even a part of the real debate. Surely the stupidity of this video makes you realise that nobody actually thinks the things that this person is trying to refute...
#350 to #104
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
The same argument could be used to legalize all inanimate objects that are used to either directly or indirectly harm people. Possession of drugs, making bombs, bringing sharp objects with you on a plane.
Hurrdurr the cocaine isn't going to do anything on its own it's totally safe guys.
What this video does demonstrate though which anyone with more than 2 brain cells would already know, is that the actual harm is the result of the wrong people getting their hands on the wrong inanimate objects. (Attempts to) regulating who can get a gun and who can't would be the logical solution. How to implement that solution is the actual problem, especially in a huge country like the US.
Hurrdurr the cocaine isn't going to do anything on its own it's totally safe guys.
What this video does demonstrate though which anyone with more than 2 brain cells would already know, is that the actual harm is the result of the wrong people getting their hands on the wrong inanimate objects. (Attempts to) regulating who can get a gun and who can't would be the logical solution. How to implement that solution is the actual problem, especially in a huge country like the US.
#9
-
fishandkids ONLINE (08/29/2015) [-] I'm convinced, let's give guns and cars to childrens and the mentally unstable.
#69 to #9
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] And there in lies the problem.That word you used "give"
You need to rethink your stance, because you are on the wrong side of the facts.
You need to rethink your stance, because you are on the wrong side of the facts.
#224 to #69
-
fishandkids ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] Or how about not banning guns, lræetting everyone who wants gun have guns and even carry it with them, but have to go through training, safety courses, have a practical and theoretical test and psycological evaluation.
#539 to #224
-
containlettersonly (08/30/2015) [-] There is certainly some room for some of that, it depends on how much that all costs, adding costs is something that won't bode well, though some states (commiefornia) have laws requiring safety courses. There is no 100% sure way to stop bad guys from getting guns, someone can pass all of those tests and one day snap, or would oyu require quarterly or yearly reviews? Do you want a database? More spending on new bureaucracies? The first response to yours is right, freedom does come into play it isn't some arbitrary condition, it is our way of life.
When you eliminate gang violence we are one of the safest countries in the world, and you realize that outside of big democratic utopias like chicago and detriot the problem isn't nearly as big as the media would like you to believe
When you eliminate gang violence we are one of the safest countries in the world, and you realize that outside of big democratic utopias like chicago and detriot the problem isn't nearly as big as the media would like you to believe
#440 to #224
-
wolfmango (08/30/2015) [-] That's probably what needs to be done. But in all honesty, no one wants to do it. It would be incrediblly expensive to regulate, a lot of people don't want to "waste their time" with stuff like that. Why do that when they personally know that they can handle themselves. It also comes down to people not wanting to be told what to do and muh freedoms comes into play
#15
-
hourlyb ONLINE (08/29/2015) [-] Alright.
I love guns. I love seeing how they work, shooting them, talking with other people who like them.
But lets be real.
As much as we say that "It's only a piece of metal, it can't harm anybody by itself."
That doesn't take away that firearms can get into the hands of unstable people and cause major damage.
So in a way, I can see how "gun grabbers" would want to take them away.
But, what they don't realize is that there are already so many guns in America that is is literally impossible to completely get rid of them all.
So many cheapass guns like Hi-points have made it into the hands of criminals.This also means that LEO's are constantly on edge because they do not know who does and doesn't have a firearm.
If the US tried to do what Australia did, the only thing that would happen is the general populace would lose their ability to defend themselves from the still armed criminal populace.
That and a fairly large industry would go under.
So completely getting rid of all guns is not the answer.
But the idea of "Everything should be allowed" is not without a lot of flaws.
Unstable people do have relatively easy access to these dangerous weapons, and while very few people will do heinous things with them, that doesn't change that they can do it.
The kid who did the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been able to inflict the damage he did if his mother did not have those weapons.
It's a really sticky issue, to put it mildly.
In my opinion;
Firearms that have a manual action (bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun) or a non-detachable interior magazine should be able to be purchased by an individual that is at least 18 years old.
Pistols should be allowed at 21, possibly with a 12 round limit for CC use.
Long guns with detachable magazines and a self loading action, such as the AR-15 and other such firearms, would be available for purchase provided you pass a quarterly psych-evaluation, with documentation from your doctor saying you are fit to own such a firearm. Magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds will require a tax stamp to own, similar to how suppressors are treated.
If you are currently diagnosed with any psychological issues (depression, anger management, etc.), you would be barred from owning any firearm. [spoiler] Note; this would ban me from owning one.
If you live with someone who is currently diagnosed with any psychological issues, you would be barred from owning any firearm.
Ranges would be operate on the same rules they do now. [/spoiler]
TL; DR - **** complicated and has no real clear answer. Feel free to either thumb me up or down for this.
Pic cool but unrelated.
![Alright.
I love guns. I love seeing how they work, shooting them, talking with other people who like them.
But lets be real.
As much as we say that "It's only a piece of metal, it can't harm anybody by itself."
That doesn't take away that firearms can get into the hands of unstable people and cause major damage.
So in a way, I can see how "gun grabbers" would want to take them away.
But, what they don't realize is that there are already so many guns in America that is is literally impossible to completely get rid of them all.
So many cheapass guns like Hi-points have made it into the hands of criminals.This also means that LEO's are constantly on edge because they do not know who does and doesn't have a firearm.
If the US tried to do what Australia did, the only thing that would happen is the general populace would lose their ability to defend themselves from the still armed criminal populace.
That and a fairly large industry would go under.
So completely getting rid of all guns is not the answer.
But the idea of "Everything should be allowed" is not without a lot of flaws.
Unstable people do have relatively easy access to these dangerous weapons, and while very few people will do heinous things with them, that doesn't change that they can do it.
The kid who did the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been able to inflict the damage he did if his mother did not have those weapons.
It's a really sticky issue, to put it mildly.
In my opinion;
Firearms that have a manual action (bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun) or a non-detachable interior magazine should be able to be purchased by an individual that is at least 18 years old.
Pistols should be allowed at 21, possibly with a 12 round limit for CC use.
Long guns with detachable magazines and a self loading action, such as the AR-15 and other such firearms, would be available for purchase provided you pass a quarterly psych-evaluation, with documentation from your doctor saying you are fit to own such a firearm. Magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds will require a tax stamp to own, similar to how suppressors are treated.
If you are currently diagnosed with any psychological issues (depression, anger management, etc.), you would be barred from owning any firearm. [spoiler] Note; this would ban me from owning one.
If you live with someone who is currently diagnosed with any psychological issues, you would be barred from owning any firearm.
Ranges would be operate on the same rules they do now. [/spoiler]
TL; DR - **** complicated and has no real clear answer. Feel free to either thumb me up or down for this.
Pic cool but unrelated.](http://2static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Alright+i+love+guns+i+love+seeing+how+_e77c361274c1f7b7fa3383e27d6962e3.jpg)
I love guns. I love seeing how they work, shooting them, talking with other people who like them.
But lets be real.
As much as we say that "It's only a piece of metal, it can't harm anybody by itself."
That doesn't take away that firearms can get into the hands of unstable people and cause major damage.
So in a way, I can see how "gun grabbers" would want to take them away.
But, what they don't realize is that there are already so many guns in America that is is literally impossible to completely get rid of them all.
So many cheapass guns like Hi-points have made it into the hands of criminals.This also means that LEO's are constantly on edge because they do not know who does and doesn't have a firearm.
If the US tried to do what Australia did, the only thing that would happen is the general populace would lose their ability to defend themselves from the still armed criminal populace.
That and a fairly large industry would go under.
So completely getting rid of all guns is not the answer.
But the idea of "Everything should be allowed" is not without a lot of flaws.
Unstable people do have relatively easy access to these dangerous weapons, and while very few people will do heinous things with them, that doesn't change that they can do it.
The kid who did the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been able to inflict the damage he did if his mother did not have those weapons.
It's a really sticky issue, to put it mildly.
In my opinion;
Firearms that have a manual action (bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun) or a non-detachable interior magazine should be able to be purchased by an individual that is at least 18 years old.
Pistols should be allowed at 21, possibly with a 12 round limit for CC use.
Long guns with detachable magazines and a self loading action, such as the AR-15 and other such firearms, would be available for purchase provided you pass a quarterly psych-evaluation, with documentation from your doctor saying you are fit to own such a firearm. Magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds will require a tax stamp to own, similar to how suppressors are treated.
If you are currently diagnosed with any psychological issues (depression, anger management, etc.), you would be barred from owning any firearm. [spoiler] Note; this would ban me from owning one.
If you live with someone who is currently diagnosed with any psychological issues, you would be barred from owning any firearm.
Ranges would be operate on the same rules they do now. [/spoiler]
TL; DR - **** complicated and has no real clear answer. Feel free to either thumb me up or down for this.
Pic cool but unrelated.
#538 to #15
-
durkadurka (08/30/2015) [-] Arguments made regarding the capacity of magazines and such are not arguments made on principle. They're basically just haggling.
One of the problems you'll run into is "shall not be infringed". If one of your measures can be shown to be an infringement, it's not going to fly constitutionally.
One of the problems you'll run into is "shall not be infringed". If one of your measures can be shown to be an infringement, it's not going to fly constitutionally.
#416 to #388
-
hourlyb ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] 1. You would. Because if you want to own a weapon that has the ability to fire ~600-700 rounds a minute, you should be proven to be of sound mind.
2. Because unless you plan on taking on the government, 12 rounds is plenty to take care of your average CC conflicts. Hell, unless you've ****** with your local cartel, that's good for a home invasion too, provided you have a long gun as well.
2. Because unless you plan on taking on the government, 12 rounds is plenty to take care of your average CC conflicts. Hell, unless you've ****** with your local cartel, that's good for a home invasion too, provided you have a long gun as well.
#417 to #416
-
dakkadakka (08/30/2015) [-]
1. Shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right
2. **** off faggot, the cops can barely hit a perp with a full mag
>600-700 rpm
How fast do you reload man?
2. **** off faggot, the cops can barely hit a perp with a full mag
>600-700 rpm
How fast do you reload man?
#441 to #417
-
hourlyb ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] 1. Yeah, well, those kids shouldn't have died either, but here we are.
So either pay your doctor the extra $25 for a check-up to own one, or not own one at all.
2. Get gud, then.
Pretty fast. But if we are including reloading, ~300 rounds with 30 round magazines, maybe ~100 with 10 round magazines. That's still a lot of damage you can do.
So either pay your doctor the extra $25 for a check-up to own one, or not own one at all.
2. Get gud, then.
Pretty fast. But if we are including reloading, ~300 rounds with 30 round magazines, maybe ~100 with 10 round magazines. That's still a lot of damage you can do.
#443 to #441
-
dakkadakka (08/30/2015) [-]
But you said quarterly.
Who the **** goes for a psych test quarterly?
I agree with some sort of check up before being allowed guns on a "shall issue" basis for free, but I don't agree with having to **** about constantly to exercise a right
Also, funnily enough, bad guys wouldn't do they checks or buy guns legally.
Who the **** goes for a psych test quarterly?
I agree with some sort of check up before being allowed guns on a "shall issue" basis for free, but I don't agree with having to **** about constantly to exercise a right
Also, funnily enough, bad guys wouldn't do they checks or buy guns legally.
#449 to #443
-
hourlyb ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] Maybe have a designated official who is hired by a county to make sure those who would like to own a certain firearm are fit to do so. Have it be licensed psychiatrist, do it by appointment.
Have a standard fee to receive a license to own a certain type of firearm.
And I know that, they probably always will. What I'm describing is trying to make sure guns end up in safe, responsible hands.
Have a standard fee to receive a license to own a certain type of firearm.
And I know that, they probably always will. What I'm describing is trying to make sure guns end up in safe, responsible hands.
#451 to #449
-
dakkadakka (08/30/2015) [-]
A gun's a gun's a gun
If you're cleared to own any gun you're cleared to own them all
**** off with your anti-gun ideas
If you're cleared to own any gun you're cleared to own them all
**** off with your anti-gun ideas
#454 to #452
-
dakkadakka (08/30/2015) [-] Well aren't you a special little no-guns faggot
>even a hardline socialist disagreed with you
>even a hardline socialist disagreed with you
#446 to #416
-
Airmanator (08/30/2015) [-] I can take as many rounds as I like in my CCW, it's MY CCW.
#453 to #450
-
Airmanator (08/30/2015) [-] Pretty much I'm a law abiding citizen and I pay my taxes, so I don't like the idea of limiting what I can carry or own for arbitrary reasons.
#258
-
nazo (08/30/2015) [-] This was ridiculously ******* retarded if its serious in any way
It's not about how dangerous the gun is, is about people getting easy access to them
It's not about how dangerous the gun is, is about people getting easy access to them
#514 to #258
-
atonial (08/30/2015) [-] And why shouldn't people have access to them? We need better mental healthcare to put a leash on the crazies, not take away the last thing stopping citizens from being oppressed.
Also, since when is being a gun owner more taboo than being trans or gay? Whenever I tell someone I'm pro gun, they act like I'm gonna shoot something up.
Also, since when is being a gun owner more taboo than being trans or gay? Whenever I tell someone I'm pro gun, they act like I'm gonna shoot something up.
#528 to #519
-
atonial (08/30/2015) [-] Yes, but why should should it be hard? Educate me. If we treat mental illnesses well enough, find the afflicted and get them help, and stop playing all these shooting up like ******* TV dramas we'll see less of this. There will be no need for restrictions because everything we restrict them for will be lessened to the point that we never hear about them. They'll be even less of a problem than they are now.
As for taboo, restricting guns is like restricting marriage. People always preach about how gays and trans people are so oppressed, while an entire subculture is being drowned for the acts of a few people.
But whatever, I don't have time for this. I'm just hanging around looking for an argument like I always am. No hard feelings.
As for taboo, restricting guns is like restricting marriage. People always preach about how gays and trans people are so oppressed, while an entire subculture is being drowned for the acts of a few people.
But whatever, I don't have time for this. I'm just hanging around looking for an argument like I always am. No hard feelings.
#530 to #528
-
nazo (08/30/2015) [-] Are you ******* with me right now? Are you actually comparing gay marriage to owning a gun? oppression? Like what the **** is going on right now?
Is restricting guns to some unstable people such a hard concept? Or just a training them before owning one, a lesson or two? Really? Would that kill you?
This guy, man, this ******* guy right here.
Is restricting guns to some unstable people such a hard concept? Or just a training them before owning one, a lesson or two? Really? Would that kill you?
This guy, man, this ******* guy right here.
#50
-
Deavas (08/30/2015) [-] well, it's not such a bad idea from preventing stupid people from owning guns. like, just pass a competency test showing you know how to operate and store it safely.
and as well for mentally unstable people. i mean, cmon. do you want your guns taken away or have to waste 5 minutes of your life proving youre not retarded. or, is that what youre afraid of? guns are cool. stop being uptight ******** about it, on either side
and for **** sake if youre gonna open carry anything other than a revolver, youre a ******* dumbass and deserve to get swat on your ass
and as well for mentally unstable people. i mean, cmon. do you want your guns taken away or have to waste 5 minutes of your life proving youre not retarded. or, is that what youre afraid of? guns are cool. stop being uptight ******** about it, on either side
and for **** sake if youre gonna open carry anything other than a revolver, youre a ******* dumbass and deserve to get swat on your ass
#328 to #50
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
Requiring a safety course prior to buying is common sense. And safety courses generally tend to be cheap as **** where offered
#57 to #50
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
yea we should also make sure you are smart enough to vote too!
i mean come on our congress sends young men to go die in war (where there completely trusted to have guns for some stupid ****** reason right?) we shouldn't let any idiot vote! Oh wait voting is a right you do like.
and **** you my VP9 is far better than a god damn six gun.
i mean come on our congress sends young men to go die in war (where there completely trusted to have guns for some stupid ****** reason right?) we shouldn't let any idiot vote! Oh wait voting is a right you do like.
and **** you my VP9 is far better than a god damn six gun.
#87 to #57
-
PheonixWright (08/30/2015) [-] Good idea! I mean remember that one time somebody was murdered with a ballot paper? Man that was terrible.
#86 to #50
-
thatguyontheright ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] Cars are cool too, and I still have to pass a test to legally own one.
#103 to #100
-
thatguyontheright ONLINE (08/30/2015) [-] If you go to a dealership, you are asked for a valid ID, and most private sellers won't sell to you without one either. Also in many states you need to get the car insured and plated within a certain amount of time. You can't buy insurance without providing a Drivers License either.
#331 to #103
-
phoenixactual (08/30/2015) [-]
Most dealerships won't let you leave with the car unless it's insured before you go
#23
-
thebrownbomber (08/30/2015) [-] What most of you don't know is that this is gun has been well trained and domesticated. Wild guns are not this docile and will shoot you upon provocation.
#562
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
This is the worst strawman I've ever seen. Are all pro-gun people really this retarded?
#557
-
aabbccddeeffgghhii (08/30/2015) [-] Guns aren't evil, People are evil.
However, Guns are tools that are exclusively used to bring physical harm and cannot be used in any other way. When a tool such as that is able to be bought easily by an evil person, there we have a problem.
However, Guns are tools that are exclusively used to bring physical harm and cannot be used in any other way. When a tool such as that is able to be bought easily by an evil person, there we have a problem.
#578 to #557
-
hilariouswaste (08/30/2015) [-] So are knives. They bring physical damage to everything they touch, yet we carry them everywhere. Guns can be used to defend innocent people against attackers. Sure, the attacker is gonna get hurt but who gives a flying **** about someone attacking an innocent person?
#597 to #578
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
Knifes can be used to kill people, but they are needed in everyday life to perform mundane tasks, such as preparing food. Banning knifes, even if it would lead to fewer stabbings, is not practical because they're needed daily. Such is not the case for guns.
Yes, you always hear that hollywood scenario about vailliant american heroes saving orphans from the big bad thugs. But that is a pretty rare occurance. You're much more likely to use that gun to kill yourself than to save someone else's life, statistically speaking, unless you're in law enforcement or military and see those situations daily.
And even though guns might help you defend yourself from thugs with guns, have you ever wonder why these thugs have guns in the first place? Guns don't grow on trees, and please don't tell me that all illegal weapons come from Russia, smuggled in a cargo boat. You give more guns to people, which leads to more thugs having guns, which leads to more gun related crimes, which leads to more people needing guns for self defense. You're provding weapons to defend yourself against criminals, arming more criminals in the process. If you have less guns, you'll have fewer heroes, but even fewer murderers.
Yes, you always hear that hollywood scenario about vailliant american heroes saving orphans from the big bad thugs. But that is a pretty rare occurance. You're much more likely to use that gun to kill yourself than to save someone else's life, statistically speaking, unless you're in law enforcement or military and see those situations daily.
And even though guns might help you defend yourself from thugs with guns, have you ever wonder why these thugs have guns in the first place? Guns don't grow on trees, and please don't tell me that all illegal weapons come from Russia, smuggled in a cargo boat. You give more guns to people, which leads to more thugs having guns, which leads to more gun related crimes, which leads to more people needing guns for self defense. You're provding weapons to defend yourself against criminals, arming more criminals in the process. If you have less guns, you'll have fewer heroes, but even fewer murderers.
#609 to #597
-
hilariouswaste (08/30/2015) [-] You're right, guns don't grow on trees. They are made in factories by people and sold to free countries. Thugs acquire guns by purchasing in unchecked systems, acquiring them through smuggling over the border (a border we can't even keep PEOPLE you know, living creatures which require large amounts of space and oxygen to survive from crossing), buying from corrupt anti-gun bureaucrats (see Leeland Yee) or through theft. Guns are created by almost every developed country in their world and are sold internationally to militaries, law enforcement agencies (all cops are honesty, right?) governments (again, never out to make a buck) militias and other groups. Even if America "gets rid of" guns they will flow over the border as they always do and then only the thugs will have the guns.
People never defend themselves with guns? It happens all the time, but that doesn't fit with the desired narrative of any of the six media corporations in the US, so it doesn't ever reach the light of day. You cannot call the defense of one's life a "rare occurrence" just because you do not see it in the paper and are too lazy to look. Have you every noticed that the states with the most relaxed gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates? Wanna guess why Detroit is such a bloodbath? Maybe its a city ruled by thugs where the law-abiding people are subject to a concealed carry ban?
About suicide, I'm not gonna kill myself with my guns. I've owned them for years and know for a damn fact that there is no way I would be autistic enough to kill myself or someone else with my guns. I don't have depression or any other disorders, I have a realistic idea of what's worth grabbing my gun for, and am not negligent enough to have a gun accident. Suicidal people are gonna kill themselves anyway.
People never defend themselves with guns? It happens all the time, but that doesn't fit with the desired narrative of any of the six media corporations in the US, so it doesn't ever reach the light of day. You cannot call the defense of one's life a "rare occurrence" just because you do not see it in the paper and are too lazy to look. Have you every noticed that the states with the most relaxed gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates? Wanna guess why Detroit is such a bloodbath? Maybe its a city ruled by thugs where the law-abiding people are subject to a concealed carry ban?
About suicide, I'm not gonna kill myself with my guns. I've owned them for years and know for a damn fact that there is no way I would be autistic enough to kill myself or someone else with my guns. I don't have depression or any other disorders, I have a realistic idea of what's worth grabbing my gun for, and am not negligent enough to have a gun accident. Suicidal people are gonna kill themselves anyway.
#617 to #609
-
anon (08/30/2015) [-]
"Even if America "gets rid of" guns they will flow over the border as they always do and then only the thugs will have the guns. "
Wrong. Even though there are other sources of weapons, firearms bought legally represent an important proportion of all the weapons available, and removing that source will lead to fewer guns and fewer armed criminals. Thousand of firearms won't magically appear in Mexico the day guns are banned to fill in the gap left by legal guns.
"People never defend themselves with guns? It happens all the time, but that doesn't fit with the desired narrative of any of the six media corporations in the US, so it doesn't ever reach the light of day."
Go back to playing COD, kid. The number of lives saved with guns is completely dwarfed by the number of suicides, murders and other crimes committed with firearms. And I don't even need to mention people getting accidently shot because of redneck to concerned about their own security to worry about the security of other people. I know that many gun nuts have that fetish of legally killing a man, that doesn't mean you can or should just shoot anyone.
"Have you every noticed that the states with the most relaxed gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates?"
Wrong. It's the other way around. Places with more gun crimes require harsher gun laws, and they worked, as evidenced by the steady decline of gun crimes over the past decades.
You're cherry picking data, comparing Detroit, a city stricken with poverty, to some other richel rural areas. If you were honest, you could compare populations that are similar. For instance, you could compare countries to another country, since every country have poor and rich areas, urban and rural areads. But you won't, because you'll realize that pretty much every country have fewer guns and fewer guns crimes than the US does.
"Wanna guess why Detroit is such a bloodbath? Maybe its a city ruled by thugs where the law-abiding people are subject to a concealed carry ban? "
See point above. How naive can you be?
"About suicide, I'm not gonna kill myself with my guns. I've owned them for years and know for a damn fact that there is no way I would be autistic enough to kill myself or someone else with my guns. I don't have depression or any other disorders, I have a realistic idea of what's worth grabbing my gun for, and am not negligent enough to have a gun accident. "
I am not surprised that you are not concerned with anyone but yourself. The reality is that many people suffer from mental illnesses among other things, and providing them with guns might not be the brightest of ideas. But hey, it's "muh guns" and you don't have those issues personally, so you don't care.
"Suicidal people are gonna kill themselves anyway. "
This just shows how ignorant you are. Gun nuts have that black/white mentality, it's either everybody does it, or noone does. If you prevent X crimes with one weapon, W crimes will appear with another weapon. It's either 100% chances of killing yourself whatever the means, or 0% chances. It's either 100% chances of committing a crime, or 0%.
That's not reality. In reality, there is a whole spectrum how depressive and suicidal someone can be. There are some who will kill themselves no matter what, but many people will do so only if provided with an opportunity. If you make suicide easy, fewer people will be scared away from it. Many more will slip into it. Suicide is not something that you just easily decide to do, and you're more likely to choose it if it's easy. Any study performed at populational level will tell you as much, but that is beyond what you seem to be able to understand.
Wrong. Even though there are other sources of weapons, firearms bought legally represent an important proportion of all the weapons available, and removing that source will lead to fewer guns and fewer armed criminals. Thousand of firearms won't magically appear in Mexico the day guns are banned to fill in the gap left by legal guns.
"People never defend themselves with guns? It happens all the time, but that doesn't fit with the desired narrative of any of the six media corporations in the US, so it doesn't ever reach the light of day."
Go back to playing COD, kid. The number of lives saved with guns is completely dwarfed by the number of suicides, murders and other crimes committed with firearms. And I don't even need to mention people getting accidently shot because of redneck to concerned about their own security to worry about the security of other people. I know that many gun nuts have that fetish of legally killing a man, that doesn't mean you can or should just shoot anyone.
"Have you every noticed that the states with the most relaxed gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates?"
Wrong. It's the other way around. Places with more gun crimes require harsher gun laws, and they worked, as evidenced by the steady decline of gun crimes over the past decades.
You're cherry picking data, comparing Detroit, a city stricken with poverty, to some other richel rural areas. If you were honest, you could compare populations that are similar. For instance, you could compare countries to another country, since every country have poor and rich areas, urban and rural areads. But you won't, because you'll realize that pretty much every country have fewer guns and fewer guns crimes than the US does.
"Wanna guess why Detroit is such a bloodbath? Maybe its a city ruled by thugs where the law-abiding people are subject to a concealed carry ban? "
See point above. How naive can you be?
"About suicide, I'm not gonna kill myself with my guns. I've owned them for years and know for a damn fact that there is no way I would be autistic enough to kill myself or someone else with my guns. I don't have depression or any other disorders, I have a realistic idea of what's worth grabbing my gun for, and am not negligent enough to have a gun accident. "
I am not surprised that you are not concerned with anyone but yourself. The reality is that many people suffer from mental illnesses among other things, and providing them with guns might not be the brightest of ideas. But hey, it's "muh guns" and you don't have those issues personally, so you don't care.
"Suicidal people are gonna kill themselves anyway. "
This just shows how ignorant you are. Gun nuts have that black/white mentality, it's either everybody does it, or noone does. If you prevent X crimes with one weapon, W crimes will appear with another weapon. It's either 100% chances of killing yourself whatever the means, or 0% chances. It's either 100% chances of committing a crime, or 0%.
That's not reality. In reality, there is a whole spectrum how depressive and suicidal someone can be. There are some who will kill themselves no matter what, but many people will do so only if provided with an opportunity. If you make suicide easy, fewer people will be scared away from it. Many more will slip into it. Suicide is not something that you just easily decide to do, and you're more likely to choose it if it's easy. Any study performed at populational level will tell you as much, but that is beyond what you seem to be able to understand.
#638 to #617
-
hilariouswaste (08/31/2015) [-] Of course people buying guns legally is a large portion of the influx of firearms in the US. I never said it was the minority at any point in my post. However, there are more than enough firearms in circulation right now to supply gangs for decades of criminal behavior, which would not be picked up by a firearms ban since criminal don't turn in guns and cops hardly mess with American gangs. All that you will see is that the hunters, recreational shooters and first-time suburban white family handgun buyers will turn in their guns, the die-hards will stick to their guns and a ******** of cops will die, and the gangs will continue to have their merry way, as they always do. You don't actually believe that a constant influx of guns is required for firearm concentration to be maintained, do you? Criminals ditch guns because its more convenient, not because its necessary. Tyrone can toss is $50 Hipoint because its $50, or even better submit it to a gun buyback where they melt the murder weapon down and pay him for his "goodness" in surrendering the "evil murdering machine". If a gun ban passes, Tyrone will just wipe down his gun and continue living a criminal life. If he dies with his gun or is arrested, then that is one of tens of millions of guns that are off the streets. Give it a couple decades of gang rule and sure, the gun concentration will begin to decline.
I don't see how video games has to do with a belief that guns save lives, since video games portray one as a soldier killing other people for reasons that don't know decided on by morally bankrupt people. A soldier killing a soldier is war, not the same as a woman with a gun fighting off three 250lb attackers with her firearm. "They'll just take the gun". Well she's no less screwed now, is she? They were probably gonna tear her up anyway but the gun gave her a chance.
Places with a presence of guns see more gun violence, accidents, and gun-related crimes just the same as children exposed to water see more instances of drowning, scalding, and trench foot. The fact of the matter is that violent crimes have been decreasing worldwide at a steady rate for the past few decades. Furthermore, areas in the US that implement concealed carry or allow for firearms freedom see a rapid decrease in violent crimes, break-ins and other personal crimes over the following years. The UK has come down on its population and even banned knives without jumping through hoops, and its the violent crime capital of the world. These include populations of rich white people as well as poor people, and the disproportionate amount of rape, stabbings and other violence is incredible.
Suicide is more likely when an easy avenue is available. Sure, someone with a gun who wants to die is gonna have a pretty good chance of pulling it off, but its their choice of what they want to do. I'm not gonna pretend that suicide availability isn't a factor of whether or not someone goes for it. I know people with depression, even ones who have tried to kill themselves before. They've told me that the temptation to use a gun to kill themselves is no greater than jumping in front of a streetcar or subway, and those even seem more appealing since the chances of relatively quick success are much greater.
You use of the term "gun nut" tells me that you are completely jaded on the topic and are not willing to take it seriously. Its an insult that refers to the passion and hobby that millions of people enjoy and pretends that it is actually a fetish based on the adamant views these people share. I think drones are cool, but realize that they can be used for spying and can crowd public airspace. If I tried to get them banned, would we all call the outspoken drone fans "drone nuts" and think that they believe they should be allowed to see everything at our expense? That they fetishize drones and can't think about anything else? Try being serious and we can discuss this further. Also, sign in buddy.
I don't see how video games has to do with a belief that guns save lives, since video games portray one as a soldier killing other people for reasons that don't know decided on by morally bankrupt people. A soldier killing a soldier is war, not the same as a woman with a gun fighting off three 250lb attackers with her firearm. "They'll just take the gun". Well she's no less screwed now, is she? They were probably gonna tear her up anyway but the gun gave her a chance.
Places with a presence of guns see more gun violence, accidents, and gun-related crimes just the same as children exposed to water see more instances of drowning, scalding, and trench foot. The fact of the matter is that violent crimes have been decreasing worldwide at a steady rate for the past few decades. Furthermore, areas in the US that implement concealed carry or allow for firearms freedom see a rapid decrease in violent crimes, break-ins and other personal crimes over the following years. The UK has come down on its population and even banned knives without jumping through hoops, and its the violent crime capital of the world. These include populations of rich white people as well as poor people, and the disproportionate amount of rape, stabbings and other violence is incredible.
Suicide is more likely when an easy avenue is available. Sure, someone with a gun who wants to die is gonna have a pretty good chance of pulling it off, but its their choice of what they want to do. I'm not gonna pretend that suicide availability isn't a factor of whether or not someone goes for it. I know people with depression, even ones who have tried to kill themselves before. They've told me that the temptation to use a gun to kill themselves is no greater than jumping in front of a streetcar or subway, and those even seem more appealing since the chances of relatively quick success are much greater.
You use of the term "gun nut" tells me that you are completely jaded on the topic and are not willing to take it seriously. Its an insult that refers to the passion and hobby that millions of people enjoy and pretends that it is actually a fetish based on the adamant views these people share. I think drones are cool, but realize that they can be used for spying and can crowd public airspace. If I tried to get them banned, would we all call the outspoken drone fans "drone nuts" and think that they believe they should be allowed to see everything at our expense? That they fetishize drones and can't think about anything else? Try being serious and we can discuss this further. Also, sign in buddy.
#595 to #578
-
aabbccddeeffgghhii (08/30/2015) [-] Its much easier to kill someone with a gun that with a knife.
Also, knives were created as a survival tool to cut and prepare food and evolved into a weapon. Spears were the hunting tool and knives the preparing tool. Also, I cant carry them everywhere. I live in a country with common ******* sense and actual laws against dangerous weapons and what you can and cannot carry.
Americans cannot see the forest through the trees when it comes to gun control. "Guns can be used to defend innocent people against attackers." If you can get a gun then so can the attacker.
Also, knives were created as a survival tool to cut and prepare food and evolved into a weapon. Spears were the hunting tool and knives the preparing tool. Also, I cant carry them everywhere. I live in a country with common ******* sense and actual laws against dangerous weapons and what you can and cannot carry.
Americans cannot see the forest through the trees when it comes to gun control. "Guns can be used to defend innocent people against attackers." If you can get a gun then so can the attacker.
#610 to #595
-
hilariouswaste (08/30/2015) [-] Have you entertained the thought that attackers such as muggers and rapists aren't looking for a fight? Every guess why the school shooters always off themselves before the police catch up? Its because they don't wanna get shot. Sure, we both have a gun, but statistically proven in the majority of cases its not worth it to the attacker to try for it when their target might have a gun (see concealed carry states).
I am a Canadian, and can own firearms via a licensing program. I can't carry them everywhere, **** I can't even carry my handgun anywhere but the gun club I joined. But this doesn't mean that I think the states must be the same way. I like living under a system where I can own rifles, shotguns and handguns after undergoing a mental health and criminal background check, but I realize that the American Constitution intends to allow for all of its citizens to own firearms. The American government is so hostile to the people that the 2nd Amendment is honestly one of the last straws towards totalitarianism there. Why do you think the billionaire-owned media has being trying to dismantle it for so many years?
I am a Canadian, and can own firearms via a licensing program. I can't carry them everywhere, **** I can't even carry my handgun anywhere but the gun club I joined. But this doesn't mean that I think the states must be the same way. I like living under a system where I can own rifles, shotguns and handguns after undergoing a mental health and criminal background check, but I realize that the American Constitution intends to allow for all of its citizens to own firearms. The American government is so hostile to the people that the 2nd Amendment is honestly one of the last straws towards totalitarianism there. Why do you think the billionaire-owned media has being trying to dismantle it for so many years?
