Oikos university shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Violent crime is a product of socio-economic problems inherent in societies and not guns. People who own guns should have to get them licensed and registered like a car, and possibly should have to own a type of insurance to boot, so that they do not kill/harm themselves or others on accident and if they do it they will be solid proof they messed up and insurance to pay for it.

Oh, and a forty year old man who goes on a killing spree in a college HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN LAWS! Quit the moronic agenda pushing and save it for somewhere else. I keep coming back here hoping someone will have posted more information to find more morons blaming/excusing guns for a problem that has absolutely nothing to do with guns.

omega 616:

No, it's normal to assume a robber is there to rob ... that is why they are called robbers. If they where murderers, they wouldn't rob 'cos then they would be robbers ....

Robbers are there to rob, eh? Do they come with name tags? Are they members of a pseudo-noble gentlemanly...guild -let's say- whose motto is "Take everything but a life?" Thieves never murder? Never ever? Are you sure?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video?id=8835153 (No resistance)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/queens_jury_convcits_invasion_home_0XD1CSm2DxmDVQvr6V61vK (Execution at close range)

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8604262 (Yet another)

Hmm... I guess they don't have Google where you come from, cause that took 5 minutes of research for me.

Since you are all so very fond of slippery slopes, why not be hostile to everybody? "look at that motherfucker holding the door for me! Better shoot that sunofa!".

I don't know where you're getting a 'slippery slope' argument. I think you're confusing that with what's referred to as a 'judgement call'. I can, however, spot a straw man when I see one. Your suggestion that my way of thinking opens the posibility of considering someone simply opening the door for me a threat is idiocy at best, pure uncut disingenuousness at its worst. The whole speciousness of it really leads me to believe that you have no real counter-argument, so you're only going to put ridiculous arguments in my mouth to make yourself appear more credible.

No, if they get caught they want the smallest prison sentence, only people who love prison want more prison time. Why opt for more prison time if all you want is cash?

Why don't you ask the men in the above examples? Why opt for prison time at all when there are legal methods of making money? And, if prison time is really a motivator, why risk it by leaving witnesses?

This just sounds bloodthirsty, which you seem to forget is an opinion. I think it is and you think the opposite, get over it! Everything all you pro gun people say just sounds like rednecks after killing a buck. Just look at how nonchalantly you say this "If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?".

First you complain that you never get a straight answer, then you complain when you get answered directly. What do you want? And if you're going to dust off your opinion to show it off to the general public, the least you can do is back it up with a little bit of fact, or at least knowledge as to what the hell you're actually talking about.

Hey this is your crazy country who shoots law breakers 'cos we all know that if you break the law you might want to kill a family. Look you said it yourself "Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me." just change in my house to high.

It sounds like you're trying your best to make a counter argument here, but I don't see where the disconnect should be. Are you saying I shouldn't be prepared to deal with a potential threat if it presents itself? Are you saying that I should automatically assume that the men willing to force their way into my home don't mean me any harm based on a set of statistics somewhere?

Tomato tomato

More like apples and oranges

Your lapses in logic, your eagerness to begin name calling, your self-righteous air lead me to conclude one thing: You are more afraid of a piece of machinery -an inanimate object of plastic and metal that CANNOT hurt you without outside influence- than you are of your fellow man. That's as tragic as it is horrifying.

See, what you call 'slippery slope logic' is actually historical precedent. What you call 'bloodthirsty' is a mockery to both those who have no particular desire to kill (but are willing, if forced) and those who genuinely enjoy killing.

Your world where one can fulfill one -and only one- particular roll is not the world that exists outside your door. You asked when a gun would be useful to civilians, I provided examples. A thwarted potential robbery, a thwarted potential murder, a thwarted potential kidnapping. All of which must be qualified with the word 'potential' because the people in those examples would rather put guns in their hands than throw themselves upon the mercy of criminals. Were the criminal attempts made in those example more innocuous in fact than as I have painted them? Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet my life on it, and 80,000,000 of my fellow Americans seem to agree with me.

We know what our fellow man is capable of. Crack open a history book and you will be drowning in examples of atrocities, brutality, and cruelty committed without firearms. Now that does not mean we live in fear, it means we live in readiness. We do not respond in panic, but with a plan. But, if nothing else, we cling to the universal concept understood by man and beast alike since time immemorial:

Don't tread on me.

omega 616:
Hahaha, sorry but in a country that allows guns to be sold so freely "the idea is if they have something less then a gun you can defend your self" .... just wow.

Gun are not sold freely in most states, gun are worth money so if someone is desperate for money they will usually pawn the gun before they start mugging people and most robberies and assaults that happen in the area I live in are not committed with guns.

You still never answered my situation though. You say you have a sword, to go medieval on there ass, so using the layout of your home, what would you in my situation with both a gun and knife/bat.

If they have a gun there is nothing you can do you just let them take what they want and hope they don't want to kill you. If They have a knife or a bat/pry bar, which is far more likely, then I can probably fight them off even if they try to attack me, I am proficient with a sword they probably are not proficient with what they have, and will typically just scamper out the window they crawled in and run like hell. If you have a gun its the same, if they have a gun you just let them take what they want unless they start harming people then you always do whatever you can to stop them. If they have a knife or a bat you point your gun at them and tell them you will shoot if they don't leave, they will probably leave, if they try to attack you you shoot them.

So the guy charges you, there is no "warning shot" it is just shoot to kill? Correct. Seriously, I don't want to be accused of making accusations or anything.

Warning shots are a Hollywood myth, the bullet has to go somewhere even if you shoot at their feet the shrapnel could still kill them and if you fire into the air the bullet could hit someone on the way down. Also all shots are shoot to kill, it is very hard to hit something like a moving hand and a shot to the arm or leg can still kill them.

In the UK, from what I heard the robbers just rob, they only attack once confronted. If they left me alone and just robbed me, then I would leave them to it. If they walk over and try to start kicking and punching then I would fight back 'cos I have no idea where they would stop.

In the US if someone wants to rob a house with out confronting anyone then they rob it when no one is home. Anytime there is interaction between a person and a robber, if the robber does not run, there is likely to be some level of violence, even if you just tell them to take you stuff and leave.
You seem too think that in America anyone can just go to a gun store and pick up a MAC-10 for $20 and that is not true. Gun are expensive and typically require a lot of paperwork, background checks an waiting periods, their are plenty of restriction on who can buy a gun.

Also this BBC: Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
And here read this INTERNATIONAL STATISTICS on CRIME AND JUSTICE according to the UN since the gun ban in England rape has risen but in the same time period in the US gun control was weaked in the US and rape rates fell and burglary, assault, and kidnapings rates in England have stayed higher then the US the whole time.

omega 616:
snip

Your faith in the good nature of criminals is intensely worrying to me. You continually assume that criminals possess a level-headed and logical mindset I'd be hesitant to ascribe to Buddhist monks, let alone someone who is willing to break into my house and threaten my life for a few bucks.

farson135:

Vryyk:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

What sources would you like?

Any interesting ones concerning gun crime numbers please, I heard there was a guy making anti-gun statements with faulty statistics.

Vryyk:

farson135:

Vryyk:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

What sources would you like?

Any interesting ones concerning gun crime numbers please, I heard there was a guy making anti-gun statements with faulty statistics.

If you're talking about me, I'm not anti gun and I remain to be convinced that the numbers I quoted are faulty. Farson's objections to them seem to me to be arbitrary at best.

I don't care how many guns you have, as long as they are legally held, stored safely and used responsibly.

The legally held part is common sense. Nobody wants people buying them on the black market.

Safe storage will be a sticking point for some people, because they want them loaded and to hand in case anything happens. Unfortunately, if a child finds a weapon in this condition, there is a reasonable chance of a terrible accident, because even children who have been taught gun safety will dick around with a gun if they find one. Yes, even your little Timmy, whom you taught so well.

Responsible use: In theory, all gun owners should be careful and follow all the rules, but they don't. I seem to recall Farson himself posting examples of people acting recklessly at a gun range. The problem is widespread. I bet any one of you who has guns, or know people who have them, can think of at least one example of someone behaving irresponsibly with a weapon or not looking after it properly. I can think of two or three off the top of my head and I don't even live there. Even people who should really know better fuck up.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/wednesday-65324-charged-night.html
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/04/ap-marine-accidentally-shot-by-soldier-police-040212/

And this happened at a gun show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/t/boy-accidentally-kills-self-gun-show/#.T3wy5vVURTY

Tl;dr I'm not anti-gun, but I think there are far too many needless deaths because of stupidity and negligence.

farson135:

They say it is a problem but 2.6 million children and only 194 deaths in 3 years (2005-2007) is not that significant. That is .00000075% of that population and it does not include every child or gun owning family. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

What criteria are you using to get 194 deaths in 3 years? When I use that website and search for firearm deaths,homicide/legal intervention, 2005-2007, age from birth to 18 it comes up with 4,662 deaths. For unintentional deaths, it's 401; 1628 for suicides.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/superdog-takes-bullet-to-head-saves-owners-life-lives-to-bark-about-it/story-fn3dxity-1226319022413

a perfect example of why fighting back makes shit get real pretty quick. the guy was there to rob the place, the victim fought back and luckily only his dog was shot and it survived. it does not take a genius to see why fighting back a home invader is not a good idea. you shoot and you miss then your in trouble, you let him take what he wants and your slightly inconvenienced, again does not take a genius to figure out the best option.

anyway, america will change, no matter what the likes of farson and CM say, it is not if it is when. the faster you guys keep killing each other the faster it will get done.

Archroy:

farson135:

They say it is a problem but 2.6 million children and only 194 deaths in 3 years (2005-2007) is not that significant. That is .00000075% of that population and it does not include every child or gun owning family. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

What criteria are you using to get 194 deaths in 3 years? When I use that website and search for firearm deaths,homicide/legal intervention, 2005-2007, age from birth to 18 it comes up with 4,662 deaths. For unintentional deaths, it's 401; 1628 for suicides.

you obviously do not know the likes of farson and CM when it comes to gun debates. whenever people use statistics that show just how dangerous guns are, that they increase suicide risk, that they increase homicide risk in your own home and so on its all bullshit and you cant compare because it leaves stuff out and there are other varibles, but when they want to bring up their own stats, even when they are obviously completely wrong, (194 children deaths is closer to the 1 year accidental shootings then the total over 3 years) they are from infallible sources that are never wrong and the other sources must be wrong.

reonhato:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/superdog-takes-bullet-to-head-saves-owners-life-lives-to-bark-about-it/story-fn3dxity-1226319022413

a perfect example of why fighting back makes shit get real pretty quick. the guy was there to rob the place, the victim fought back and luckily only his dog was shot and it survived. it does not take a genius to see why fighting back a home invader is not a good idea. you shoot and you miss then your in trouble, you let him take what he wants and your slightly inconvenienced, again does not take a genius to figure out the best option.

anyway, america will change, no matter what the likes of farson and CM say, it is not if it is when. the faster you guys keep killing each other the faster it will get done.

You didn't get the memo: Gun crime is down in the USA. Crime in general is down. And yet, oddly enough, gun ownership is... up.

I don't see how it'll change anytime soon. The democrats had congress for two years, and they didn't pass a renewal on the 1994 Assault Weapon ban. IF they can't do that with a majority in congress, then it's pretty much proof that gun control is a dead issue

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

Read em, and weep

Sixty percent want the current laws to be enforced more, while only thirty five percent want more gun laws.

Face it: It's not changing any time soon.

Also, I'm flattered that you'd compare me to Farson.

Let me put this simply:

JesterRaiin:
Hyia !

Just a quick question...
Somebody knows something more about this incident ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/oikos-university-shooting_n_1397572.html
I hope it won't end with usual "hurr, durr, video games" routine. :\

From what I've heard he was some mentally unstable guy that had access to a gun and well, the rest writes itself.

Deborah Lee, who was in an English language class, said she heard five to six gunshots at first. "The teacher said, `Run,' and we run," she said. "I was OK, because I know God protects me. I'm not afraid of him."

I'm sympathetic towards the victims but... I mean, really?

Archroy:
If you're talking about me, I'm not anti gun and I remain to be convinced that the numbers I quoted are faulty. Farson's objections to them seem to me to be arbitrary at best.

I don't care how many guns you have, as long as they are legally held, stored safely and used responsibly.

The legally held part is common sense. Nobody wants people buying them on the black market.

Safe storage will be a sticking point for some people, because they want them loaded and to hand in case anything happens. Unfortunately, if a child finds a weapon in this condition, there is a reasonable chance of a terrible accident, because even children who have been taught gun safety will dick around with a gun if they find one. Yes, even your little Timmy, whom you taught so well.

Responsible use: In theory, all gun owners should be careful and follow all the rules, but they don't. I seem to recall Farson himself posting examples of people acting recklessly at a gun range. The problem is widespread. I bet any one of you who has guns, or know people who have them, can think of at least one example of someone behaving irresponsibly with a weapon or not looking after it properly. I can think of two or three off the top of my head and I don't even live there. Even people who should really know better fuck up.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/wednesday-65324-charged-night.html
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/04/ap-marine-accidentally-shot-by-soldier-police-040212/

And this happened at a gun show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/t/boy-accidentally-kills-self-gun-show/#.T3wy5vVURTY

Tl;dr I'm not anti-gun, but I think there are far too many needless deaths because of stupidity and negligence.

I don't know who was said to be using faulty statistics, but looking at your stance I don't think we have any disagreements on guns, I feel pretty much the same way you do. Responsible gun ownership should be foremost in every gun owner's mind, and thankfully all the ones I know are very conscientious about their firearms.

All my weapons are well-maintained, I know how to use them, and I know how to be careful with them and I make sure anyone who comes into my house learns the same.

The only caveat I'd add to your statement is that proper storage should not be legally mandated, it should be a judgment call. Much in the same way you would never leave open bottles of chemicals around young children, a good parent should never leave a firearm accessible to a child.

However, I think a guy like me is pretty safe leaving my rifles in easy to access places, most of the people who come to my house are soldiers anyways, and the ones that aren't all are 18+ and aware of gun safety rules.

idarkphoenixi:

JesterRaiin:
Hyia !

Just a quick question...
Somebody knows something more about this incident ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/oikos-university-shooting_n_1397572.html
I hope it won't end with usual "hurr, durr, video games" routine. :\

From what I've heard he was some mentally unstable guy that had access to a gun and well, the rest writes itself.

Without any doubt. I can't believe that normal, sane person would like to hurt or kill any other human being just to prove some point or because he/she can do it...
In my book murder in cold blood equals insanity. :\

omega 616:
I know I am going to get quoted into the floor but I still cannot think of a situation where allowing civvies to carry guns is a good idea!

How about this situation? If any of his victims had been armed, this would have ended much sooner.

Sorry to be a jackass and not read the whole thread before posting, but I thought I may be able to shred some light lol.

I live near Oakland and Richmond. And I can tell you first hand that this most likely will not be blamed on video games. There are murders all the time in Oakland. Richmond (a neighboring city) just had federal agents bust a couple of gun runners like a week ago.

This wouldn't have happened if humans didn't exist.
Solution: kill EVERYONE. It is the only thing that will make sure atrocities like this never occur again.

Archroy:
Safe storage will be a sticking point for some people, because they want them loaded and to hand in case anything happens. Unfortunately, if a child finds a weapon in this condition, there is a reasonable chance of a terrible accident, because even children who have been taught gun safety will dick around with a gun if they find one. Yes, even your little Timmy, whom you taught so well.

Well, depends what you're talking about when you mean "safe-storage". I keep my gun locked up, but I don't know how hat can be forced. Also, it comes close to making a gun inoperable which comes dangerously close to violating Heller

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Then again, I don't know what you're trying to say. Safe storage means a lot of different things for diffident people. Just like what constitutes "reasonable" and "common sense" are in dispute. If safe storage laws don't run afoul of this, it's possible. Some places do have these laws, which to my knowledge haven't been challenged in courts.

omega 616:
So what have we here ... 84 year old woman shoots a guy. Nice, her value of human life is what? $200?

Funny shit.

My Grandma has been mugged and I wish she had the legal right to shoot the fucker on the spot.

Unfortunately, I live in the Communist Republic of Europe and therefore the criminal has more rights than victims.

I seriously hope you didn't just imply that a random fucker has the right to enter a old woman's house and assault her. Because he doesn't.

As someone who lives in Oakland, I feel really sad that the ONLY times we ever get in the news are when someone has shot somebody. Oakland is actually mostly a pretty nice city to live in, but we can't get in the news for that.

omega 616:
I know I am going to get quoted into the floor but I still cannot think of a situation where allowing civvies to carry guns is a good idea!

Like when the government says "fuck this" and decides to go "full dictatorship mode engage".

Or when the military says "fuck this" and tries a coup d'etat to go "full dictatorship mode engage".

Oh, yeah. It doesn't make sense to arm the military either.

This weapon was designed to be produced in a very large scale, as cheap as possible

If anyone with access to a machine shop can make one of these, I think it's preferable to arm citizens.

reonhato:
that they increase suicide risk, that they increase homicide risk in your own home and so on its all bullshit and you cant compare

I think it's obvious that having a gun on your house will make it the first choice for suicide.

Just saying. I know that suicide by firearm is a perfectly stupid way to get crippled for the rest of your life but I would definitely chose death by firearm before the other common ways of suicide.

Unless people start banning rope. Or jumping from bridges. Or ban suicide.

Oh, wait. Suicide is illegal. Who would have thought?

omega 616:
"since when does ownership of a gun make someone violent" round about the same time they aim at a human/animal and pull the trigger ... it seems violent to me.

>implying guns can't be shot at paper/steel just for sporting purposes
>implying that shooting a gun is more violent than beating an intruder with a bat or raising an animal in inhuman conditions and killing it with any other tool

In my opinion, playing God of War brings more violence from a human than shooting at steel.

Revnak:
Violent crime is a product of socio-economic problems inherent in societies and not guns. People who own guns should have to get them licensed and registered like a car

Licensed? Whatever.

Registered? Hell no. I must be able to prove that I am eligible to own a firearm to the police so that they can grant me the authorization, and present said permit on a gun store.

I think that people have the right to own something without the government knowing exactly the kinds of weapon I buy, how many ammunition I am storing, etc.

I live in a country where social instability is kind of an issue, and I am almost sure certain kinds of guns will be confiscated.

omega 616:
10 quotes, are you guys kidding me! 10 quotes ... man alive!

Nieroshai:
snip

"since when does ownership of a gun make someone violent" round about the same time they aim at a human/animal and pull the trigger ... it seems violent to me.

Here is a quote from a pro gun person "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." ... yeah, peace man ....

"It isn't people with guns that kills" no rational level headed people talk it out or think "yeah you are a criminal but you are also human, therefore your life is still worth more than the goods I can easily get back".

"it's violent, psychotic people with guns that kills" Is that what we are calling the armed forces these days?

"And those very people would also be willing to use explosives and knives. Most mad bombings I've ever heard of were done with homemade explosives." which also have uses for other things, knives cut food for example but guns are only meant to kill.

"Also, take the scenario of one student bringing a gun to school. That gun was brought on campus despite the law to begin with. The IRA has guns despite Britain's gun laws. But if, say, the teacher was armed or something, the whole situation could be minimalized. If things got to that point, the armed potential victim could save a lot of lives by eliminating the mad gunman who like I said would have a gun whether it was legal or not."

You can't say that making guns illegal means they are harder to get hold off, that is just common sense ... like the prohibition but like with the prohibition people can still get guns.

I bet the IRA are connected to a country where owning guns is legal or at least widespread, such as America, so they smuggle them in and use them. I don't get your point here.

I bet school shootings have happened in the UK but while I have heard of 3 American school shootings, I have never heard of a UK school shooting. Making guns harder to get reduces risk, that is obvious.

Sure if somebody wants to kill they will but by making it illegal to own a gun, reduces the chances that people will be killed 'cos they are harder to get. Selling them in the supermarket is basically putting the guns in peoples minds.

I have no idea how to articulate myself at the moment, I want to say something but can't find the words haha

JoesshittyOs:
snip

All guns do is make things worse, I know America will never give up the safety blanket but making guns so easily obtained by anybody is stupid.

Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.

I think if civvies should be allowed to use guns they should be forced to have quarterly mental checks should be done on people who own a gun, to make sure they are not depressed, overly angry, responsible etc. I think they should tested on aim as well, what if they miss there target and kill some innocent person in the background.

Darknacht:
snip

Hahaha, sorry but in a country that allows guns to be sold so freely "the idea is if they have something less then a gun you can defend your self" .... just wow.

You still never answered my situation though. You say you have a sword, to go medieval on there ass, so using the layout of your home, what would you in my situation with both a gun and knife/bat.

So the guy charges you, there is no "warning shot" it is just shoot to kill? Correct. Seriously, I don't want to be accused of making accusations or anything.

In the UK, from what I heard the robbers just rob, they only attack once confronted. If they left me alone and just robbed me, then I would leave them to it. If they walk over and try to start kicking and punching then I would fight back 'cos I have no idea where they would stop.

I wouldn't let them get a free shot but if they came towards me, with there arm raised then I would.

Vryyk:
By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.

Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.

I was using hyperbole a lot. Seriously though, gun owners seemingly always say stuff like

It's the idea that you need to gun to do that and you value personal stuff way more than human life. It's like you all think "OMG law breaker, must aim gun at them 'cos I naturally assume they want to hurt me".

Also this quote "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." made by a pro gun user.

Chevalier noir:
snip

No, it's just logic. They are stealing 'cos they need money, not to hurt people. If somebody wants to beat you up or rape you they do that, not rob you and rape you.

It's like "I need money, better rob something" rather than "I need money, lets rob and beat people up with occasional rape".

What kind of hell do you occupy where you naturally assume the worst and jump to the worst conclusion?

Even though I never actually said this is a 100% thing, just taking your words out of my mouth ...

Anthony Wells:
you know that rearely guns are used by the people who own them when they commit crimes..? and bannign guns wont stop them...the blackmarket will still get you stuff in a snap.. hoenstly the argument over wether to ban guns or not is a stupid one... fine ban them and watch crimes like these not stop. at all. and crime rate not go down at all.

All ready covered this, banning guns would be like the prohibition but at least stuff should be brought in to stop fucking morons owning guns.

Like I said above in one of the other 10 quotes I have had to deal with so far, need very stringent checks on gun owners. We have so many professions that need psych analysis but owning a tool designed for nothing but killing is a free market? Dafuq?

Chunga the Great:
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.

First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!

You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?

Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.

I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!

Again, guns = safety blanket

senordesol:
snip

No, it's normal to assume a robber is there to rob ... that is why they are called robbers. If they where murderers, they wouldn't rob 'cos then they would be robbers ....

Since you are all so very fond of slippery slopes, why not be hostile to everybody? "look at that motherfucker holding the door for me! Better shoot that sunofa!".

No, if they get caught they want the smallest prison sentence, only people who love prison want more prison time. Why opt for more prison time if all you want is cash?

This just sounds bloodthirsty, which you seem to forget is an opinion. I think it is and you think the opposite, get over it! Everything all you pro gun people say just sounds like rednecks after killing a buck. Just look at how nonchalantly you say this "If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?".

Hey this is your crazy country who shoots law breakers 'cos we all know that if you break the law you might want to kill a family. Look you said it yourself "Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me." just change in my house to high.

Tomato tomato

AAAAAAAND lastly, the 10th and final person on this epic post o' mine!

Xanthious:
snip

No, I just have a heart and not think that a person who is so desperate to steal from other people deserves to be killed. I don't care what you own, 99% of human life is worth more.

I would defend myself, not inanimate stuff I don't need to live. Do I need an ipod? A tv? A ps3? A phone? A computer? No, they are all luxuries.

I am not a shrink but isn't this what a brainwashed person sounds like? "One of the main purposes of government is to protect it's citizens and their property. However, if they are in a situation where the government is failing in this duty citizens are within every ethical and moral right to protect their own well being and property. And seeing as we all can't have our own policeman following us around 24/7 there are guaranteed to be times when it's up to the individual to protect themselves or their property.".

Or to put it into a more concise sentence "just give me a reason to kill you!". Again, you just sound bloodthirsty.

This law you have recited so accurately, that I bet you got a gold star on your homework for is so out of date, isn't it a joke!?

Unless I am very misguided, wasn't all that crap written around the time when there civil wars, wars with the English and it was all a bit lawless? Some people where trying to form the US and others wanted it separated or something? Not big on history though.

Anyway, they wanted the civvies to be armed to stand a better chance in case somebody tried to take there land? Now America is the bully of the world, who the fuck do you think will invade?

Arguing over defense is just going in circles since the assumption that weapons will always be used for mass murder first and foremost is so prevalent. If you do not believe that a potential victim of murder can avoid being killed and that this is a good thing, if you cannot believe that a good person with a gun can stop a mass murder before it even starts, consider this: an armed populace cannot be put under martial law by their own country without a struggle that would negate the worth of martial law. The biggest reason Americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms is so that the government will never descend into tyranny for knowledge that they would not survive long if they did. And thanks for accusing the US army of committing genocide, thatt really backs up your credibility.

irishda:

This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).

This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.

First: The US couldn't crush the insurgency in the Middle East in 10 years, and they are pretty small scale compared to a civilian uprising in the US.

Second: those two wars cost trillions of dollars, and the Afghanistan alone involved the manpower of 300,000 men/women. Do you really think it would be possible to stop 20 million Americans?

Upper atmosphere?

The record of highest flight ever achieved by an air breathing manned plane is 85,069 feet high. It is still held by the SR71 Blackbird.

The SECOND layer of the atmosphere reaches 170,000 ft. That means that even the SR71 can't climb above the second layer on the atmosphere.

SURPRISE! THE SR71 IS NO LONGER OPERATIONAL!

Third and most important...

To win a war you need to hold ground with foot soldiers. That's right.

These points are not so important, but it only takes a raid on a National Guard base to equip civilians with military grade equipment, and most of the military would refuse to shoot friends and family when they also have weapons.

Just saying, but guns are supposed to keep the government in check, and these points kinda speak for themselves.

reonhato:
a perfect example of why fighting back makes shit get real pretty quick.

Perfect example why fighting back is great when you have two kids to protect and two dudes bust down the door on your bathroom:

If you want to exchange anecdotes, be my guest. But they hardly prove anything.

ElPatron:

Revnak:
Violent crime is a product of socio-economic problems inherent in societies and not guns. People who own guns should have to get them licensed and registered like a car

Licensed? Whatever.

Registered? Hell no. I must be able to prove that I am eligible to own a firearm to the police so that they can grant me the authorization, and present said permit on a gun store.

I think that people have the right to own something without the government knowing exactly the kinds of weapon I buy, how many ammunition I am storing, etc.

I live in a country where social instability is kind of an issue, and I am almost sure certain kinds of guns will be confiscated.

Most people don't live in countries like that. I was equating it to a car. I suppose if somebody wanted to own a gun without getting it registered that might be fine, as long as it never is brought onto public property.

Revnak:
I was equating it to a car. I suppose if somebody wanted to own a gun without getting it registered that might be fine, as long as it never is brought onto public property.

This isn't so much directed at you as much as it is at those who try to make that comparison

"OK, I hear the whole "let's treat guns like cars" thing all of the time, and I agree.
- I don't need a license to OWN a car, I just need one to operate that car on public streets. As long as I keep the car on my property, no license needed. I'm OK with that for guns.

- That license is a $25 fee available to anyone over age 16 in most states, as long as they pass a simple vision test and a short quiz on the rules of the road. I'm fine with that for guns.

- I can own any car I want and can afford, whether that be a race car that can exceed 200 mph, or a large truck. Same for guns: machine guns, bazookas, and any other gun.

- I can own 1 car, or a hundred cars, as long as I can afford them.

- I can own as much of the stuff that makes a car go (gasoline) as I can afford, and my vehicle can hold as much as I want it to. A truck that holds 50 gallons of fuel is common. Heck, I can make my own fuel if I desire. Same goes for guns: no limit on magazine size, no limit on the amount of ammo I can have or carry, and I can make my own."

If the horse weren't already out the barn door(300 Million guns in civilian hands), a registry might be a good idea. But it would be really expensive, and one questions the effect on crime it would have.

CM156:

Revnak:
I was equating it to a car. I suppose if somebody wanted to own a gun without getting it registered that might be fine, as long as it never is brought onto public property.

This isn't so much directed at you as much as it is at those who try to make that comparison

"OK, I hear the whole "let's treat guns like cars" thing all of the time, and I agree.
- I don't need a license to OWN a car, I just need one to operate that car on public streets. As long as I keep the car on my property, no license needed. I'm OK with that for guns.

- That license is a $25 fee available to anyone over age 16 in most states, as long as they pass a simple vision test and a short quiz on the rules of the road. I'm fine with that for guns.

- I can own any car I want and can afford, whether that be a race car that can exceed 200 mph, or a large truck. Same for guns: machine guns, bazookas, and any other gun.

- I can own 1 car, or a hundred cars, as long as I can afford them.

- I can own as much of the stuff that makes a car go (gasoline) as I can afford, and my vehicle can hold as much as I want it to. A truck that holds 50 gallons of fuel is common. Heck, I can make my own fuel if I desire. Same goes for guns: no limit on magazine size, no limit on the amount of ammo I can have or carry, and I can make my own."

If the horse weren't already out the barn door(300 Million guns in civilian hands), a registry might be a good idea. But it would be really expensive, and one questions the effect on crime it would have.

1. Totally cool.

2. You'd also have to pass a safety test, which I'm pretty sure you essentially have to do for a car as well.

3. Some cars aren't street legal. The same should be said of guns.

4. Totally cool. A guy with fifty pistols and rifles isn't that much more of a danger to society than a man with one. Possibly more of a danger to himself, but still not by much.

5. Totally cool, if you can do that.

6. If you want to carry your weapon on public property it has to be registered. The same would be said of cars, except you don't carry cars, you ride in them. I suppose requiring insurance as well might be a good idea.

Revnak:

CM156:

Revnak:
I was equating it to a car. I suppose if somebody wanted to own a gun without getting it registered that might be fine, as long as it never is brought onto public property.

This isn't so much directed at you as much as it is at those who try to make that comparison

"OK, I hear the whole "let's treat guns like cars" thing all of the time, and I agree.
- I don't need a license to OWN a car, I just need one to operate that car on public streets. As long as I keep the car on my property, no license needed. I'm OK with that for guns.

- That license is a $25 fee available to anyone over age 16 in most states, as long as they pass a simple vision test and a short quiz on the rules of the road. I'm fine with that for guns.

- I can own any car I want and can afford, whether that be a race car that can exceed 200 mph, or a large truck. Same for guns: machine guns, bazookas, and any other gun.

- I can own 1 car, or a hundred cars, as long as I can afford them.

- I can own as much of the stuff that makes a car go (gasoline) as I can afford, and my vehicle can hold as much as I want it to. A truck that holds 50 gallons of fuel is common. Heck, I can make my own fuel if I desire. Same goes for guns: no limit on magazine size, no limit on the amount of ammo I can have or carry, and I can make my own."

If the horse weren't already out the barn door(300 Million guns in civilian hands), a registry might be a good idea. But it would be really expensive, and one questions the effect on crime it would have.

1. Totally cool.

2. You'd also have to pass a safety test, which I'm pretty sure you essentially have to do for a car as well.

3. Some cars aren't street legal. The same should be said of guns.

4. Totally cool. A guy with fifty pistols and rifles isn't that much more of a danger to society than a man with one. Possibly more of a danger to himself, but still not by much.

5. Totally cool, if you can do that.

6. If you want to carry your weapon on public property it has to be registered. The same would be said of cars, except you don't carry cars, you ride in them. I suppose requiring insurance as well might be a good idea.

Wait, you actually agree with some of those?

O.O

It was moreso intended as a joke.

By the way, I think Canada has almost fully scrapped their long gun registry, because it was expensive and didn't do much. I don't see much of a purpose of a registry for firearms. Because all that can lead you back to is the person who bought the gun in the first place.

I also don't see anti-gun people packing up if we all agreed to a registry. Ladd and others have more of a cause to sell

Americans huh?

This bullshit happens again and again, and they still do nothing about it.

CM156:

Revnak:

CM156:

This isn't so much directed at you as much as it is at those who try to make that comparison

"OK, I hear the whole "let's treat guns like cars" thing all of the time, and I agree.
- I don't need a license to OWN a car, I just need one to operate that car on public streets. As long as I keep the car on my property, no license needed. I'm OK with that for guns.

- That license is a $25 fee available to anyone over age 16 in most states, as long as they pass a simple vision test and a short quiz on the rules of the road. I'm fine with that for guns.

- I can own any car I want and can afford, whether that be a race car that can exceed 200 mph, or a large truck. Same for guns: machine guns, bazookas, and any other gun.

- I can own 1 car, or a hundred cars, as long as I can afford them.

- I can own as much of the stuff that makes a car go (gasoline) as I can afford, and my vehicle can hold as much as I want it to. A truck that holds 50 gallons of fuel is common. Heck, I can make my own fuel if I desire. Same goes for guns: no limit on magazine size, no limit on the amount of ammo I can have or carry, and I can make my own."

If the horse weren't already out the barn door(300 Million guns in civilian hands), a registry might be a good idea. But it would be really expensive, and one questions the effect on crime it would have.

1. Totally cool.

2. You'd also have to pass a safety test, which I'm pretty sure you essentially have to do for a car as well.

3. Some cars aren't street legal. The same should be said of guns.

4. Totally cool. A guy with fifty pistols and rifles isn't that much more of a danger to society than a man with one. Possibly more of a danger to himself, but still not by much.

5. Totally cool, if you can do that.

6. If you want to carry your weapon on public property it has to be registered. The same would be said of cars, except you don't carry cars, you ride in them. I suppose requiring insurance as well might be a good idea.

Wait, you actually agree with some of those?

O.O

It was moreso intended as a joke.

By the way, I think Canada has almost fully scrapped their long gun registry, because it was expensive and didn't do much. I don't see much of a purpose of a registry for firearms. Because all that can lead you back to is the person who bought the gun in the first place.

I also don't see anti-gun people packing up if we all agreed to a registry. Ladd and others have more of a cause to sell

My including that isn't to win people over, it's to assist with dealing with accidents. Most of the real issues involving legal guns are based around accidents. Insurance, a registry, and a licencing system at least as thorough as that of cars would help to deal with that. The craziest guns should be made illegal, and I guess there are certain modifications that shouldn't be permitted considering that the same can be said of other things. I think that in the end we could cut down on and deal with gun accidents if such efforts were put into practice. The registry isn't especially important, though I still think it should be put into place anyway. If the state knows who owns all the guns they can make sure that the guns they used didn't cause the accident they're investigating.

Darth_Dude:
Americans huh?

This bullshit happens again and again, and they still do nothing about it.

Non Americans huh? they generalize and like to bash america with no actual thought or argument brought to the table. And they still don't do anything about it.

seriously bro, bite us. it was one mentally unstable whack job who shot up a college campus.
Need i bring up what happened in Norway? Because i don't want to sink so low as to use Norway's most tragic massacre to further the point your comment was terrible in multiple ways.

Jegsimmons:

Darth_Dude:
Americans huh?

This bullshit happens again and again, and they still do nothing about it.

Non Americans huh? they generalize and like to bash america with no actual thought or argument brought to the table. And they still don't do anything about it.

seriously bro, bite us. it was one mentally unstable whack job who shot up a college campus.
Need i bring up what happened in Norway? Because i don't want to sink so low as to use Norway's most tragic massacre to further the point your comment was terrible in multiple ways.

Well, as non-Americans, there's really not much we can do about it anyway.

If he was a mentally unstable whack job, how the fuck did he get a hold of these guns anyway? This isn't a one off incident man, this crap happens time and time again in America, and nothing seems to change. Hell, some of you are actually in favour of loosening gun laws!

Darth_Dude:

Jegsimmons:

Darth_Dude:
Americans huh?

This bullshit happens again and again, and they still do nothing about it.

Non Americans huh? they generalize and like to bash america with no actual thought or argument brought to the table. And they still don't do anything about it.

seriously bro, bite us. it was one mentally unstable whack job who shot up a college campus.
Need i bring up what happened in Norway? Because i don't want to sink so low as to use Norway's most tragic massacre to further the point your comment was terrible in multiple ways.

Well, as non-Americans, there's really not much we can do about it anyway.

If he was a mentally unstable whack job, how the fuck did he get a hold of these guns anyway? This isn't a one off incident man, this crap happens time and time again in America, and nothing seems to change. Hell, some of you are actually in favour of loosening gun laws!

buddy, think for a minute.

California, where oakland resides, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
so im not sure if he got it legally anyway.
secondly, we are bordered with mexico which 40 percent of it is ran by cartels (and in the middle of a drug war that claimed 40,000 lives) who get tons of money gun running into the states to sell gangs on the streets weapons, it is unknown how many of these guns are on the black market, but we know its big enough that banning the citizens from owning guns would be not only irresponsible but complete fuck retarded.
thirdly, speaking of gang, most murders involving guns are indeed, gang on gang. so, good riddance and fuck them. don't get involved in gangs.
fourth, out of all the gun violence in america, its nothing compared to the millions of people saved by guns each year. 2 million people report self defense with a fire arm, most without fireing a shot, and another estimated 2.5 million go unreported each year.
so...4.5 million saved, compared to the less than 10,000 thats mostly gang on gang.......
.....
..... yeah, theres no logical debate, guns are good when in the hands of citizens.

that and we also have to keep our government in check because as of now they are out of their fuck minds!!!

I also forgot to list that nearly every city that has had gun control has suffered a drastic increase in crime until the gun laws or bans were lifted.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked