EPTAnother Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:20 MYM.Testie wrote: So do you call everyone a troll when their views differ, and even disprove your own?If it is not an impossibility for a teenager to acquire a gun, change is needed. Mayson is a troll. How he's gotten so much attention is beyond me. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:26 IzzyCraft wrote: All you have to know is over population is going to ruin the world and our current population will increase by 2/3 by 2050 so dead people all good WAR SLOVES ALL THINGS haha seriously look it up in history it does and it solves overpopulation to STOP procreating haha i post this in confidence that it will be ignored like every other post made on this thread ^_^ Yeah, the world is overpopulated...big problem...wrong thread. ;o | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:27 Servolisk wrote: I don't own any guns. Whether or not you feel safe around someone who owns guns is not the point. As a law-abiding citizen, I pose no threat to you--guns or not.Mayson is a good case for banning guns entirely. He apparently owns guns. *I* wouldn't feel comfortable around him. If I was a criminal, things would be different. But I'm not. Edit: I bet the students at Virginia Tech felt really safe right up until they were being shot at. Didn't Cho get the memo? It's a gun-free zone at VT. Maybe next time the magical gun-free zones will protect people. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:25 a-game wrote: I agree with much of what you're saying.mayson there's no way in hell i trust the general population with guns. guns come in handy when some guys trying to rape you, yes, they come in handy for overthrowing a fascist government, yes but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something. in order to support the general population packing heat there would have to be a way to verify who's going to use his weapon responsibly. and that's impossible to do, just think about how many police officers whip out their pistols too fast already, and they have professional training and are supposedly given background checks. if the police are trigger happy just imagine the mentaility behind your average citizen, there's no way in hell i trust the average citizen having guns. so again, yeah it's nice to be able to defend yourself in the direst of situations, on the other hand it isn't nice when the general population are all a bunch of armed retarded baboons waving pistols at each other. i think a compromise is to let a household have 1 small gun per household (conditional upon having a clean background and record) for self defense against intruders. taking that weapon outside the home should be illegal though. Even some law-abiding citizens are not responsible enough to own a firearm safely. I don't agree with every single person in a given population owning a firearm; I do support those that have proven their proficiency, whether it be through a clean record or passing classes, background checks, etc., to be allowed to own firearms. Edit: You will benefit from some research into the patterns of behavior of those who possess concealed weapon carry licenses. You will find that: - CCW permit holders have a much lower incidence of committing crimes than criminals do - The number of revoked permits per year in any given country is relatively low compared to the number of issued permits While I do admit some people legally obtain a firearm, and then suddenly turn into dumbasses, the overwhelmingly large majority of people who legally own firearms do not contribute to criminal behavior. Unfortunately, it is human nature to be imperfect, is it not? Accidents will happen. Mistakes will happen. Banning guns to avoid said accidents and mistakes would have dire side-effects, many of which have been covered repeatedly. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5180 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:23 Servolisk wrote: As sad as it is, Mayson speaks for people like HeadBangaa, so we give him attention for the sake of our less fortunate members, troll or not. Servolisk believes 9/11 is a conspiracy. I laugh whenever he points at me and says "boo". Oh and Servo, I've never had a problem speaking for myself, thanks. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5180 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
| ||
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On December 08 2007 15:59 Mayson wrote: Edit: Insult removed for civility. Sorry. You, favoring gun control, support: - rape - murder - robbery - assault to go unchecked. You're a traitor to the human race. this might be one of the worst posts i've ever read | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 08 2007 17:00 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: I completely agree.this might be one of the worst posts i've ever read You gotta love posts made out of frustration! | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
On December 08 2007 17:00 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: this might be one of the worst posts i've ever read I know, right? I mean, how can you leave redcoats off that list?! | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 08 2007 16:25 a-game wrote: but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something. Why is it that "rednecks" are always mentioned when the author requires reference to an absolute evil? It's like, Godwin's law, but with respect to US-population/hicks rather than sovereignties/nazis. Contrary to what you've said, "general population" behaves in a predictable manner. You drive 65mph within several feet of "general population" everyday. Any one of those random strangers could decide to end your life then and there. But we trust other members of society will behave predictably. We live life on that assumption. In that light, your statement seems prejudiced and paranoid. On December 08 2007 16:57 BroOd wrote: Yeah, the idea of watching you hump something with nothing but your socks and gun holster on is just so damned appealing. laughed out loud!  | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
The design of gun control laws is inherently flawed. Current gun control laws in place across the US that are intended to reduce crime involving firearms has been relatively ineffective, as criminals operate in spite of the laws. Gun control would simply make more laws, which, as evidence clearly shows, would be ineffective. The problem with firearms is that criminals still have access to them. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but the proposed legislature coming from anti-gun campaigns would be ineffective. The current gun control laws are ineffective; more gun control laws will not be any different. The sources of firearms going to criminals are known. They include, but are not limited to, FFLs breaking the law by selling to criminals, theft from citizens, and also by "borrowing" them from friends, family, and other criminals. Gun control, instead of attacking these sources with the goal of upholding the law, attacks guns as a whole. Are guns as a whole the problem? Absolutely not; there are no statistically-significant reports that demonstrate that the mere presence of a firearm is a problem. The problem is when a firearm is misused for illegal purposes. Instead of attempting to limit citizens from legally purchasing a firearm, the time and money should be spent enabling federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce firearms laws in a better way. For example, the ATF could randomly do spot checks on those currently holding FFLs. If they could weed out the "rotten apples," the ATF would effectively uphold the law, and reduce the flow of firearms intended for the legal market to criminals. My point is that currently-proposed gun control legislation would be ineffective, as have previous forms of gun control legislation. Instead of attacking firearms, attack the source of the problem: the flow of firearms to criminals. It will be difficult to directly affect the black market by allowing law enforcement to uphold firearms laws, but reducing the availability of firearms intended for the legal market to criminals while preserving a citizen's right to self-preservation, self-defense, and home-defense is a much better, safer, and effective form of legislature. | ||
|
ZaplinG
United States3818 Posts
| ||
| ||
