|
11782 Posts
On December 08 2007 06:54 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote:
Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot.
Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present.
Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself.
|
On December 08 2007 06:55 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 06:50 Spartan wrote:On December 08 2007 03:47 lengzai wrote:On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote:
Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options. GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!! Guns don't kill people, people kill people. No, you're completely wrong. Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur.
hmmm lets see...
Purpose of a gun: to kill something
Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere
Really doesn't get much more elementary than that...
|
On December 08 2007 07:00 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 06:54 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote:
Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot. Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself.
ahahhaha
speaking of facebook:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_hi_te/syria_facebook
Syria blocks facebook because of Isreal!
|
|
|
On December 08 2007 07:00 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 06:54 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote:
Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot. Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present. Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself. 1. Any normal human being is going to fucking cry when a gun is pointed at them. That point is completely moot.
2. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." In the time it took the poor emo kid to kill nine people, he recieved no armed resistance from a legally-armed civilian.
The police are not responsible for individuals' safety. Besides, when I'm waving my fucking CCW at them, with the weapon pointed at the floor in ready-safe position, they aren't going to shoot me.
Nice try!
On December 08 2007 07:04 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 06:55 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 06:50 Spartan wrote:On December 08 2007 03:47 lengzai wrote:On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote:
Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options. GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!! Guns don't kill people, people kill people. No, you're completely wrong. Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur. hmmm lets see... Purpose of a gun: to kill something Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere Really doesn't get much more elementary than that... Purpose of a gun: to ensure my own fucking safety against cuntbags who'd kill me
Stop regurgitating the Brady campaign's bullshit like a parrot. Think for yourself for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
I think the most amazing thing thus far is video games haven't been blamed yet, especially with the election and all.
HE PROBABLY KNEW THE RECOIL OF AN AK-47 BECAUSE HE PLAYED COUNTER STRIKE.
It's too bad he didn't play Source, then he wouldn't have been able to hit anyone.
|
Well, it'd be asinine for anyone to claim it's video games. The only study every printed in a highly-regarded journal was retracted due to unseen problem. The study was confounded, and thus the results were never statistically-significant.
Jack Thompson is still citing it, however. It just shows you how intelligent he is. The APA realizes they made a mistake, and he thinks he knows better than they do. 
|
United States22883 Posts
Oh, lack of evidence is hardly enough to deter American politicians and media members from criticizing video games.
The only case I've seen that really seemed directly influenced by games was when a couple of 13 year olds hijacked like 3 cars in a row in an attempt to escape police. I think they said they got the idea from GTA3. That was pretty awesome.
|
If we banned all the guns, the only people who will have guns will be criminals!
Oh wait...
|
United States24682 Posts
On December 08 2007 07:52 Caller wrote:
If we banned all the guns, the only people who will have guns will be criminals!
Oh wait... If you were trying to make a point, you probably failed.
|
United States24682 Posts
On December 08 2007 07:09 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 07:00 Frits wrote:On December 08 2007 06:54 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote:
Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot. Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present. Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself. 1. Any normal human being is going to fucking cry when a gun is pointed at them. That point is completely moot. 2. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." In the time it took the poor emo kid to kill nine people, he recieved no armed resistance from a legally-armed civilian. The police are not responsible for individuals' safety. Besides, when I'm waving my fucking CCW at them, with the weapon pointed at the floor in ready-safe position, they aren't going to shoot me. Nice try! Show nested quote +On December 08 2007 07:04 Hawk wrote:On December 08 2007 06:55 Mayson wrote:On December 08 2007 06:50 Spartan wrote:On December 08 2007 03:47 lengzai wrote:On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote:
Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options. GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!! Guns don't kill people, people kill people. No, you're completely wrong. Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur. hmmm lets see... Purpose of a gun: to kill something Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere Really doesn't get much more elementary than that... Purpose of a gun: to ensure my own fucking safety against cuntbags who'd kill me Stop regurgitating the Brady campaign's bullshit like a parrot. Think for yourself for a change. Actually as you might want to add, the purpose of a gun is not to kill something. Look at what % of guns are used for targeting animals, what % are used for targeting humans, and what % are used for targeting paper etc... you might be surprised. I've launched off a few thousand rounds from various firearms, and have never taken a life...
|
Stop with the "law abiding" shit already dumbass, you keep mocking my views saying "baaa the sheep" yet you use that super cliche conservative phrase....
its not a law abiding citizen... its just ANY citizen withouth a criminal record (etc), so if somebody who is 19yo and doesnt have any record of a crime implies that this person will never make miss use of his weapons in his life? are u retarded?
Sorry but in this huge ass thread i lost the point behind supporting the right to posses automatic rifles... u said they arent good for personal defense (obviously), so why should they be allowed?
i mean in that case we should also allow bazookas and why not, even a tank.
Actually in texas you can get RIDICULOUS guns, like a fucking machine gun.... how is a machine gun a defensive weapon? -_- please elaborate on why these weapons should be allowed.
I mean, if you are against those atleast i could see you are a true believer in armed self defense... however if you support the possesions of those weapons you are just an hypocrit.
|
Baal, I've addressed those points in previous posts. I suggest you learn to read with comprehension, right after you learn to write with cohesion.
|
this is ridiculous, i believe in Rev0lution, because we cant even tell from whos the real shooter, because everyone is shooting at one person yes, we can realize that, but when your in a life-death situation, wouldnt you brain go nuts on where to shoot? i mean, your trying to protect YOURSELF, if you have no time for thinking
|
|
|
You're assuming that anyone who carries a concealed weapon would engage a shooter in public.
The right to carry a concealed firearm does not obligate you to do anything. It's the same thing for off-duty police officers.
So, say there are 1000 people in a mall, plus the shooter. The shooter begins to shoot people at a given time, and out of the 1000 people in the mall, let's just say there are 10 people with CCW permits.
Out of those 10 people, not all 10 will engage.
The point is that, if people are not allowed the right to conceal a weapon with the purpose of self-defense, there's no chance whatsoever of a shooter in public being taken down.
|
On December 08 2007 03:07 thedeadhaji wrote:
Where is my $10 you liar.
hahaha^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
