EPTOn February 03 2010 01:29 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Hopefully all the criminals dont move to Oregon now.
Hopefully all the criminals dont move to Oregon now.
LOL <3 you are teh best.
"to stop the guns we must stop the bullets" - Page 4
| Blogs > theron[wdt] |
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
LOL <3 you are teh best. | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:24 TS-Rupbar wrote: What if the professor is a trained enraged loon? What if someone steals his weapon? Good point but I'm not so sure it's all hat valid. How many professors have ever gone on shooting sprees compared to teenagers? My guess is 0 professors and dozens of students. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
If you want to defend yourself with guns you should buy those rubber bullets they have on sale now | ||
|
h3r1n6
Iceland2039 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:52 ghermination wrote: While i'm extremely liberal to the point where i would probably be investigated in Mccarthyist America, My only strong conservative belief is that firearms are a very important item that nearly everyone can own. While obviously they are lethal and anybody with criminal intent can kill you with one, that doesn't mean that they don't server a purpose. If they're (sanely) limited and people are (adequately) screened before recieving them, i think they are of great aid both as a means of self defense (Do people in London ask thieves to kindly go away or something?) and also as use in defense of both their rights and their way of life. (For example, if some time in the future the Galactic Robot Party (GRP) finally succeeds in getting a president elected with it's "Kill all Humans" platform, i will be the only one prepared.) Self defense with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are designed to kill other humans, not do defend yourself. A taser would be more fit for the task, or a baseball bat. Raw strength might suffice too. Or is your biggest concern the Galactic Robot Party? In that case, a psychiatrist would be in order. In any way, if that's your point for guns, I'm glad Germany has strict gun laws, because I wouldn't really feel safe with people like you having guns. I might need a gun then. Oh snap. | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
| ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote: Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves. What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal. I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. In the most cases, having a gun to defend yourself causes more trouble than it solves. You know, when you get robbed usually the thief don't want to use his gun. Yea it sucks being robbed, and it's scary, but it's still way better than putting yourself in a gun fight risking your life. Here in Germany we usually have a "household insurance", so it's not even that big of a financial deal. It's just a guess, i don't have data, but I'm pretty sure more house-owners lost their life while trying to protect it than actually saving their life with the gun. That's just for the self-protection part. I'm not even speaking about the other consequences when it's easier to get weapons/bullets for everyone. And about the school thing: Maybe not jumping up in the middle of the class, but there are several situations where the kid went into his class room and shot everyone, so there's basically no different if he goes into the class room (when nobody is expecting it) or jumping up in the class room. Yea, it might have helped when teachers had weapons when an actual rampage happened. But it may also be outweigh by accidents where someone get the weapon from the teacher? Or the teacher doing a rampage? Or the teacher shooting someone else while trying to hit the amok-kid? Usually it's the best idea to try to hide/barricade as long as the police arrives which should be within a few minutes nowadays. The most important part in my opinion is tho that the kids who do a rampage aren't usually those gangsters who have access to weapons from the black market, but stealing it from their parents (or even being able to getting it by oneself legal). Even tho we have pretty strict rules against guns here in Germany and owners even have to make sure the guns are always locked, the last rampage happened was because the father of the kid didn't locked his weapon. (He got convicted for it, too). If the father wouldn't have the weapon in the first place the kid never would have been able to pull it off. That's for the if you want to you always have a way to get it. Gun-crimes are not always committed by gangsters. This meaning it's way easier to have access to weapons on a legal way in america than in mostly all other western countries, and as far as I'm informed rampage happens more often in america, too. Edit: I have to admit I have no idea how it is when you live in a neighborhood where it's daily routine that someone breaks into a house, raping the women, and killing everyone. I guess a weapon would be a good idea in that place. But honestly, that place would be fucked up anyway. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6632 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote: I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. No I'm saying that it probably wouldn't help that much, could potentially cause problems and that if your aim is to reduce school shootings then making sure kids don't have access to guns is a far more effective method than arming the teachers | ||
|
arb
Noobville17919 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:41 h3r1n6 wrote: Self defense with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are designed to kill other humans, not do defend yourself. A taser would be more fit for the task, or a baseball bat. Raw strength might suffice too. Or is your biggest concern the Galactic Robot Party? In that case, a psychiatrist would be in order. In any way, if that's your point for guns, I'm glad Germany has strict gun laws, because I wouldn't really feel safe with people like you having guns. I might need a gun then. Oh snap. Semi automatic rifles arent designed just to kill humans, friends of mine have semi automatic rifles which are good for squrriel(sp?) hunting. though they are only .22's but saying thats all they are for is just fucking retarded and ignorant. People who are unsafe with guns kill people, any good respectable gun owner will have a gun safe/and or safetys on guns. most also keep the action open so people arent killed by them. As someone said above, its not all grassy parks and shopping centers here | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. use air guns... | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. Fist vs gun usually doesn't end too well for one of those. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:37 ArvickHero wrote: If this law helps reduce the death and crime rate, I'm all for it. It might only be a factor and reduce it a little, but every bit counts right? Are there really any better alternatives that "don't interfere with the free market"? Whilst your point is valid, it is inconcistent to only make regulations apply to weapons. The question that needs to be asked thowards anyone that uses your arguments ("every bit counts") is; why not alcohol, why not cars, why not ... since all the previous also attribute to unhealth (read: death). One solution that is almost always the most cost efficient (and morally superior) is education. Ensuring that anyone whom wishes to acquire firearms is given proper education, regarding handling, storing and basic maintenance opts for more security. Education together with all purchases having to be made with valid reasons, would effectively reduce gun-related accidents and crime without inflicting with the free market. | ||
|
liosama
Australia843 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + :D | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
Because air guns are the same right? Have you ever even shot a gun or a air soft gun? There is a huge difference. And what he does is for competition, hes not out killing people. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:13 FaCE_1 wrote: I approve this AB 962 law at 100% AB 962 will make it harder for EVERYONE to purchase ammo which in theory will decrease crime rate. I can live with that. Why would you ever need more than a fully loaded magazine at one time anyways? | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
It's your socialist mentality vs the US citizens' split and largely uneducated opinion. Not science vs conservatism. | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On February 03 2010 03:10 Kiarip wrote: I love how all these Europeans are just coming in talking about how guns are so bad. It's your socialist mentality vs the US citizens' split and largely uneducated opinion. Not science vs conservatism. Socialism has nothing to do with gun control. It's more that most of us in Europe were brought up with the idea that guns were bad, while in a lot of America you have relatively easy access to guns. From the little that I've read about it, I'd rather people weren't allowed to own guns in my country even though it restricts people's freedom. To me it is a case of science vs. conservatism as I can't see a clear scientific argument for less gun control. It's just that some people want to own guns for the hell of it, fuck public safety. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions. This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. baby back bullshit. Gun control arguments are such bullshit, do you think criminals give a crap about laws? Crime rates are actually lower in states/countries that allow citizens to arm themselves. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
your an idiot and it takes away freedoms from american citizens that should be upheld, and allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion. nor should that question ever arise because we live by our constitution or at least we did. People will kill other people. its the natural order of society. If it's not guns its knifes. if its not knifes its Bats. and so on and so forth. If someone really wants to harm someone else there is nothing that can be done about it. it will happen one way or another. Of course there are special cases where the person "talks" about harming another in which case it can be prevented. but if you have a gripe with people killing other people you really need to wake up and stop pointing ur finger at guns. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6632 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:00 StarsPride wrote: allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion. Umm...ever heard of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Geneva County, Washington Sniper, the countless instances of people going postal and the massive number of general gun crimes in the US every year...? | ||
| ||
