Another Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 25

On December 08 2007 22:36 kroko wrote:
This week I read from newspaper that, according to Harvard study the murder rates are higher in states were the gunlaws are 'easier'(dunno correct english word..TT). Weird isnt it ?

On December 09 2007 01:42 Folca wrote:


If you ban guns, you restrict citizens themselves to protect themselves
if criminals such as US Terrorists, or even the guy that started the shooting at the mall want to start a shooting, they just need a little money, or even drugs, to get what they want ILLEGALLY its not that hard -.-
Obviously for citizens, if you want to be a good person, you dont want to buy guns Illegally just for your protection, might as well get caught by the law

On December 07 2007 02:18 Mayson wrote:
I agree. The world should be a world without guns, as a disarmed population is much easier to control.

It worked for Hitler. Good things those Jews couldn't defend themselves!

Oh, and I do know how high the murder rate per capita is. It's higher where guns are banned.

On December 09 2007 03:26 Mayson wrote:
Well, I guess I can't refute that cold, hard, statistical evidence you've shut me down with.

/waves white flag

/rolls eyes

Edit: Too funny. http://concealedcampus.org/sccc_flyer.pdf

On December 09 2007 03:43 uiCk wrote:
so your basing stating that if guns are banned: Criminals and Authority are the only ones left with guns = weak citizins that will get abused by criminals and possibly totalitarian authority?

but if production of guns stop, at one point criminals (not organized crime, because they have enough ressources to import anything, but violence and shootings dont really affect regular citizens, except for the odd occasion of being at the wrong place at the wrong time) the ones that cause most civil incidents, poor and desperate, wont be able to get guns and will be to expensive to get them through the black market, which automatically will lead to less dead innocent people that were a victim in a crime. This obviously does not reduce crime, but neither does having more guns because crime was not invented by the people who inveted guns, CRIME NEEDS TO BE SOLVED AT A SOCIAL LEVEL. And having a totalitarian gouverment that might take advantage of this position on its own citizens is NOT CAUSED BY GUN CONTROL, it is caused by people being divided and weak and missinformend about who they elect and who they listen. So the whole things comes down to a very vague and social problem, were people need to fight the root of society and things need to be changed in many diferent fields, but ALLOWING guns for everyone will no reduce crime, at least not in the long term, until crime adapts itself some other way, wich it always does throught the first day man walked. So thats why your an idiot because you think guns can stop crime. A gun can stop A crime (maybe), but it cant stop CRIME itself.

ill rephrase this better after my exam, but hopefully you understood my point of view, even though i aint no specialist.


you just don't fight violence with more violence, how many times does that need to be said for people to understand that.

On December 09 2007 03:56 Frits wrote:


It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.

ps. I love your sig.

girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"

rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"

*high five*


Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.

On December 09 2007 03:56 Frits wrote:


It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.

ps. I love your sig.

girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"

rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"

*high five*


Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.

On December 09 2007 04:02 MarklarMarklar wrote:
Shut the fuck you condescending(me 2) piece of shit, you're extremely fucking one sided in all your arguements, so much that i can't imagine how smart you believe you are.

You talk like you just presented a genius take on every topic, even if you come up with arguements that are weak as fuck and has a ton of holes in them. And when someone points those holes out you make up some extremely vague counter arguement that sucks, or you just ignore it.

Then you of course make another shitty post like nothing happend directly afterwards, like you're still completely right, please get the fuck out of your imaginary world you pseudo intellectual piece of shit.

p.s. just made this post so i could post this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_FVD0BR2Mc

http://www.stage6.com/The-Zooniverse/video/1848899/01---Killeroo

On December 09 2007 04:05 Mayson wrote:
1. I'm not trolling. Just because I have consistently supported my statement with facts, figures, and statistics from the Department of Justice, and various non-profit organizations with no overt political orientation doesn't make me a troll.

If I was a troll, Hot_Bid, FakeSteve, or any of the other competent mods probably would have spoken to me already. I've received no such communications.

2. I dare you to find one unbiased source that disproves anything I've said. I'm directly calling you out, and challenging you.

I'd suggest we bet on this, but that would be overkill. I don't want to gain anything from your ignorance of the facts.

First, start with the Department of Justice in the US. You will find that law-abiding citizens do not contribute to crime. CHL holders have a crime rate five times lower than that of criminals, which is lower than the crime rate of law enforcement officers in many areas.

Second, look at statisticians' reports and criminologists' reports. You will find nothing that supports your point of view.

Third, I will give you one source that supports your point of view. Kellerman did a study a while back that resulted in the famous 43:1 ratio, demonstrating how dangerous guns are to citizens. The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one.

The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one

On December 09 2007 04:27 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?

Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.

On December 09 2007 04:27 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?

Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.

On December 09 2007 04:06 Skye_MyO wrote:


I don't think he's retarded.

Don't tell me a rapist would risk his life on a woman who may carry a concealed firearm. He'd have much more confidence in carrying out his wicked deed knowing that his victim only had a pepper spray or knew martial arts (heh what a joke).

And he's repeatedly quoted real sources to back up the assertion that gun control does not reduce crime (even increasing crime in certain states).

On December 09 2007 04:33 Frits wrote:


Is this a homework assignment? I'm not going to argue about something like guns when it's so painfully obvious they serve no good purpose. They're made to hurt and that is what they do. The 43:1 ratio alone should be reason enough for citizens NEVER to own a firearm.



How is that a proper argument? You're just steering the subject away from guns, other things commonly found in a home serve a purpose while the purpose of a gun is to inflict pain/death.

On December 09 2007 04:14 IntoTheWow wrote:
"statistics out of context" lol thats a new one.

Numbers can't lie. You are the only one with silly arguments here.

You think that if a la decides to ban guns from society the US will suddenly become like resident evil. Armless people except for a few ones, against the evil zombies. Truth is most people with a gun don't know how to use it. Truth is there are a lot of accidents with guns because people without training have them. Truth is your so praised entities that should check that people with the power to have a gun know how to use it, don't really do their job.


Criminals get hold of guns easily because laws give them easy access to them.