So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 . . . 43 NEXT
 

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
Yes. Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians.

What about the 'government mass murders' in Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th)? [The numbers are the countries world ranking in rate of private firearm ownership.]

Those countries have well armed civillian populations, yet it did not stop the 'government mass murder'.

Probably because those governments were all supplied with US military grade arms, rendering the private firearms useless.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

You would have done better to link directly to the Small Arms Survey, which I know lowballed the US figure. In any case, since the number of small arms on the civvie market almost certainly increased exponentially during/after the Serbian war, it's not exactly a useful figure. Not to mention that the surveys are number of firearms per 100 people, not number of people with firearms. In the US it's rapidly approaching 50%.

In any case the question posed by Stilts was if EVERYBODY had a firearm, not if there were many firearms but only a small portion of the population had them.

Stilt:
Snip

I know you have been banned (big surprise) so you will not be able to answer but I can at least answer some of your points.

You live in a bubble, who the fuck knows how to make their own guns?

People with a gunsmithing FFL (like myself) and everybody with a working brain. It is not that hard to figure out.

Stilt:
Haha you get you news from fox, that tells me all I need to know. Fox spin is infamous, as is their inaccuracy, fearmongering, and general shadiness

Actually that was just the first link that came up on my search. You want more? Here you go-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/illinois-gun-rights-group_n_1318575.html

BTW I find it hilarious that you just ignore my point simply because you do not like the organization the news comes from.

Here's something you're right about: cracking down on guns wouldn't mitigate gun crime immediately, there's too much of the shit already out there. Over time however, I know that strict gun laws will prevent deaths in the future

No it won't. Not as long as we are still in an industrial society. This gun was built in Chechnya using car parts, it is fully automatic and it works-

image

edit: I think gun rights advocates should be throwing this z guy under the bus instead of defending him, it would make them look a lot more reasonable. Especially if youre trying to keep your stand your ground laws. your

We do not need to "throw him under the bus" because that implies he is one of "us". The fact is that gun owners have wide ranging opinions on this matter and others.

Stilt:
No, you owning a hunting rifle and a concealed weapon is not stockpiling. Anything above, ill be generous, 4 guns is stockpiling. Am I not merciful?

Not in the slightest. My aunt works a ranch. She has a varmint gun (Ruger ranch hand), a "small" hunting rifle (.308 for taking out deer), a large hunting rifle (300 Win Mag for taking out larger game), and a shotgun for home protection. Despite the fact that most of those guns are used as part of her job you still say she is stockpiling them. No, she is buying them because she needs them.

Stilt:
Collecting Anything that can so easily end a persons life from a great distance IMO cannot be considered a hobby.

Then you might want to talk to these guys-

image

If you want to base your argument off of need, say the need to go hunting (I consider this a special need and not a hobby), or the need to keep your family safe, then there are only so many guns you NEED. IN reality a more logical number would be 2 guns but like I said before, I was being merciful.

My aunt needs those guns for hunting and home protection THEN you do not even factor in the other stuff she might need. When walking on her land I usually carry a .22 pistol for taking out snakes. She doesn't have one herself but if she decided to get one would you ask the ATF to kick down her door?

Stilt:
If you have a townhall meeting in rural mississippi and start handing them out for armed rebellion, then you'd have a problem.

Not really. If the people don't support it it fails. If they do then the government falls.

If someone breaks into your house while your away and steals your collection of 30 guns, theres a real big problem

Considering they probably plan to sell them at a pawn shop and not use them themselves (there is this little thing known as a serial number that you might have heard of) it is only a problem for the owner.

Stilt:
By tightening up the law concerning gun sales, we can prevent felons from obtaining weapons at least to some degree.

No you can't.

I think another part of your problem is that you want to maintain the right to buy bigger better guns in the future, but you have to realize that maintaining that right will cost many lives.

How exactly will me purchasing a new shotgun for my 3-gun meets going to endanger people?

Allowing gun sales to continue as they are currently will undoubtedly enable would be criminals to murder and injure and coerce with greater ability then they would otherwise. This is something that a rational person should be able to understand.

One wonders then why murder rates are falling while gun ownership rates in the US are rising?

TechNoFear:
What about the 'government mass murders' in Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th)? [The numbers are the countries world ranking in rate of private firearm ownership.]

Those countries have well armed civillian populations, yet it did not stop the 'government mass murder'.

Considering those incidents happened years ago don't you think that things have changed? The governments fell and lots of guns came onto the market. Also many of the populations that were attacked (not everybody is armed) were either generally unarmed or were disarmed

Probably because those governments were all supplied with US military grade arms, rendering the private firearms useless.

First of all those countries were supplied with many kinds of firearms (the Angolan government was actually pro-communist).

Second of all a rifle in the hands of a good marksman will defeat the fancier gun. I know many 3-gun shooters who have better equipment than I do but I still beat them because they cannot use it well.

ravenshrike:
Not to mention that the surveys are number of firearms per 100 people, not number of people with firearms.

No, rate (number of firearms / population) is correct, and the only way to measure ownership levels.

Using the 'raw' number of firearms in a country is meaningless.

ie saying country X has 1,000,000 firearms in civillian ownership means nothing.

Because if the population is 100,000,000 people then only 1% of people own firearms but if the population is 1,000,000 then just about everybody owns a firearm.

ravenshrike:
In any case the question posed by Stilts was if EVERYBODY had a firearm, not if there were many firearms but only a small portion of the population had them.

Ignoring that you do not understand the meaning of 'rate' in demographics...

My response still shows that a heavily armed population has no impact on a tyrants ability to commit 'government mass murder'.

Why don't you supply a list of countries where a heavily armed civilian population stopped 'government mass murder' in the last 50 years?

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
Not to mention that the surveys are number of firearms per 100 people, not number of people with firearms.

No, rate (number of firearms / population) is correct, and the only way to measure ownership levels.

Using the 'raw' number of firearms in a country is meaningless.

ie saying country X has 1,000,000 firearms in civillian ownership means nothing.

Because if the population is 100,000,000 people then only 1% of people own firearms but if the population is 1,000,000 then just about everybody owns a firearm.

ravenshrike:
In any case the question posed by Stilts was if EVERYBODY had a firearm, not if there were many firearms but only a small portion of the population had them.

Ignoring that you do not understand the meaning of 'rate' in demographics...

My response still shows that a heavily armed population has no impact on a tyrants ability to commit 'government mass murder'.

Why don't you supply a list of countries where a heavily armed civilian population stopped 'government mass murder' in the last 50 years?

I said number of people with firearms, not number of firearms. The straight number of firearms never entered my post at all. Perhaps I should have said percentage to make it more clear, although at that point it would have been a simple measure to divide by last known population count - estimated number of minors. Of course, I suppose that I merely assumed your reading comprehension was better than it empirically is.

As for your second point, you have yet to demonstrate an amply armed population being mass murdered. The fact that there are a bunch of guns in a country means nothing if they're largely held in a small subset not being massacred.

The reason why I do not point to an amply armed population resisting attempted mass murder by government is because governments are by and large not STUPID enough to try it on an amply armed population. They make sure it's largely disarmed first. Which means you want me to prove a negative, which like dividing by 0 is impossible.

ravenshrike:
As for your second point, you have yet to demonstrate an amply armed population being mass murdered.

I did; Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th)

ravenshrike:
The fact that there are a bunch of guns in a country means nothing if they're largely held in a small subset not being massacred.

Prove it.

ravenshrike:
They make sure it's largely disarmed first. Which means you want me to prove a negative, which like dividing by 0 is impossible.

Answer the question; Why don't you supply a list of countries where a heavily armed civilian population stopped 'government mass murder' in the last 50 years?

Rembember YOU made the blanket statement;

ravenshrike:
Yes. Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians.

Now back it up with FACTS!

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
As for your second point, you have yet to demonstrate an amply armed population being mass murdered.

I did; Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th)

And CLEARLY we have different definitions of amply because you seem to think the number of guns means a damn, even though I've pointed out twice now that it depends on how much of the civvie population has access to a gun, for which you've shown NO figures at all. Per capita firearms means NOTHING as to whether a population is amply armed if all the weapons are in the hands of a different social strata than the one being mass murdered. So until you manage to prove that the actual population being murdered in each of your lovely examples had a large supply of weaponry, there's really no point to continuing the discussion. All you've shown is that people were mass murdered by a government in a country where arms were present.

TechNoFear:
No, rate (number of firearms / population) is correct, and the only way to measure ownership levels.

So you are arguing that gun ownership rates are 100% uniform across a population? If so I have to say that you are talking out of your ass.

Because if the population is 100,000,000 people then only 1% of people own firearms but if the population is 1,000,000 then just about everybody owns a firearm.

And if in the population of 100 million the 1% with guns are the only ones not targeted your point means nothing.

Why don't you supply a list of countries where a heavily armed civilian population stopped 'government mass murder' in the last 50 years?

Here hasn't been a government mass murder against a heavily armed population. That is the point. However if you want to see a rebellion here you go-

TechNoFear:
I did; Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th)

You still have not shown that those rates were present at the time of the incidents.

ravenshrike:
The fact that there are a bunch of guns in a country means nothing if they're largely held in a small subset not being massacred.

Prove it.

OK an equivalent. There is a population of 1 million people. 100,000 of those people get a vaccine for an illness that is sweeping the country. The 100,000 people who got the drugs were already immune to the illness. Have you fixed anything?

I do not understand why this has to be explained.

Now back it up with FACTS!

Countries in Eastern Central Europe have always been generally disarmed. Non-white Africans were also generally disarmed until after they are armed in mass and let go. The guns in Iraq came only after the collapse of the government and the soldiers just walked off with their guns. Yemen is odd because the numbers are unknown. Basically the numbers are very vague estimates. And on.

Today's Ann Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html#read_more

She writes that even if the worst imagined fact pattern were true of this shooting, (Zimmerman hunted kid down and murdered out of racism) it only means US Black people need to arm themselves. She writes convincingly that gun control in the US, historically was about the many and powerful racial majority creating an environment where it was easier to prey upon an unarmed non-powerful racial minorities.

This guy probably had to live with gun control:

Were gun control to become an American reality, would we ever again descend to this kind of evil depravity? Rather than simply hope not, I'll support the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

I actually can't believe you just tried to say that lynchings would go down if it weren't for that pesky gun control.

Like, what the fuck, I'm stunned. Have you studied lynchings? Even on a cursory level?

I'm pretty sure racism has a lot more to do with hate crimes than gun control.

I used to work with my dad on concrete jobs and one of the guys on the jobs was Willie. Willie was born in the 1940's in the deep south. Alabama. Willie is black. He once told me a story where a group of whites tried to lynch his father, but his father was armed with two colt 45s and when he pulled them the whites scattered. Willies father got away, so the story goes.

EClaris:
I actually can't believe you just tried to say that lynchings would go down if it weren't for that pesky gun control.

Like, what the fuck, I'm stunned. Have you studied lynchings? Even on a cursory level?

I'm pretty sure racism has a lot more to do with hate crimes than gun control.

Think about it. Don't you think you would try and prevent someone from lynching you? The KKK group that gathered near my home town probably never went after my family or anyone else because the town wouldn't have stood for it and while there are only about 30 of them there are 300 of us (and about 1,000 guns between all of us).

Anyway, blacks tend to be some the poorest demographic in the US and due to US gun laws the so called "Saturday Night Specials" are generally outlawed which makes it difficult for poor people to get guns. The cheapest gun you can possibly buy right now (that I know of) would be a Mosin Nagant for $100 but that is not a very good self defense gun.

One of the reasons the presence of guns tends to not affect crime is because gun ownership in the US is for the middle class. Poor people are generally barred from ownership and carry and they are also the demographic most likely to have to deal with crime.

farson135:

My aunt needs those guns for hunting and home protection THEN you do not even factor in the other stuff she might need. When walking on her land I usually carry a .22 pistol for taking out snakes. She doesn't have one herself but if she decided to get one would you ask the ATF to kick down her door?

Why a .22. Go out and get a trail gun. The I heard Colt made their own version of the Judge.

Gorfias:
Today's Ann Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html#read_more

She writes that even if the worst imagined fact pattern were true of this shooting, (Zimmerman hunted kid down and murdered out of racism) it only means US Black people need to arm themselves. She writes convincingly that gun control in the US, historically was about the many and powerful racial majority creating an environment where it was easier to prey upon an unarmed non-powerful racial minorities.

This guy probably had to live with gun control:

image

Were gun control to become an American reality, would we ever again descend to this kind of evil depravity? Rather than simply hope not, I'll support the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

So the problem was that a 17 year old wasn't packing heat when Zimmerman was following him?

Tanner The Monotone:
Why a .22. Go out and get a trail gun. The I heard Colt made their own version of the Judge.

I personally prefer a .22 because the round is cheaper and it does the job. Why go for a bigger more expensive round when I can go smaller and cheaper and still be effective?

EClaris:
I actually can't believe you just tried to say that lynchings would go down if it weren't for that pesky gun control.

Like, what the fuck, I'm stunned. Have you studied lynchings? Even on a cursory level?

I'm pretty sure racism has a lot more to do with hate crimes than gun control.

He also just cited Ann Coulter. It's best to ignore shit like that.

evilneko:

EClaris:
I actually can't believe you just tried to say that lynchings would go down if it weren't for that pesky gun control.

Like, what the fuck, I'm stunned. Have you studied lynchings? Even on a cursory level?

I'm pretty sure racism has a lot more to do with hate crimes than gun control.

He also just cited Ann Coulter. It's best to ignore shit like that.

Rowr! Evilneko hates blond lawyerchick competition!

Seriously, though, lynchings are an entirely different dynamic than one-on-one gun crime. You can shoot one or two men trying to kill you, an entire armed community out for blood is an entirely different matter. (Which is why I'm skeptical of Zimmerman's chance to get a fair trial anywhere in America-any city with a sizeable black population will put murderous pressure on all black jurors to convict. And those convictions will be delivered on pain of a hung jury, as they were in the OJ case.)

There's all sorts of guns in the ghetto, but crime doesn't go down much because most people who stay in the ghetto are willfully ignorant louts with poor impulse control and low future time orientation. On this issue I go against the usual conservative bent and stand with SBPDL: Freedom Fails where people are too dumb to exercise it properly.

(Captcha is "open season," very apropos.)

Myrmecodon:
Seriously, though, lynchings are an entirely different dynamic than one-on-one gun crime. You can shoot one or two men trying to kill you, an entire armed community out for blood is an entirely different matter.

The deacons for defense certainly didn't think so.

Not to mention that until the Sullivan Act all gun control in the US was aimed at blacks. The Sullivan Act being aimed at those damn polacks. It is not until the MASSIVE rise of organized crime made possible by the prohibition amendment that gun laws were passed for 'safety'.

Myrmecodon:

Seriously, though, lynchings are an entirely different dynamic than one-on-one gun crime. You can shoot one or two men trying to kill you, an entire armed community out for blood is an entirely different matter. (Which is why I'm skeptical of Zimmerman's chance to get a fair trial anywhere in America-any city with a sizeable black population will put murderous pressure on all black jurors to convict. And those convictions will be delivered on pain of a hung jury, as they were in the OJ case.)

Well, a single person in a defensive position (such as you home) with a weapon can hold off a larger amount of people. Yeah, if the enemy keeps pressing they will eventionally break through the defense, but being that these are not trained soldiers, just local racists, who I doubt will have the drive to keep trying to "get at the $@$%^" after the fourth corpse.

EClaris:
I actually can't believe you just tried to say that lynchings would go down if it weren't for that pesky gun control.

Like, what the fuck, I'm stunned. Have you studied lynchings? Even on a cursory level?

I'm pretty sure racism has a lot more to do with hate crimes than gun control.

And you would be wrong.

evilneko:

He also just cited Ann Coulter. It's best to ignore shit like that.

Yeah, having one's head in the sand can be comforting.

Serge A. Storms:

Gorfias:
Today's Ann Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html#read_more

She writes that even if the worst imagined fact pattern were true of this shooting, (Zimmerman hunted kid down and murdered out of racism) it only means US Black people need to arm themselves. She writes convincingly that gun control in the US, historically was about the many and powerful racial majority creating an environment where it was easier to prey upon an unarmed non-powerful racial minorities.

This guy probably had to live with gun control:

Were gun control to become an American reality, would we ever again descend to this kind of evil depravity? Rather than simply hope not, I'll support the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

So the problem was that a 17 year old wasn't packing heat when Zimmerman was following him?

Had he been armed, this might have gone down differently. Coulter's point, and I think it a good one, is that this tragedy is being used as an argument for gun control. She points out that historically, gun control had a primary purpose of keeping guns away from black people, so it would be safer to lynch them.

Not G. Ivingname:

Myrmecodon:

Seriously, though, lynchings are an entirely different dynamic than one-on-one gun crime. You can shoot one or two men trying to kill you, an entire armed community out for blood is an entirely different matter. (Which is why I'm skeptical of Zimmerman's chance to get a fair trial anywhere in America-any city with a sizeable black population will put murderous pressure on all black jurors to convict. And those convictions will be delivered on pain of a hung jury, as they were in the OJ case.)

Well, a single person in a defensive position (such as you home) with a weapon can hold off a larger amount of people. Yeah, if the enemy keeps pressing they will eventionally break through the defense, but being that these are not trained soldiers, just local racists, who I doubt will have the drive to keep trying to "get at the $@$%^" after the fourth corpse.

Historyically, such mobs can be turned away with just a few such vollies.

Coulter: "Williams' repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, "Negroes With Guns." In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun."

ravenshrike:
And CLEARLY we have different definitions of amply because you seem to think the number of guns means a damn, even though I've pointed out twice now that it depends on how much of the civvie population has access to a gun, for which you've shown NO figures at all.

Strange how you suddenly changed your opinion from unarmed to 'amply armed'.

Why was that, not actually taken the time to check the facts support your opinion before posting it?

I'm still waiting for you to provide some supporting evidence for YOUR opinion.

Start by linking some info that shows there is no relation between rate of firearm ownership and actual access to firearms in Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th).

ravenshrike:
Per capita firearms means NOTHING as to whether a population is amply armed if all the weapons are in the hands of a different social strata than the one being mass murdered.

So show that the firearms in Serbia (2nd), Yemen (3rd), Iraq (5th) or Angola (14th) were not owned by those murdered.

ravenshrike:
All you've shown is that people were mass murdered by a government in a country where arms were present.

That statement disagrees with YOUR opinion; "Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians."

Gorfias:
Had he been armed, this might have gone down differently.

But even if Martin was carring a firearm, the outcome would probably been the same; someone would still have ended up shot, with the shooter claiming self defense.

If niether of them had been carring a firearm, it would be extremely unlikely that one of them would have ended up shot and very unlikely that either one of them would have died.

I am surprised that you support someone who is saying that US society is so unsafe that people, especially those from minority races should always be carring a firearm.

TechNoFear:

Gorfias:
Had he been armed, this might have gone down differently.

But even if Martin was carring a firearm, the outcome would probably been the same; someone would still have ended up shot, with the shooter claiming self defense..

We'll never know. The larger point is still that this tragedy should not be persuasive as showing a need for greater gun control, which has historically been used to make it easier to lynch black people.

TechNoFear:
That statement disagrees with YOUR opinion; "Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians."

You should probably take a college English class. Or a logic class. Perhaps both. Arms being present in a country does not mean that the civilians being massacred were at all armed. Apart from the Khmer Rouge the percentage of population killed has always been rather small. Thus, in order for my statement to be false, one would have to demonstrate that the population being massacred had access to the weapons in question, which your nifty little rankings which have a rather wide CI for every single one of your examples(and if you don't know what a CI is in relation to statistics you really shouldn't be arguing this point with me in the first place) do not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate.

farson135:

If you want to base your argument off of need, say the need to go hunting (I consider this a special need and not a hobby), or the need to keep your family safe, then there are only so many guns you NEED. IN reality a more logical number would be 2 guns but like I said before, I was being merciful.

My aunt needs those guns for hunting and home protection THEN you do not even factor in the other stuff she might need. When walking on her land I usually carry a .22 pistol for taking out snakes. She doesn't have one herself but if she decided to get one would you ask the ATF to kick down her door?

Seriously, you carry a gun because of snakes. Do you know how we deal with snakes here in Australia, we leave them alone. It turns out that they do not hunt humans.

Snakes will not attack you if you leave them alone. People get bitten by snakes for two reasons, they threatened the snake or they surprised the snake. If you did not see the snake and get bitten (around half of cases) then having a gun would have been pointless anyway. If you did see the snake and get bitten then you are a moron.

This is the problem with guns in America. You see them as a solution for everything. Everywhere else we have devised methods of surviving without using guns, turns out not using guns to live life results in less people being killed.

If someone breaks into your house while your away and steals your collection of 30 guns, theres a real big problem

Considering they probably plan to sell them at a pawn shop and not use them themselves (there is this little thing known as a serial number that you might have heard of) it is only a problem for the owner.
[/quote]

Really, you think someone that steals 30 guns is going to sell them to a pawn shop? How stupid do you think criminals are?

this thread shows american stupidity and ignorance so clearly. no where else in the world does someone get shot or a mass shooting occurs and people cry for the solution to be more guns. most modern countries you can know walk down the street no matter what colour your skin and not have to worry about getting your ass shot, most modern countries have reduced mass shootings to almost 0 but not america, the solution of more guns simply has not worked. all the evidence points to more gun control = less mass shooting, less lethal violence and so on, yet americans ignore it and choose to believe the NRA propaganda crap

its almost pointless to argue about guns against the americans who have already decided guns=good. people like farson have shown they do not care about stats or evidence or how well gin control has worked in america because america is awesome and different to the rest of the world

Gorfias:

TechNoFear:

Gorfias:
Had he been armed, this might have gone down differently.

But even if Martin was carring a firearm, the outcome would probably been the same; someone would still have ended up shot, with the shooter claiming self defense..

We'll never know. The larger point is still that this tragedy should not be persuasive as showing a need for greater gun control, which has historically been used to make it easier to lynch black people.

Yes, clearly the problem here is that a 17 year old was caught without his 9 mil. If only we could work handguns into high schools all over, then we wouldn't even have bullying to worry about.

reonhato:
this thread shows american stupidity and ignorance so clearly. no where else in the world does someone get shot or a mass shooting occurs and people cry for the solution to be more guns. most modern countries you can know walk down the street no matter what colour your skin and not have to worry about getting your ass shot, most modern countries have reduced mass shootings to almost 0 but not america, the solution of more guns simply has not worked. all the evidence points to more gun control = less mass shooting, less lethal violence and so on, yet americans ignore it and choose to believe the NRA propaganda crap

its almost pointless to argue about guns against the americans who have already decided guns=good. people like farson have shown they do not care about stats or evidence or how well gin control has worked in america because america is awesome and different to the rest of the world

You know what else is pointless? You looking at this thread and assuming the pro-gun opinions here represent the views/opinions of all Americans on this subject. Seriously, one thread=/=the various opinions of over millions of Americans.

Volf:

reonhato:
this thread shows american stupidity and ignorance so clearly. no where else in the world does someone get shot or a mass shooting occurs and people cry for the solution to be more guns. most modern countries you can know walk down the street no matter what colour your skin and not have to worry about getting your ass shot, most modern countries have reduced mass shootings to almost 0 but not america, the solution of more guns simply has not worked. all the evidence points to more gun control = less mass shooting, less lethal violence and so on, yet americans ignore it and choose to believe the NRA propaganda crap

its almost pointless to argue about guns against the americans who have already decided guns=good. people like farson have shown they do not care about stats or evidence or how well gin control has worked in america because america is awesome and different to the rest of the world

You know what else is pointless? You looking at this thread and assuming the pro-gun opinions here represent the views/opinions of all Americans on this subject. Seriously, one thread=/=the various opinions of over millions of Americans.

your right it is not the opinion of every american and i did point out that it is people like fason. the sad thing is though, it is the opinion of enough americans to have heavily influenced the politics of it all. just like there are enough people in america that will not vote for anyone who is not christian makes it almost impossible for someone who does not say they are of a christian faith to be voted for president. it is almost as impossible to win if you promise gun control. although there will probably be an anti-gun president before a muslim or atheist president

Serge A. Storms:

Yes, clearly the problem here is that a 17 year old was caught without his 9 mil. If only we could work handguns into high schools all over, then we wouldn't even have bullying to worry about.

Clearly this tragedy fits a fact pattern so unusual as to make sustained national news. You don't base public policy on bizarre exceptions. One pays attention to history and learns from it.

Gorfias:

Serge A. Storms:

Yes, clearly the problem here is that a 17 year old was caught without his 9 mil. If only we could work handguns into high schools all over, then we wouldn't even have bullying to worry about.

Clearly this tragedy fits a fact pattern so unusual as to make sustained national news. You don't base public policy on bizarre exceptions. One pays attention to history and learns from it.

If Coulter wasn't arguing for Trayvon to have been armed at the time, then she used his death as an opportunity to shill for the NRA without saying anything that was intended to apply to this specific case, which would reinforce my perception of Ann Coulter as being a cunt of the highest order.

reonhato:
people like farson have shown they do not care about stats or evidence or how well gin control has worked in america because america is awesome and different to the rest of the world

Emphasis mine

We tried "gin control" once. Called it the 18th Amendment. Didn't work out well.

Joking aside, try reading this a bit.

Let me quote it for ya

"The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.

Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA."

Simply put, it's over. Your side lost. Move on and do something more productive with your time. Heller was the death nail to any significant gun legislation. On the federal level, no group can push for gun legislation. It's basically shouting "Don't re-elect me!"

reonhato:
although there will probably be an anti-gun president before a muslim or atheist president

Don't count on it. Personally, I'd vote for the latter two before the former.

pyrate:
Seriously, you carry a gun because of snakes. Do you know how we deal with snakes here in Australia, we leave them alone. It turns out that they do not hunt humans.

Snakes will not attack you if you leave them alone. People get bitten by snakes for two reasons, they threatened the snake or they surprised the snake. If you did not see the snake and get bitten (around half of cases) then having a gun would have been pointless anyway. If you did see the snake and get bitten then you are a moron.

It turns out that if you want to walk down a path and there is a snake in your way it is generally not a good idea to just go around them because they have a large strike radius. That means that we can either not go (in which case we cannot do our job) OR we shoot it and get it out of the way (with the added bonus of never having to deal with it again and having a bit of snake meat for supper).

This is the problem with guns in America. You see them as a solution for everything. Everywhere else we have devised methods of surviving without using guns, turns out not using guns to live life results in less people being killed.

Guns are a tool and each one has its purpose. Tools make life easier. While you guys are stuck not being able to go down paths because there is a snake in your way, we shoot the thing and go about our business.

Also, strange then that Lithuania (guns per population 0.7 per 100) has nearly double the murder rate of the US (guns per population 88.8 per 100).

Really, you think someone that steals 30 guns is going to sell them to a pawn shop? How stupid do you think criminals are?

How would that be stupid? Pawn shops are not well known for detailed records. You sell the gun and get out. That is a hell of a lot smarter than carrying around a gun and then, if you get caught, having a burglary charge (more depending on the state) added on to whatever other thing you were doing.

reonhato:
your right it is not the opinion of every american and i did point out that it is people like fason.

Until you can learn to spell don't bother to assume my views. They just go right over your head.

farson135:

Guns are a tool and each one has its purpose. Tools make life easier. While you guys are stuck not being able to go down paths because there is a snake in your way, we shoot the thing and go about our business.

Also, strange then that Lithuania (guns per population 0.7 per 100) has nearly double the murder rate of the US (guns per population 88.8 per 100).

I disagree completely, guns are not tools they are weapons. They have one and only one purpose to kill

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked