|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
To be honest... I really don't think the people that defend guns for the public realize just how much the rest of the world laughs at your stupidity.
Well you can feel free to keep debating it and manipulating statistics and coming up with hypothetical situations and using the 2nd amendment as anecdotal evidence.
The rest of us very rarely have to deal with mass shootings.
Sure there was the Norway incident.... there was the Raul Moat incident... the recent incident in Paris. But Look back through these countries histories... it's hardly like it's common place. I look through the US history and I'm appalled at how frequent mass shootings occur. Like it's actually got to the point where it's no longer as shocking...that's pathetic. I actually lose track of your college shootings, you frequently have police/criminal murders. There was the incident of some guy shooting a random black man and was protected by one of your weird self-defence law things.
No, banning guns in the US won't change anything now as the scenario has evolved too much (due to idiots like you defending gun use). But are you really ignorant enough to think that if they were banned initially that the scenario you now face never would have occurred.
Good job morons... you're a credit to humanity. You might think I'm being overly harsh but let's face it. You're overly stupid.
Well to be honest at least in the long run, you're all far more likely to kill each other. I suppose that's one way of natural selection working. Shame the rest of us have to sit back and watch and unfortunately sometimes get in the cross fire.
Feel free to quote this, I won't be replying due to the obvious fact you're an idiot. Yes it's that black and white, but you fail to realize it.
User was warned for this post
|
Talking to most Americans about this is like entering a parallel universe. More guns means less people will get shot? You couldn't write this sort of comedy. I can only assume it's years of pure brainwashing that allows normally reasonable people to entertain such lunacy.
|
On July 21 2012 20:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
To be honest... I really don't think the people that defend guns for the public realize just how much the rest of the world laughs at your stupidity.
Well you can feel free to keep debating it and manipulating statistics and coming up with hypothetical situations and using the 2nd amendment as anecdotal evidence.
The rest of us very rarely have to deal with mass shootings.
Sure there was the Norway incident.... there was the Raul Moat incident... the recent incident in Paris. But Look back through these countries histories... it's hardly like it's common place. I look through the US history and I'm appalled at how frequent mass shootings occur. Like it's actually got to the point where it's no longer as shocking...that's pathetic. I actually lose track of your college shootings, you frequently have police/criminal murders. There was the incident of some guy shooting a random black man and was protected by one of your weird self-defence law things.
No, banning guns in the US won't change anything now as the scenario has evolved too much (due to idiots like you defending gun use). But are you really ignorant enough to think that if they were banned initially that the scenario you now face never would have occurred.
Good job morons... you're a credit to humanity. You might think I'm being overly harsh but let's face it. You're overly stupid.
Well to be honest at least in the long run, you're all far more likely to kill each other. I suppose that's one way of natural selection working. Shame the rest of us have to sit back and watch and unfortunately sometimes get in the cross fire.
Feel free to quote this, I won't be replying due to the obvious fact you're an idiot. Yes it's that black and white, but you fail to realize it.
quoted for non-truth
Says the "rest of us" then proceeds to give examples that counter ones own argument....congrats
|
The problem with guns isn't the fact they can possess one.
The problem is that the mast majority having one has a relation to it close to a 5 year old and his toy gun.
And as a personal insight, i find it hilarious that the people in the US justify their need of gun (besides the 2nd amendement) by the fact they need to protect their family because someone will obviously come harm them soon. I would feel depressed living with that permanent paranoia.
|
So, not being allowed to carry a gun is infringing freedom? Then not being allowed to drive a tank is also infringing freedom? I think not being allowed to kill people is also infringing freedom then... I suggest we keep on infringing people's freedom.
Freedom should not be about a single person, it should be for a community. Guns are an obvious disturbance in the freedom in a community since they induce fear and increase chance of shootings. If you want to use one at a shooting range that is fine with me, but leave the guns there in safe or something and for hunters the same, put the guns in a cabin and in a safe.
|
On July 21 2012 19:37 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 19:15 Uncreative_Troll wrote:Look at it this way, when was the last time you heard of a shooting spree at a firing range? I have never heard of a shooting spree at a porn store either. Guess we should sell good movies everywhere to prevent future shootings by legally weaponised maniac. Do you really want that everyone runs around with a loaded weapon and throughout prepared to shoot? The number of people getting hurt/killed for bad reasons will raise dramatically. Would it? It's the same as nuclear proliferation. You can't get rid of the weapons so the best you can do is make everyone too scared of retaliation to use their own. Self-preservation goes a long way.
But isn't the US going out of their way to make sure the wrong people don't have nukes? They for sure isn't saying it's alright for you to have nukes since we have nukes.
To what degree are you for liberation of weapons? I mean, to the resist the government argument, shouldn't people be allowed to have artillery weapons and antiaircraft guns in their backyards?
|
On July 21 2012 20:15 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 20:09 reki- wrote:
It cannot hurt to make strict legislation and background checks for people who want to own a gun, that way it is still possible to go to a shooting range or hunting but prevents alot of people to just walk into a store and buy a gun basically.
All this freedom value talk is only looking like the only straw gun enthousiasts have and they're clinging onto it like no tomorrow. Yeah liberty is so overrated. I wish the government would just manage my life for me.
Owning a gun is a useless liberty. There are other ways to get your dick hard than shooting a gun.
|
Guncontrol discussions are like abortion discussions: nobody ever changes his mind because 'some guy on the internet made a really compelling argument, using data, good assumptions and logical reasoning'.
Nobody.
|
On July 21 2012 20:17 bOneSeven wrote:
rofl at the guys argueing about the fact that is terribad to have 30 people with assault rifle in the theatre. Sure most people would most lilely die if a guy starts shooting in a dark place with weird loud noises in the background, but the same guy started shoting also because there weren't other armed people, if he knew he can get shot right away, most likely he wouldn't have started shotting.
Also commentating on the event without having video of how it all started or whatever is weird, say if he rose up and pulled up a gun, if the guy next to him also had a gun, most likely he would've shot him dead before he started the killing spree. All scenarios are possible when more people have guns, when 1 guy has a gun, there is only one scenario : a lot of innocent people will get killed.
It started when he left the auditorium just before it began and propped open the emergency exit so he could get back in. He clearly had this all planned out.
This also goes to what I've always said: When the gunmen has the element of surprise on his victim(s) he has an overwhelming advantage. In this case, he sprays into the crowd and kills plenty of people, even more possibly, since you need to get up to take a shot at him.
Also hope all those people in said auditorium were good enough to make a long shot. Anyone that tries to shoot him from close range dies.
|
I can't believe people bring forth the argument that having a gun is part of having your freedom as an individual. You need the necessary tools to quickly kill people in order to feel free, what the hell is wrong with you? A society filled with guns is not a free and safe society, it's a society where people feel unsafe to the point where they get ready to kill other people. As for people thinking that a gun will "protect" you against the government, what's wrong with your world-view?
|
On July 21 2012 20:22 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Talking to most Americans about this is like entering a parallel universe. More guns means less people will get shot? You couldn't write this sort of comedy. I can only assume it's years of pure brainwashing that allows normally reasonable people to entertain such lunacy.
they co-created the matual assured destruction thing.
|
On July 21 2012 20:39 AdrianHealey wrote:
Guncontrol discussions are like abortion discussions: nobody ever changes his mind because 'some guy on the internet made a really compelling argument, using data, good assumptions and logical reasoning'.
Nobody.
I've changed my mind on this subject due to this thread. I used to think allowing people a handgun for self-defense is reasonable. Then I read the mindblowing stupidity of pro-gun people and was absolutely terrified that people like that are allowed to own guns.
|
On July 21 2012 20:17 bOneSeven wrote:
rofl at the guys argueing about the fact that is terribad to have 30 people with assault rifle in the theatre. Sure most people would most lilely die if a guy starts shooting in a dark place with weird loud noises in the background, but the same guy started shoting also because there weren't other armed people, if he knew he can get shot right away, most likely he wouldn't have started shotting.
Also commentating on the event without having video of how it all started or whatever is weird, say if he rose up and pulled up a gun, if the guy next to him also had a gun, most likely he would've shot him dead before he started the killing spree. All scenarios are possible when more people have guns, when 1 guy has a gun, there is only one scenario : a lot of innocent people will get killed.
Oh boy, this logic is so flawed. It's the same thing as saying "if you have guns in your house you will be safe against criminals". Guess what, you won't be, all this is doing is stepping up the game. If criminals were aware that the general public does not have access to guns they might use simple bats and knifes at break-ins or a gun only to threaten with (Scandinavia). If criminals were aware that the general public have access to guns they will come gun in hand ready to shoot at break-ins. You decide which one you prefer, personally I would like to avoid gunfights
|
On July 21 2012 20:53 NotSupporting wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 20:17 bOneSeven wrote:
rofl at the guys argueing about the fact that is terribad to have 30 people with assault rifle in the theatre. Sure most people would most lilely die if a guy starts shooting in a dark place with weird loud noises in the background, but the same guy started shoting also because there weren't other armed people, if he knew he can get shot right away, most likely he wouldn't have started shotting.
Also commentating on the event without having video of how it all started or whatever is weird, say if he rose up and pulled up a gun, if the guy next to him also had a gun, most likely he would've shot him dead before he started the killing spree. All scenarios are possible when more people have guns, when 1 guy has a gun, there is only one scenario : a lot of innocent people will get killed. Oh boy, this logic is so flawed. It's the same thing as saying "if you have guns in your house you will be safe against criminals". Guess what, you won't be, all this is doing is stepping up the game. If criminals were aware that the general public does not have access to guns they might use simple bats and knifes at break-ins or a gun only to threaten with (Scandinavia). If criminals were aware that the general public have access to guns they will come gun in hand ready to shoot at break-ins. You decide which one you prefer, personally I would like to avoid gunfights
Your logic is flawed as well. How smart do you think someone who attempting to break into another's house is? A run of the mill criminal is not going to look up statistics on how many people in his area have guns. The thought will probably never come near his or her mind. Them bringing a gun into it has nothing to do with the fact that they know someone else may have a gun, it comes from the fact that they know that it's easier to rob someone/someplace if you have a gun due to most people NOT touting guns.
|
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it.
|
Use less underlinesCAPITALBOLDS and more paragraphs man. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly one way or another but good god that hurts to read.
|
On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it.
Wow, thats so insanly stupid, i dont even know what to say about that.
That is by far the most stupid posting in this thread and the fact that guys like you can legally buy guns is just disgusting.
I hope a tinfoil-hat came with your collection.
|
On July 21 2012 21:09 FecalTank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 20:53 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 20:17 bOneSeven wrote:
rofl at the guys argueing about the fact that is terribad to have 30 people with assault rifle in the theatre. Sure most people would most lilely die if a guy starts shooting in a dark place with weird loud noises in the background, but the same guy started shoting also because there weren't other armed people, if he knew he can get shot right away, most likely he wouldn't have started shotting.
Also commentating on the event without having video of how it all started or whatever is weird, say if he rose up and pulled up a gun, if the guy next to him also had a gun, most likely he would've shot him dead before he started the killing spree. All scenarios are possible when more people have guns, when 1 guy has a gun, there is only one scenario : a lot of innocent people will get killed. Oh boy, this logic is so flawed. It's the same thing as saying "if you have guns in your house you will be safe against criminals". Guess what, you won't be, all this is doing is stepping up the game. If criminals were aware that the general public does not have access to guns they might use simple bats and knifes at break-ins or a gun only to threaten with (Scandinavia). If criminals were aware that the general public have access to guns they will come gun in hand ready to shoot at break-ins. You decide which one you prefer, personally I would like to avoid gunfights Your logic is flawed as well. How smart do you think someone who attempting to break into another's house is? A run of the mill criminal is not going to look up statistics on how many people in his area have guns. The thought will probably never come near his or her mind. Them bringing a gun into it has nothing to do with the fact that they know someone else may have a gun, it comes from the fact that they know that it's easier to rob someone/someplace if you have a gun due to most people NOT touting guns.
Yet over here in the Netherlands, the overwhelming majority of burglars don't have guns. In fact, a lot of them don't have any weapons on them at all, other than the tools they needed to break in. Almost all burglars will flee when they hear / see someone else in the house. And violence from home invasions is so incredibly rare that it makes the news whenever someone is wounded or killed.
The common argument for gun-posession is that without it criminals would be the only ones with guns. But by using this argument, people are greatly overestimating the availability of guns on the black market in a country with decent gun control. Yes, criminals can still get a gun if they have the right connections and money (gun control means illegal guns are much more expensive, a common crook won't be able to afford it and won't be able to steal a gun either), but the vast majority of criminals won't be able to get a gun at all.
|
On July 21 2012 21:16 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Wow, thats so insanly stupid, i dont even know what to say about that. That is by far the most stupid posting in this thread and the fact that guys like you can legally buy guns is just disgusting. I hope a tinfoil-hat came with your collection.
This is one of the biggest parts of the problem. idiots like yoiu jsut say "OMFG THATS STUPIDMFGKNSDSK" and then don't say anything constructive. maybe put something with substance into a post? rebuttle maybe one sentence with thought? "ZOMGWSTUSPOIDD FHAHAJHA" is wasting people's time.
|
accually citizens who put time effort and courage to check up on their goverments are only way to protect people from tyranical goverments.
you can but the cheapsest full auto ak-47 in most countries in middle east, and even cheaper and easier in africa, beleive me it doesn't prevent shit.
proper way to stop bad guys, it to prevent situation that generate bad guys. then its to have proper non-bias jurisdictional methods to beal with remaining bad guys.
Arming civilians, and making it common practice to use firearms for self defence would just give bad guys more reason to shot civilians. you might not want to beleive it, but bad guys do try to avoid killing people. Its too much trouble and too much heat. you will get away with a burglary, but not with a break in and murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
