Another Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 9

On December 07 2007 04:35 yisun518 wrote:
just take a moment of silence, and consider the scenario that every one in the world has a gun. whereever you go, people around you all have guns. you actually feel safer? when you argue on some bad products with a merchant, a fight after too much beer, some road rage and collision arguments, how about a protest with shooting guns instead of throwing bottles?

there are so many scenarios that could go horribly wrong and much worse. the cons of allowing everyone to carry a gun far outweight the pros of protection against those "extreme criminals"

we all know how ignorant humans can be at times, and how a law-abiding citizen can do outrageous things at times.

On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote:
This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal. I have a friend who is a convicted felon, and he owns more guns than I do. You may know that it is illegal for a felon convicted of a violent crime to purchase a firearm, yet he has quite an arsenal. How? There are simply other places than Wal Mart to buy things, and it's very easy to get illegal goods. There are two types of violent crimes involving guns; one type which we are discussing here, the premeditated crime. These usually involve planned shootings motivated by pent-up rage, and are much more likely to be lethal. The other kind are what I like to call "impulse crimes", that is, someone gets a sudden surge of anger for one reason or another and lashes out. These are usually committed by ordinarily law-abiding citizens. It is also unlikely that these crimes will result in murder. Gun control laws MIGHT go some way to prevent, or at least reduce the severity of, impulse crimes. Obviously on an impulse, you will not have time to purchase a gun on the street. But a premeditated act of hate will not be stopped by a mere gun control law; in fact, it will be worsened by the fact that this person will have a gun regardless of laws, and it is almost a virtual GUARANTEE that none of his victims will be armed. So what you have is in essence a slaughter. Using Canada as an example is silly, too, because Canadians are very laid back and there are a LOT less black people in Canada than there are in the USA, and thus less crime. The cities are less foul, too. But I bet if a Canadian really wanted to shoot up the local shopping mall due to his Canadian teenage angst, he would not find it terribly hard to obtain a gun, and the opposition he would meet in committing the act would be laughable at best.

On December 07 2007 07:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Nobody is arguing for everyone to have a damn gun, they are arguing that if anyone so should choose to they can. Thats like saying "imagine everyone has the right to an attorney... now imagine a world where everyone DOES! Everything becomes legal blah blah blah."

You are taking it out of context. I dont own a gun and probably never will. But I think it is important that people are able to legally purchase guns.

On December 07 2007 08:21 baal wrote:
lol i read this in Wisconsin's gun laws:

Silencers are legal if you follow BATFE process, statute 941.298



ROFL Silencers are absolutely essential for self defense.... not for stealthy assasination.

On December 07 2007 03:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Washington D.C passed a gun control law banning pistols (or concealed weapons I believe) iirc and actually experienced a spike in deaths from firearms. It has been kept pretty hush hush by the media because its viewed as the most tangible example of a US gun control scenario. It kind of confirms a lot of what those "red necks" are saying.

On December 07 2007 02:30 MarklarMarklar wrote:
Mayson what a fucking uninformed idiot you are.

shit

On December 06 2007 20:17 CharlieMurphy wrote:


The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.

On December 07 2007 04:40 MarklarMarklar wrote:


ya, psychiatrists in the united states(and some other places) has a incredibly high tendency of putting people on them, even if they don't really need it.

They are pretty good at inducing weird thought patterns, get into a deep discussion with someone on anti depressants, they can be pretty weird.

On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote:
Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.

Prescriptions have an effect on your cognitive ability, which means you could potentially do something impulsive. This is the same reason why many police departments mandate that off-duty officers not carry a concealed weapon while drinking.

On December 07 2007 09:02 Rev0lution wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRk8DNMizw4


This is "silent" enough to make "stealthy" kills.

On December 07 2007 04:40 MarklarMarklar wrote:


ya, psychiatrists in the united states(and some other places) has a incredibly high tendency of putting people on them, even if they don't really need it.

They are pretty good at inducing weird thought patterns, get into a deep discussion with someone on anti depressants, they can be pretty weird.

On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote:
Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.