|
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. |
On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people.
What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors.
You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet.
|
Lol, because noone is going to be paying attention in a dark theater.
I was going to type out some crazy "what-if" situations like this, but I'd be damned if someone read it and tried it -_- so please no more of these. Despite it being a good point.
|
On December 20 2012 05:39 jacosajh wrote:
No point reasoning if you can't comprehend there are other ways to quickly and effectively kill people, and most importantly, that there are many other problems associated that need to be addressed. Have a good day.
Addressing the gun problem is the easiest of the causes. By limiting gun proliferation, you can limit the extent to which individuals can cause damage. A crazy guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a crazy guy with a knife.
The thread title is "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" and at no point have you said why you think they should or shouldn't be able to. Instead, you're just telling me that I know nothing about guns and that 'there are other problems'.
|
On December 20 2012 05:43 jacosajh wrote:
Lol, because noone is going to be paying attention in a dark theater.
I was going to type out some crazy "what-if" situations like this, but I'd be damned if someone read it and tried it -_- so please no more of these. Despite it being a good point.
What? No, really what?
|
I feel like people should be allowed to own a gun, but not carry ....
If there were a way to enforce people to keep their guns at home it would be the best
|
On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet.
Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns.
|
On December 20 2012 05:44 KingLol wrote:
Addressing the gun problem is the easiest of the causes. By limiting gun proliferation, you can limit the extent to which individuals can cause damage. A crazy guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a crazy guy with a knife.
The thread title is "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" and at no point have you said why you think they should or shouldn't be able to. Instead, you're just telling me that I know nothing about guns and that 'there are other problems'.
True, a crazy guy with a gun is more dangerous then a crazy guy with a knife. But if a crazy guy comes at me with a knife I want to have a gun not a knife. Same goes if the crazy guy has a gun, I still want to have a gun, not a knife.
|
On December 20 2012 05:45 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:43 jacosajh wrote:
Lol, because noone is going to be paying attention in a dark theater.
I was going to type out some crazy "what-if" situations like this, but I'd be damned if someone read it and tried it -_- so please no more of these. Despite it being a good point. What? No, really what?
You really don't think it would be possible to get a few gallons of gasoline into a theater (hint hint: Holmes snuck into the back door he left open) into a dark theater, especially during an intense-action-packed scene? And then to jam the doors?
|
On December 20 2012 05:46 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet. Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns.
Apart from the fact that it is, it is much harder espically considering the fact he walked through the back exit of the theater.
If he walked through the back exit and started pouring gallons of gasoline around people he would of been caught and most likely stopped. Saying he wouldn't is just absurd.
Can not belive we are even having this discussion.
|
On December 20 2012 05:47 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:45 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:43 jacosajh wrote:
Lol, because noone is going to be paying attention in a dark theater.
I was going to type out some crazy "what-if" situations like this, but I'd be damned if someone read it and tried it -_- so please no more of these. Despite it being a good point. What? No, really what? You really don't think it would be possible to get a few gallons of gasoline into a theater (hint hint: Holmes snuck into the back door he left open) into a dark theater, especially during an intense-action-packed scene? And then to jam the doors?
Read my post above.
|
On December 20 2012 05:47 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:44 KingLol wrote:
Addressing the gun problem is the easiest of the causes. By limiting gun proliferation, you can limit the extent to which individuals can cause damage. A crazy guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a crazy guy with a knife.
The thread title is "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" and at no point have you said why you think they should or shouldn't be able to. Instead, you're just telling me that I know nothing about guns and that 'there are other problems'. True, a crazy guy with a gun is more dangerous then a crazy guy with a knife. But if a crazy guy comes at me with a knife I want to have a gun not a knife. Same goes if the crazy guy has a gun, I still want to have a gun, not a knife.
Yep, I understand that you'd rather have a gun but it's not practical to let the 'good guys' have guns and keep them out of the hands of bad guys. The difference between the crazy guy having a knife and a gun is that you can run if he has a knife.
|
Shit, you don't even need to do any of that.
You can simply yell "fire."
On December 20 2012 05:49 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:46 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet. Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns. Apart from the fact that it is, it is much harder espically considering the fact he walked through the back exit of the theater. If he walked through the back exit and started pouring gallons of gasoline around people he would of been caught and most likely stopped. Saying he wouldn't is just absurd. Can not belive we are even having this discussion.
People definitely told him to stop throwing smoke canisters and shooting. *sarcasm* Did you even read up on this at all? A lot of people thought it was part of the damn movie.
|
On December 20 2012 05:49 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:46 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet. Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns. Apart from the fact that it is, it is much harder espically considering the fact he walked through the back exit of the theater. If he walked through the back exit and started pouring gallons of gasoline around people he would of been caught and most likely stopped. Saying he wouldn't is just absurd. Can not belive we are even having this discussion.
You are really not very imaginative.
|
On December 20 2012 05:32 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. Lol why would anyone need experience in using one when it is common sense how exatcly effective a gun is, they are made for killing, nothing more.Only need to turn tv on and see just how effective they are when you hear about 20 dead kids.
Majority of gun owners dont see it that way, thats the difference between the two sides. Its a hobby and passion, no one in right mind would want to shoot a human being.
|
On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible.
Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide.
In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century.
|
On December 20 2012 05:50 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:49 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:46 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet. Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns. Apart from the fact that it is, it is much harder espically considering the fact he walked through the back exit of the theater. If he walked through the back exit and started pouring gallons of gasoline around people he would of been caught and most likely stopped. Saying he wouldn't is just absurd. Can not belive we are even having this discussion. You are really not very imaginative.
But better then having a dumb imagination that makes no sense.
|
On December 20 2012 05:49 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:47 Rhino85 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:44 KingLol wrote:
Addressing the gun problem is the easiest of the causes. By limiting gun proliferation, you can limit the extent to which individuals can cause damage. A crazy guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a crazy guy with a knife.
The thread title is "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" and at no point have you said why you think they should or shouldn't be able to. Instead, you're just telling me that I know nothing about guns and that 'there are other problems'. True, a crazy guy with a gun is more dangerous then a crazy guy with a knife. But if a crazy guy comes at me with a knife I want to have a gun not a knife. Same goes if the crazy guy has a gun, I still want to have a gun, not a knife. Yep, I understand that you'd rather have a gun but it's not practical to let the 'good guys' have guns and keep them out of the hands of bad guys. The difference between the crazy guy having a knife and a gun is that you can run if he has a knife.
Its not practical, here in the US, to keep them out of the hands of bad guys. I could run away if he had a gun too. Granted I know I'm not faster then a bullet but maybe I'm not faster then the bad guy with a knife either.
|
On December 20 2012 05:50 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:32 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. Lol why would anyone need experience in using one when it is common sense how exatcly effective a gun is, they are made for killing, nothing more.Only need to turn tv on and see just how effective they are when you hear about 20 dead kids. Majority of gun owners dont see it that way, thats the difference between the two sides. Its a hobby and passion, no one in right mind would want to shoot a human being.
Also wrong. Some just see it as self defense. There are many who wish they never see the day they have to use their gun.
|
Instead of arguing over fantasies (complete ban on firearms in the US) and crazy hypotheticals about which weapons can do the most damage why aren't we discussing the logical ways of limiting these incidents? Checks to make sure people who own firearms aren't insane. Laws to ensure firearms are locked away safely so insane people cannot access them(adam lanza). Security to protect children at school. And so on.
Insisting the only way to fix this issue is through some sort of magical removal of firearms from the US is such a dumb and circular argument that has gotten very tiring in this thread. The Australia case should also stop being repeated, the only possible way you could think that is relevant to America is if you have not a damn clue about any of the multitude of factors that make removing guns from American society completely impossible. Criminals already face huge jail time for getting caught with a firearm, what makes you think outlawing firearms will make these people give them up?
|
On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century.
I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
