|
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. |
I think the most hilariously enlightening thing to take away from this thread is not anything that has to with gun laws, but the fact that citizens from countries in Europe, NZ, etc take laws from their own vastly diffrent country (population, culture, history, ethnic tension, and age groups) and think that by applying these laws in other countrys it is the right aproach. Frankly the whole one size fits all thinking here is very dissapointing.
|
On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal.
That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact?
Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it.
What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that!
On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day.
Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity.
If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol.
If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun.
|
anti-drug, anti-gun people make me really really sad. One is a very important piece of technology, and the other is a neccessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys. Whoever fails to see it as that, is probably out of his mind.
|
On July 29 2012 15:16 Dzemoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 15:08 Le French wrote:
No. No guns, no gun-related deaths/violence. This is probably the stupidest comment I have ever read. Yes, there is still going to be gun related death/violence... it's called the BLACK MARKET.
Ever been outside the states, pal? Black market guns only goes to the hard core bank robbers basically, and they're usually smart enough not to shoot anyone.
|
On July 29 2012 20:34 bOneSeven wrote:
anti-drug, anti-gun people make me really really sad. One is a very important piece of technology, and the other is a neccessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys. Whoever fails to see it as that, is probably out of his mind.
I'm ailing to make sense of your post...
"necessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys"?
|
On July 29 2012 21:00 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 20:34 bOneSeven wrote:
anti-drug, anti-gun people make me really really sad. One is a very important piece of technology, and the other is a neccessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys. Whoever fails to see it as that, is probably out of his mind. I'm ailing to make sense of your post... "necessary tool in this world of dominating monkeys"?
I shall attempt to translate.
"People who are anti-drug and anti-gun make me really sad. Of drugs and guns, one is a necessary in order to protect our civilisations from the warlike nature of our species and the other is a technology of great importance to society. I cannot see how anyone thinking rationally can come to any conclusion on the subject of guns and drugs than this."
I hope this helps.
|
if acces to guns is restricted, than getting yourself a weapon is harder(you have to get it on the black market which is even more dangerous) which means there will be significantly less guns around. having a less gun around means less altercation with the use of guns which are much more lethal and easy to use than a knife. this could probably save lives in the end. it might not decrease the chance of you getting jumped or jacked but it might reduce a number of felonies that are easily done with guns(theft, for example is easy when you have a gun on someone's head, but if you have to take it with equal force than you might not do it. and dont think both having guns will help it might have you both killd instead). so less guns could also mean less crimes, or less easy crimes. what people want through crime is easy money, but is that crime really worth it if you risk more now that guns aren't so easy to acquire.
now carrying a gun is also a culture, if you remind yourself that there are more guns per habs than TV's per habs in the U.S well this means that most people know how to use a gun. Using a gun only for selfdefense makes sense, but that is based of the fear that the attacker has one, i better pop that mufcuka first right? what a nice triggerhappy societey it makes. im afraid of dudes that rob me with guns, so i pop em first when there is an altercation (dramatizing here). shit ends up with a blood bath when it might've been only fists.
as for crime, i think it doesnt come from guns alone but from social injustice. it easier to make money being a crack dealer than going to university where you end up with 70k of scholar fees plus interest. like i said ealier it jsutt make crime easier. but what pushes people toward crime is not pure evil, its survival cause the system is fuckedup. no medicare, wellfare that keeps people dependant of the state's help, no working ensurance/syndicates that assure you have good work conditions and decent paycheck. ethnic discrimination and indifference instead of simple recognition of others.
|
On July 29 2012 14:53 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2012 11:47 furymonkey wrote:"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun? Indeed you should stay away from this thread.  Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time. Sounds interesting, do you have the source for this?
Well Mythbusters did it recently and proved it true, but I had heard it way before then.
On July 29 2012 16:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
This guy had body armour on.... But you knew that right? Just wondering how an unemployed college graduate could afford to buy 20,000 worth of guns , armour and ammunition?
His head/neck weren't armored.
|
On July 29 2012 16:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
This guy had body armour on.... But you knew that right? Just wondering how an unemployed college graduate could afford to buy 20,000 worth of guns , armour and ammunition?
You know the guy actually didn't have bullet proof equipment, right?
|
On July 30 2012 02:38 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 16:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
This guy had body armour on.... But you knew that right? Just wondering how an unemployed college graduate could afford to buy 20,000 worth of guns , armour and ammunition? You know the guy actually didn't have bullet proof equipment, right?
And I thought you get guns for free in the US and A even for opening a bank account, well at least they dont give you amunition so you cant rob the bank instantly.
|
On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun.
You seem angry.
I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter.
The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual.
Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it.
BAN GUNS HUR DUR
Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly).
Nothing I can say to you will ever make you understand so it's pointless for me to try. I could sit here and give every rational argument for gun ownership in existence and you still won't give a shit and would call for guns to be banned. You're biased to ban guns and won't care about anything except your own opinion. Have you even owned a firearm in your life?
|
On July 29 2012 20:40 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 15:16 Dzemoo wrote:On July 29 2012 15:08 Le French wrote:
No. No guns, no gun-related deaths. This is probably the stupidest comment I have ever read. Yes, there is still going to be gun related death/violence.. Ever been outside the states, pal? Black market guns only goes to the hard core bank robbers basically, and they're usually smart enough not to shoot anyone.
+1 so hard.
On July 29 2012 17:31 calderon wrote:
as a new zealander, where even police rarely carry guns, the law works well. but what people don't understand is from the time i spent in chicago that if you made that law it would be ridiculous unless you got rid of a LOT of guns, which would be impossible. i know they tried the trading in guns for 100$(?) but i don't think that was thaat succesful..
in 18 years i've seen a gun twice in new zealand
Exactly what I've been saying. The problem of the Americas is that too many guns are already out there. The solution isn't, or at least shouldn't be, more guns. In Europe, and New Zealand too it seems, only people in the wild forest parts have even seen a gun more than a couple of times.
|
On July 30 2012 03:16 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun. You seem angry. I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter. The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual. Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it. BAN GUNS HUR DUR Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly).
Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid.
|
On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 03:16 stevarius wrote:On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun. You seem angry. I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter. The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual. Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it. BAN GUNS HUR DUR Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly). Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid.
Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool.
|
On July 30 2012 03:22 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:16 stevarius wrote:On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun. You seem angry. I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter. The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual. Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it. BAN GUNS HUR DUR Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly). Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid. Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool.
So how come grenades and rpgs or bombs or mines are illegal ?
They are also tools, why are they banned or would you allow them as well ?
|
This is 160 pages of the same argument happening every page...
|
|
|
On July 30 2012 03:25 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 03:22 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:16 stevarius wrote:On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun. You seem angry. I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter. The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual. Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it. BAN GUNS HUR DUR Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly). Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid. Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool. So how come grenades and rpgs or bombs or mines are illegal ? They are also tools, why are they banned or would you allow them as well ?
Impractical for self-defense and shooting sports. I'm glad you asked.
|
On July 30 2012 03:55 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 03:25 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:22 stevarius wrote:On July 30 2012 03:20 Holy_AT wrote:On July 30 2012 03:16 stevarius wrote:On July 29 2012 20:27 sereniity wrote:On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed? All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. That's the only fucking argument you pro-gun people seem to have, "u can kill with knife too herp derp" I don't actually think you're that dumb. If you could do the killing just as easily with weapons such as guns, there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place, can't you grasp that simple fucking fact? Are you pro-drugs too? Because when I see a person has overdosed I think it's fucking sad that people who don't even know how to do the drugs properly (and therefore overdose) are able to get their hands on such dangerous things. You'd be a moron if you blame nobody but the person who overdosed, there's always more to it. What I just showed you is that there are people who are as bathshit crazy as him that can get a hold of weapons without any problem what-so-ever, and people in your country are apparently brainwashed enough to fucking believe that they can shoot things wildly on their property. The bullets do the actual damage? I thought when he pulled the trigger his hand automatically did a lethal pistol whip! I'm lucky you told me that! On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day. Yes you could, but that'd be fucking silly since many times it makes no sense to say that. Loads of you people bring up "CARS KILL TOO!" but they're not designed to kill, they're a necessity in the daily life for most people. A gun is no necessity. If alcohol would be banned, people could VERY EASILY make alcohol of their own, it would be much harder (note: impossible) to keep regular civilians from getting their hands on alcohol. If smoking would be banned, I couldn't give two shits, seeing as I think it makes no sense as to why you would smoke other than that you get stuck in it in your earlier teens due to the fact that most teens think it's supercool to smoke. Another point is that if you smoke, you kill yourself and not others, which is the direct purpose of a gun. You seem angry. I am pro-drugs, pro-guns, etc. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for an individuals use of various substances, but that's another thread. The person who did what he did is solely responsible for what happened, regardless of whether it was a crime, an overdose, fucked his best friends girl while drunk. It doesn't matter. The sheer fact that you state a gun is not a necessity shows how little you know about a society full of guns, owned by those legal to do so and by those who are illegally doing so. Without firearms, there would be many who would be easier targets for victimization by those who physically can overpower the individual. Thanks for a rational post that contains no emotion and actually thinking before posting. I'm sorry that you think two news articles represents the majority of gun owners when you seem to be ignoring the fact that there will always be people committing crimes within a society regardless of their methods of doing it. BAN GUNS HUR DUR Firearms will never be banned in the USA. Why? Because it's completely impractical to do so when so many of them are already owned. This isn't a shithole nation in that doesn't care about your rights(mostly). Give me guns and I can kill dozens of people while on my killing spree, give a knife and I hurr durr wont even do it because I afraid. Which is where personal responsibility comes in. Blame the criminal, not the tool. So how come grenades and rpgs or bombs or mines are illegal ? They are also tools, why are they banned or would you allow them as well ? Impractical for self-defense and shooting sports. I'm glad you asked.
Blowing up some deer with an RPG would be pretty cool though.
|
I'm going to say the thing I always say in gun control threads.
Guns are a tool. If you are going to use violence for whatever reason you use the most powerfull tool you can get your hands on. This is why robbers in Sweden sometimes use nothing and commonly have a knife and why robbers in the us sometimes use a knife and commonly use guns.
Its also why bankrobbers often use assult rifles regardless of countries since they have connections to get them.
So, restricting tools for violence is good since it means most, but not all situations, with violence gets less deadly.
BUT. The us has what, 750 million guns (at least) already in circulation and there is no way to stop that. Simply, gun controll is already fucked. Random crasy wants a gun gets a gun. Sweden, not so much.
Which is why gun controll wont work in the us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
