Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 29, 2013, 12:36:04 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/28/Mother-Stops-Three-Burglars-With-Her-Pistol
:D
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/28/Mother-Stops-Three-Burglars-With-Her-Pistol
:D
This proves the point that you don't need an "assault" rifle or semiautomatic gun to defend yourself. A handgun worked just fine :-)
-
This proves the point that you don't need an "assault" rifle or semiautomatic gun to defend yourself. A handgun worked just fine :-)
Most handguns are semi auto
-
Most handguns are semi auto
yes, but with small clips and background checks, they are not nearly as devastating as an AK47 or an Bushmaster right?
-
yes, but with small clips and background checks, they are not nearly as devastating as an AK47 or an Bushmaster right?
Two 10 round mag 9mm's are just as "devastating" as any semi-automatic rifle available on the market.
-
yes, but with small clips and background checks, they are not nearly as devastating as an AK47 or an Bushmaster right?
They can be equally deadly, and they are much easier to conceal. An AR-15 is nothing but a glorified .22 long rifle.
At the range most of these killings occur at, a pistol is just as deadly.
There is a reason the large majority of firearm related deaths come from handguns.
There is much ignorance and misconception when it comes to these so called "assault" weapons that it's almost impossible to have a discussion with people, they all have this image Rambo mowing people down, when it simply isn't true.
-
There is a reason the large majority of firearm related deaths come from handguns.
What type of weapon is most commonly used in mass murders?
-
What type of weapon is most commonly used in mass murders?
Oh, you mean the things that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of? Probably explosives.
-
Oh, you mean the things that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of? Probably explosives.
So, explosives are the most common mass murder weapon in the US? Really?
-
So, explosives are the most common mass murder weapon in the US? Really?
I see you keep narrowing it down until you get the answer you're looking for. Recently it has been AR-15 style weapons. Happy now?
-
I see you keep narrowing it down until you get the answer you're looking for. Recently it has been AR-15 style weapons. Happy now?
I don't know shit about guns so I'm just learning here. Why is it that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for these lunatics?
-
I don't know shit about guns so I'm just learning here. Why is it that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for these lunatics?
i think it's because of the looks of the gun,it's more military looking
-
i think it's because of the looks of the gun,it's more military looking
And that is what is used in all the video games, war coverage, movies, etc.
If Shotguns were fancied - that is what these psychoes would use
-
i think it's because of the looks of the gun,it's more military looking
Agreed, I think its tied to the military image more than anything.
-
i think it's because of the looks of the gun,it's more military looking
so ppl want to ban something based on looks?
Sounds like a well thought it and rational argument to me ;)
-
And that is what is used in all the video games, war coverage, movies, etc.
If Shotguns were fancied - that is what these psychoes would use
That's one theory. Another, is that you can kill more people with an AR15, that you would be able to with a shotgun, handgun, etc. Wouldn't you agree?
-
I don't know shit about guns so I'm just learning here. Why is it that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for these lunatics?
That's one theory. Another, is that you can kill more people with an AR15, that you would be able to with a shotgun, handgun, etc. Wouldn't you agree?
See your earlier post, and then see your highlighted post. I would not agree. An AR-15 is a bit cumbersome to deal with if you are just walking into a building and start shooting at people. It is not for close range, and takes a bit of aim to shoot with one of those things. What I mean is, a hand gun is lift one arm, point and shoot. A long rifle, is lift with one arm, steady with the other, then shoot. A shotgun, is just get close and shoot. I would say a shot gun would be the best to use for that type of situation, not that you ever would, but when you have people running and screaming, you'd probably want to use what required the least amount of thinking.
-
See your earlier post, and then see your highlighted post. I would not agree. An AR-15 is a bit cumbersome to deal with if you are just walking into a building and start shooting at people. It is not for close range, and takes a bit of aim to shoot with one of those things. What I mean is, a hand gun is lift one arm, point and shoot. A long rifle, is lift with one arm, steady with the other, then shoot. A shotgun, is just get close and shoot. I would say a shot gun would be the best to use for that type of situation, not that you ever would, but when you have people running and screaming, you'd probably want to use what required the least amount of thinking.
I'll say it again. I don't know shit about guns, so I am learning. Didn't the Sandy Hook shooter have multiple weapons including a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine, Glock 10mm handgun, Sig-Sauer 9mm handgun and a Izhmash Canta 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)? Why would he choose the less effective Bushmaster when doing the shooting, when he had all the other weapons to chose from?
-
I'll say it again. I don't know shit about guns, so I am learning. Didn't the Sandy Hook shooter have multiple weapons including a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine, Glock 10mm handgun, Sig-Sauer 9mm handgun and a Izhmash Canta 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)? Why would he choose the less effective Bushmaster when doing the shooting, when he had all the other weapons to chose from?
Because he's a dumbass kid that had next to no idea what he was doing.
The shotgun would have easily been the most devastating weapon at the range he was shooting at.
-
Because he's a dumbass kid that had next to no idea what he was doing.
The shotgun would have easily been the most devastating weapon at the range he was shooting at.
Well he's not the only mass shooter who's chosen that rifle. It's the weapon of choice. And, I've not seen any evidence that a handgun would be more efficient in killing the maximum number of people. I have a friend who served in Afghanistan. He said there is a reason all our guys in Afghanistan and Iraq clear buildings with their rifles, not their sidearms. Because sidearms are a LOUSY substitue for rifles.
-
Well he's not the only mass shooter who's chosen that rifle. It's the weapon of choice. And, I've not seen any evidence that a handgun would be more efficient in killing the maximum number of people. I have a friend who served in Afghanistan. He said there is a reason all our guys in Afghanistan and Iraq clear buildings with their rifles, not their sidearms. Because sidearms are a LOUSY substitue for rifles.
in a warzone youre correct, in a "gun free zone" where you can take pot shots at will ANY gun is going to cause massive amounts of damage.
your original post asserted that this proves nobody needs assault rifles, so we could ban them.
What are you going to do when the same ppl who desire to kill mass amounts of ppl start using shot guns and pistols?
youre not addressing the problem only the big scary guns and like its already been said the only reason they are being targeted is b/c they are scary looking.
plenty of rifles have the same attributes as an AR15 yet arent considered assault rifles. Shot guns come in semi automatic and even come with drum style magazines as well.
you should really try educating yourself on a subject with an objective stance before forming a misinformed opinion.
-
Well he's not the only mass shooter who's chosen that rifle. It's the weapon of choice. And, I've not seen any evidence that a handgun would be more efficient in killing the maximum number of people. I have a friend who served in Afghanistan. He said there is a reason all our guys in Afghanistan and Iraq clear buildings with their rifles, not their sidearms. Because sidearms are a LOUSY substitue for rifles.
I was a US Marine. We use rifles over handguns because they are A. More accurate in trained hands and have a much larger effective range and B. More effective against targets that may potentially have body armor. Neither of those are a factor in the shootings that have gone on.
For what he was doing, point blank unarmed civilians, a shotgun would have been much more devastating, and the pistols are much more easily concealable, can carry 2/3 as much ammunition in a single magazine, and are just as deadly (at that range)
FYI, teams that are primarily engaged in CQB (close quarter combat, I.E. small room clearing) use extremely short M4 Carbine variants (the SEALs variant is called the Mk18 CQBR). It's illegal for a civilian to own a short barreled rifle without jumping through hoops.
And I don't know about your friend, but most Infantryman aren't issued sidearms.
My question is, why in one post, you say that you don't know shit about firearms, but then proceed to attempt to lecture like you know what the fuck you're talking about?
-
I was a US Marine. We use rifles over handguns because they are A. More accurate in trained hands and have a much larger effective range and B. More effective against targets that may potentially have body armor. Neither of those are a factor in the shootings that have gone on.
For what he was doing, point blank unarmed civilians, a shotgun would have been much more devastating, and the pistols are much more easily concealable, can carry 2/3 as much ammunition in a single magazine, and are just as deadly (at that range)
FYI, teams that are primarily engaged in CQB (close quarter combat, I.E. small room clearing) use extremely short M4 Carbine variants (the SEALs variant is called the Mk18 CQBR). It's illegal for a civilian to own a short barreled rifle without jumping through hoops.
And I don't know about your friend, but most Infantryman aren't issued sidearms.
My question is, why in one post, you say that you don't know shit about firearms, but then proceed to attempt to lecture like you know what the fuck you're talking about?
who's lecturing ??? We're having a discussion. Calm down tiger...you're not that important :)
-
who's lecturing ??? We're having a discussion. Calm down tiger...you're not that important :)
Well he's not the only mass shooter who's chosen that rifle. It's the weapon of choice
Because sidearms are a LOUSY substitue for rifles.
Sorry, these sounded like attempts at lectures to me.
And I'd argue that it's the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters... it's the "flavor of the month", and as I said earlier I think it has more to do with seeing them used as the primary weapons in movies and video games than it actually does with any tactical knowledge on the part of the assailants.
-
in a warzone youre correct, in a "gun free zone" where you can take pot shots at will ANY gun is going to cause massive amounts of damage.
your original post asserted that this proves nobody needs assault rifles, so we could ban them.
What are you going to do when the same ppl who desire to kill mass amounts of ppl start using shot guns and pistols?
youre not addressing the problem only the big scary guns and like its already been said the only reason they are being targeted is b/c they are scary looking.
plenty of rifles have the same attributes as an AR15 yet arent considered assault rifles. Shot guns come in semi automatic and even come with drum style magazines as well.
you should really try educating yourself on a subject with an objective stance before forming a misinformed opinion.
I don't have a firm stance on the issue, and I am attempting to hear all sides. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would do away with all guns. I have no fear that the government is coming to get me, and if they were, a few rifles and handguns wouldn't do shit. That said, I understand that this country has a gun culture. People like to hunt, collect guns, practice target shooting, etc. Getting rid of all guns is never going to happen. However, I never want to see little kids getting gunned down by mentally ill assholes that get their hands on guns. So, I do support gun regulation, background checks and strict enforcement of current gun laws. If it prevents just one school shooting, it's well worth it...
-
Sorry, these sounded like attempts at lectures to me.
And I'd argue that it's the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters... it's the "flavor of the month", and as I said earlier I think it has more to do with seeing them used as the primary weapons in movies and video games than it actually does with any tactical knowledge on the part of the assailants.
That first quote is me simply stating a fact. The second quote is what my friend said. I'm learning here. Keep it coming.
-
I don't have a firm stance on the issue, and I am attempting to hear all sides. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would do away with all guns. I have no fear that the government is coming to get me, and if they were, a few rifles and handguns wouldn't do shit. That said, I understand that this country has a gun culture. People like to hunt, collect guns, practice target shooting, etc. Getting rid of all guns is never going to happen. However, I never want to see little kids getting gunned down by mentally ill assholes that get their hands on guns. So, I do support gun regulation, background checks and strict enforcement of current gun laws. If it prevents just one school shooting, it's well worth it...
First youre completely and totally wrong in your stance that a population armed with guns couldnt defeat a better equipped and better armed opponent like a govt. We have more ex military citizens in the US than the US has soldiers. The us military has less than 1% of the population in its ranks.
Also there are plenty of incident where out armed populations have defeated larger better equiped opponents. Vietname, russian in WW2, Islamist vs. russia, egypt, syria.
How many dictators have fallen in the last few years?
your stance may seem logical on the surface but its just as assinine as thinking that if we ban guns ppl wont shoot each other anymore.
you say your against kids being killed like those against banning "assault weapons" arent ::)
Im not suprised you didnt answer my question on what happens when ppl start using shot guns and pistols for mass murder as you have no answer to it other than ban those too...
The answer is youre not addressing the problem, youre letting your emotions get the best of you. Stop look at the problem objectively, do you really think these sociopaths would try and kill ppl without guns?
-
mindspin, how would you define "assault weapon"?
-
First youre completely and totally wrong in your stance that a population armed with guns couldnt defeat a better equipped and better armed opponent like a govt. We have more ex military citizens in the US than the US has soldiers. The us military has less than 1% of the population in its ranks.
Also there are plenty of incident where out armed populations have defeated larger better equiped opponents. Vietname, russian in WW2, Islamist vs. russia, egypt, syria.
How many dictators have fallen in the last few years?
your stance may seem logical on the surface but its just as assinine as thinking that if we ban guns ppl wont shoot each other anymore.
Correct.
It's been discussed on here before as well that any form of armed/violent repression aimed at the population of he United States by the U.S. Federal Government would be a disaster.
-
First youre completely and totally wrong in your stance that a population armed with guns couldnt defeat a better equipped and better armed opponent like a govt. We have more ex military citizens in the US than the US has soldiers. The us military has less than 1% of the population in its ranks.
Also there are plenty of incident where out armed populations have defeated larger better equiped opponents. Vietname, russian in WW2, Islamist vs. russia, egypt, syria.
How many dictators have fallen in the last few years?
your stance may seem logical on the surface but its just as assinine as thinking that if we ban guns ppl wont shoot each other anymore.
you say your against kids being killed like those against banning "assault weapons" arent ::)
Im not suprised you didnt answer my question on what happens when ppl start using shot guns and pistols for mass murder as you have no answer to it other than ban those too...
The answer is youre not addressing the problem, youre letting your emotions get the best of you. Stop look at the problem objectively, do you really think these sociopaths would try and kill ppl without guns?
You are right that there are countless examples of large and powerful armies that were brought down by smaller and supposedly inferior opponents or "revolutionaries". But, you've made several critically erroneous assumptions. #1 - The majority of the US population is for gun control. The numbers would not be on your side. #2 - you assume that to enforce gun control, the government would declare war on its citizens or start some sort of conflict. In reality, laws would be passed and anyone who breaks them would simply be thrown in jail. #3 - you assume that if the gov tried to enforce gun laws and this somehow erupted into a civil war, that armed citizens would prevail. I highly doubt that this issue is big enough to result in a civil war. However, if some sort of civil war actually broke out, it would not turnout much different from the first one, except that this time, the gov is much more well armed.
As for answering your question on what happens if people start using other guns for mass murders, it's a silly argument. That's like saying we should legalize drunk driving because people do it anyway. We make drunk driving illegal because it reduces drunk driving related deaths/accidents. The same should go for guns. Yes, motivated psychos will find a way to get their hands on whatever guns make it easier for them to mow people down. But, we shouldn't make it easy for them.
Let me ask you this: why have none of the recent mass murderers used a M16A2 Rifle or some other fully automatic weapon?
-
mindspin, how would you define "assault weapon"?
Aren't all guns "assault" weapons?
-
You are right that there are countless examples of large and powerful armies that were brought down by smaller and supposedly inferior opponents or "revolutionaries". But, you've made several critically erroneous assumptions. #1 - The majority of the US population is for gun control. The numbers would not be on your side. #2 - you assume that to enforce gun control, the government would declare war on its citizens or start some sort of conflict. In reality, laws would be passed and anyone who breaks them would simply be thrown in jail. #3 - you assume that if the gov tried to enforce gun laws and this somehow erupted into a civil war, that armed citizens would prevail. I highly doubt that this issue is big enough to result in a civil war. However, if some sort of civil war actually broke out, it would not turnout much different from the first one, except that this time, the gov is much more well armed.
As for answering your question on what happens if people start using other guns for mass murders, it's a silly argument. That's like saying we should legalize drunk driving because people do it anyway. We make drunk driving illegal because it reduces drunk driving related deaths/accidents. The same should go for guns. Yes, motivated psychos will find a way to get their hands on whatever guns make it easier for them to mow people down. But, we shouldn't make it easy for them.
Let me ask you this: why have none of the recent mass murderers used a M16A2 Rifle or some other fully automatic weapon?
Holy balls son the amount of idiocy and ignorance in this post rivals a tbombz post.
First I never Said anything about the govt starting a war to take guns away. If the they did become violent towards it citizens though do you really think ppl would be ok with it? Don't be a dumb ass. Public opinion doesn't drives or legislation if it did we wouldn't be stuck with obamacare. I'm not going to address the rest of the idiocy in your first paragraph as its irrelevant to the issue.
We've done exactly what you suggested in your analogy with drunk driving. We have laws banning murder and you know it's illegal to carry a gun in a school zone right?
You wanting to ban guns is like wanting to ban alcohol, why aren't you pissing and moaning about that?
As for last question luckily for us it's bc they are idiots and don't know the law much like yourself. Everyone who has the right to own a gun has the right to own fully automatic weapons it just takes a few steps. I have a trust set up that allows me to own them as well as other class 3 weapons.
Seeing as those weapons are out there and are available, why do you think they aren't being used?
PS These guys are probably doing a lot more damage with semi automatics than fully automatics. You know how fast a 30 round magazine goes in a fully automatic? You know how hard it is to keep a fully automatic on target? It's much more effective to aim and take or shots with a semi automatic than spray a room with a fully automatic which by the way is only possible if you're not being shot back at....
You watched too many Hollywood movies and obviously have very little I any interactions with the objects you're demonizing.
-
if you wanna kill some people, and your set on doing it. your gonna do it whether you have a gun, a knife, a car, or some poison. whatevers clever.
that being said, the love of guns in this country is sickening.
-
Holy balls son the amount of idiocy and ignorance in this post rivals a tbombz post.
First I never Said anything about the govt starting a war to take guns away. If the they did become violent towards it citizens though do you really think ppl would be ok with it? Don't be a dumb ass. Public opinion doesn't drives or legislation if it did we wouldn't be stuck with obamacare. I'm not going to address the rest of the idiocy in your first paragraph as its irrelevant to the issue.
We've done exactly what you suggested in your analogy with drunk driving. We have laws banning murder and you know it's illegal to carry a gun in a school zone right?
You wanting to ban guns is like wanting to ban alcohol, why aren't you pissing and moaning about that?
As for last question luckily for us it's bc they are idiots and don't know the law much like yourself. Everyone who has the right to own a gun has the right to own fully automatic weapons it just takes a few steps. I have a trust set up that allows me to own them as well as other class 3 weapons.
Seeing as those weapons are out there and are available, why do you think they aren't being used?
PS These guys are probably doing a lot more damage with semi automatics than fully automatics. You know how fast a 30 round magazine goes in a fully automatic? You know how hard it is to keep a fully automatic on target? It's much more effective to aim and take or shots with a semi automatic than spray a room with a fully automatic which by the way is only possible if you're not being shot back at....
You watched too many Hollywood movies and obviously have very little I any interactions with the objects you're demonizing.
I'm going to go easy on you because I like your avatar. If/when stricter gun laws are passed, no one is going to do shit about it. How do I know? Because Obama signed the NDAA into law (supported by Romney BTW) and no one did shit about it. The NDAA shits all over the constitution and does a lot more than take guns away. If he got that through, and no one did squat, there is no limit to what can be put through.
The reason why most of these wackjobs aren't using more powerful machine guns, is that they are harder to get. Yes, I am aware of the various loopholes that exist that allow people to have pretty much any type of gun, but making them illegal to manufacture and distribute will make it harder for them to get into the hands of the wrong people. Your right to arm yourself is second to the right of little kids to be able to go to school without getting gunned down. If stricter gun laws reduce these senseless killings, we should all be in favor of them.
-
if you wanna kill some people, and your set on doing it. your gonna do it whether you have a gun, a knife, a car, or some poison. whatevers clever.
that being said, the love of guns in this country is sickening.
I agree with you completely. But, it's a lot harder to mow down a crow of people with a knife than it is to do it with a gun :-/
-
I'm going to go easy on you because I like your avatar. If/when stricter gun laws are passed, no one is going to do shit about it. How do I know? Because Obama signed the NDAA into law (supported by Romney BTW) and no one did shit about it. The NDAA shits all over the constitution and does a lot more than take guns away. If he got that through, and no one did squat, there is no limit to what can be put through.
The reason why most of these wackjobs aren't using more powerful machine guns, is that they are harder to get. Yes, I am aware of the various loopholes that exist that allow people to have pretty much any type of gun, but making them illegal to manufacture and distribute will make it harder for them to get into the hands of the wrong people. Your right to arm yourself is second to the right of little kids to be able to go to school without getting gunned down. If stricter gun laws reduce these senseless killings, we should all be in favor of them.
Haha thank you sir, you know that's Jennifer Aniston right? And I'm going easy on you bc I've been around here long enough to know you're a good dude just incredibly misinformed and letting your emotions get in the way on this issue.
Sorry bro, I agree that what the past presidents have done to erode away our freedoms is complete shit and I also agree that uninformed morons that are the vast majority of the general public aren't concerned. This however doesn't mean they would turn a blind eye to the govt killing innocent civilians in mass. It really is just a stupid argument that you're making.
As for te second part l point you back to my previous points on not addressing the issue that is the problem. Taking away guns won't stop this it wouldn't even slow it to be honest. The two largest mass murders in our history weren't done with guns. Banning guns and high capsid has not only been proven not to work in other countries around he world but right here in the US.
You know that you have like .001% chance as a person in the is to be killed by a gun? That's not even kids at school. The very very very small % of deaths in this country to kid by guns is really enough for you to say lets ban all guns?
You see why you're bein labeled as emotional?
You're not thinking rationally
-
I see you keep narrowing it down until you get the answer you're looking for. Recently it has been AR-15 style weapons. Happy now?
yup. point made.
-
Haha thank you sir, you know that's Jennifer Aniston right? And I'm going easy on you bc I've been around here long enough to know you're a good dude just incredibly misinformed and letting your emotions get in the way on this issue.
Sorry bro, I agree that what the past presidents have done to erode away our freedoms is complete shit and I also agree that uninformed morons that are the vast majority of the general public aren't concerned. This however doesn't mean they would turn a blind eye to the govt killing innocent civilians in mass. It really is just a stupid argument that you're making.
As for te second part l point you back to my previous points on not addressing the issue that is the problem. Taking away guns won't stop this it wouldn't even slow it to be honest. The two largest mass murders in our history weren't done with guns. Banning guns and high capsid has not only been proven not to work in other countries around he world but right here in the US.
You know that you have like .001% chance as a person in the is to be killed by a gun? That's not even kids at school. The very very very small % of deaths in this country to kid by guns is really enough for you to say lets ban all guns?
You see why you're bein labeled as emotional?
You're not thinking rationally
I really don't see the government turning on civilians. However, if stricter gun laws are passed and someone disobeys them, they're going to jail. If they put up a fight, they'll end up like David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
As for your stat of the high unlikelihood of being killed by a gun, I have some other stats for you: In the US, more teen-age boys die from gunshots than from all natural causes combined. Here's another - Excluding natural causes of death such as heart attacks and cancer, death by gunfire was the second-leading cause of death in the US between 2,000 & 2009; only automobile accidents killed more people.
-
I really don't see the government turning on civilians. However, if stricter gun laws are passed and someone disobeys them, they're going to jail. If they put up a fight, they'll end up like David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
As for your stat of the high unlikelihood of being killed by a gun, I have some other stats for you: In the US, more teen-age boys die from gunshots than from all natural causes combined. Here's another - Excluding natural causes of death such as heart attacks and cancer, death by gunfire was the second-leading cause of death in the US between 2,000 & 2009; only automobile accidents killed more people.
Murdered in 2 horribly botched raids by governments agencies based on shaky evidence?
-
I really don't see the government turning on civilians. However, if stricter gun laws are passed and someone disobeys them, they're going to jail. If they put up a fight, they'll end up like David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
As for your stat of the high unlikelihood of being killed by a gun, I have some other stats for you: In the US, more teen-age boys die from gunshots than from all natural causes combined. Here's another - Excluding natural causes of death such as heart attacks and cancer, death by gunfire was the second-leading cause of death in the US between 2,000 & 2009; only automobile accidents killed more people.
You keep bringing up the govt trying to take guns and ppl resisting as the govt turning against it citizens. Do you honesty think te got has your best interests in mind?
The reason for the 2nd ammendment is self defense including the ultimate check against govt oppression this govt and others. I simply do not understand this mentality that one its hopeless to fight against the govt so lets just give up and two that you think addressing the tool which ppl use will some how help lower or even solve the problem.
As for your numbers so you want to compare an at risk group due to their own behavior and the same groups health record. Obviously the mortality rate in that age group is low making your claim look impressive when its really not. What's the death rate for that same age group by guns per 100,000 ppl?
You do know that almost half of the gun deaths in the US are suicides right? You're really going to try and lump those in when comparing them to other forms of death?
Compare apples to apples mindspin don't cite stats just bc they make your argument look good bc sooner or later you will run into someone who knows their shit and they will make you look foolish...
-
Goodness gracious auto correct blows
-
Goodness gracious auto correct blows
lol...I do all my posting on my iPhone. It's a miracle my grammar doesn't look worse.
In any case, I won't get into a stats debate with you. I do enough of that at work all day. As Mark Twain once said, there's Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
No...the government does not have my best interest in mind. But, I'm also not a dooms-day-prepper. I have no fear that the big bad government is coming to get me. And, if things ever got unbearable in this country, I would move before joining some sort of revolt.
The bottom line for me, is that I grew up in a country where you absofuckinglutely need a gun to be safe. In fact, I didn't go anywhere without two armed body guards. However, in the 30 years I have lived in the US, I've never once needed a gun. On the contrary, I have been in many situations where if I did have a gun, nothing good would have come from it. Unless you're living in some gang infested cesspool, no one needs a gun in the US.
-
lol...I do all my posting on my iPhone. It's a miracle my grammar doesn't look worse.
In any case, I won't get into a stats debate with you. I do enough of that at work all day. As Mark Twain once said, there's Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
No...the government does not have my best interest in mind. But, I'm also not a dooms-day-prepper. I have no fear that the big bad government is coming to get me. And, if things ever got unbearable in this country, I would move before joining some sort of revolt.
The bottom line for me, is that I grew up in a country where you absofuckinglutely need a gun to be safe. In fact, I didn't go anywhere without two armed body guards. However, in the 30 years I have lived in the US, I've never once needed a gun. On the contrary, I have been in many situations where if I did have a gun, nothing good would have come from it. Unless you're living in some gang infested cesspool, no one needs a gun in the US.
many many ppl who have used guns to defend themselves would disagree with you mindspin. I am also no dooms day prepper but I understand the need to be able to defend myself, my family and my property. I also understand that a gun is a tool, an inanimate object that is neither inately good or evil but does what the person who is holding wants it to do.
There are plenty of reasons for guns, if you dont see them you dont need to own one plain and fucking simple...Do not though try to dictate to others whether or not they need them...
-
many many ppl who have used guns to defend themselves would disagree with you mindspin. I am also no dooms day prepper but I understand the need to be able to defend myself, my family and my property. I also understand that a gun is a tool, an inanimate object that is neither inately good or evil but does what the person who is holding wants it to do.
There are plenty of reasons for guns, if you dont see them you dont need to own one plain and fucking simple...Do not though try to dictate to others whether or not they need them...
You're talking to a guy that is all about personal freedoms as long as they don't negatively affect me. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, I'm pro choice, etc. I am also against NDAA, big government, obnoxious taxes, etc. But this gun thing does affect me. I'd like to have peace of mind knowing that my kids are safe when they're at school. It's a big part of the reason why we live in the US and not elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the gun culture we have today, and the easy access to military style weapons, that is no longer the case.
-
You're talking to a guy that is all about personal freedoms as long as they don't negatively affect me. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, I'm pro choice, etc. I am also against NDAA, big government, obnoxious taxes, etc. But this gun thing does affect me. I'd like to have peace of mind knowing that my kids are safe when they're at school. It's a big part of the reason why we live in the US and not elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the gun culture we have today, and the easy access to military style weapons, that is no longer the case.
Your kids are in more danger from drunk drivers than they have ever been from guns. It's not even fucking close, why aren't you yelling about banning alcohol?
You're kids are much more likely to drown than be shot, why are you yelling about banning pools?
Fact is banning guns doesn't help the situation in this country.
What is a military style weapon mindspin?
Your letting your emotions lead the way, we all want children to be safe from guns but banning them will simply have the opposite effect. AGAIN schools are already gun free zones, and that's why they are being targeted. These ppl know they won't meet much of a fight there. How is making the entire country a gun free zone going to help?
-
Your kids are in more danger from drunk drivers than they have ever been from guns. It's not even fucking close, why aren't you yelling about banning alcohol?
You're kids are much more likely to drown than be shot, why are you yelling about banning pools?
Fact is banning guns doesn't help the situation in this country.
What is a military style weapon mindspin?
Your letting your emotions lead the way, we all want children to be safe from guns but banning them will simply have the opposite effect. AGAIN schools are already gun free zones, and that's why they are being targeted. These ppl know they won't meet much of a fight there. How is making the entire country a gun free zone going to help?
There are already laws against drunk driving, huge penalties for DUIs and massive anti driving & drinking campaigns. This has drastically reduced drink driving related deaths. You're right. Too many kids drown. So what have I done about that? Both of my girls have been swimming competitively since they were 4. They are now championship swimmers. I can't guarantee that they'll never drown, but I've done everything I can to reduce the chances.
The rate of these shootings is increasing. Gun sales are going through the roof. More mentally unstable people today than ever. I'm not going to just stand by and do nothing. If stricter gun laws prevents just one school shooting, then it's well worth it.
What is a military style weapon? Who the fuck knows. I'm not going to play semantics. All guns that allow someone to efficiently mow down a crowd of people should be banned, wether or not they look scary & whether or not they are rifles or hand guns.
And yes, my emotions play a part in this. If it weren't for the emotional side of this, there would be no discussion. If we simply look at this in a logical and unemotional way, we could simply say "Oh well...30 less kids. We're overpopulated anyway so we're now better off". But, because little lives were cut short and because we empathize with the pain of the parents, we don't just dismissed it change the channel and move on.
It appears that some people care more about their right to own a firearm than saving young lives...I'm not one of them :)
-
To much idiocy to respond to by phone ;)
Will respond later...
-
To much idiocy to respond to by phone ;)
Will respond later...
no need for longwinded responses. It all comes down to wether or not restricting certain types of guns reduces the chances for mass shootings and wether or not it's worthwhile "infringing" on the right for someone to own any kind of gun they want.
I do believe that restricting certain types of guns will reduce these mass shootings and that more than justifies limiting gun ownership rights. You (and many others) disagree...
-
;D
-
no need for longwinded responses. It all comes down to wether or not restricting certain types of guns reduces the chances for mass shootings and wether or not it's worthwhile "infringing" on the right for someone to own any kind of gun they want.
I do believe that restricting certain types of guns will reduce these mass shootings and that more than justifies limiting gun ownership rights. You (and many others) disagree...
Except you're wrong sir, we've had an assault weapons ban and during that time columbine happened. Other countries around the world have also shown that gun control isn't the answer.
You say we have laws to help prohibit drunk driving so we don't need to ban alcohol. WELL WE HAVE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT SHOOTING OTHER PPL TOO!!! Why do we need to ban guns?
You're much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than murdered by a gun...
It's clear you're thinking emotionally bc a rational person understands that guns aren't the problem and that creating a bigger gun free zone won't work as its been proven not to work in schools.
-
;D
They're not babies if they're not born yet :-)
-
I don't know shit about guns so I'm just learning here. Why is it that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for these lunatics?
It wasn't based on looks in this instance. He stole it from his mom so I am guessing if she would have had a shotgun, it would be a shotgun that was used.
-
This proves the point that you don't need an "assault" rifle or semiautomatic gun to defend yourself. A handgun worked just fine :-)
That depends on who you are defending yourself from doesn't it?
-
You're talking to a guy that is all about personal freedoms as long as they don't negatively affect me. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, I'm pro choice, etc. I am also against NDAA, big government, obnoxious taxes, etc. But this gun thing does affect me. I'd like to have peace of mind knowing that my kids are safe when they're at school. It's a big part of the reason why we live in the US and not elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the gun culture we have today, and the easy access to military style weapons, that is no longer the case.
I am reminded of that quote by Thomas Jefferson concerning the subjects of liberty and security. {sigh}
Mind spin, what country did you grow up in?
-
I am reminded of that quote by Thomas Jefferson concerning the subjects of liberty and security. {sigh}
Mind spin, what country did you grow up in?
Bogota, Colombia. When I lived there, it was at the height of the drug wars. Shit was pretty bad. Kidnappings where rampant. Once the sun went down, everyone knew to stay home. No one stopped at a red light for fear of being jacked. I didn't go anywhere without two armed bodyguards. Most people were always packing. My own father was kidnapped right in front of our house. Fortunately we got him back safe.
Coming to the US was great. In the 30 years I've been here, not once have I had that nagging feeling that a gunfight could break out at any time. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people in this country would prefer a state where everyone is armed so that we can all "defend" ourselves against the "bad guys". The mentality of the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun will lead us to a point where everyone has to be armed. And, if that's the case, get ready to live with that nagging feeling that bullets can fly at any moment. Trust me...it's not fun...
-
Coming to the US was great. In the 30 years I've been here, not once have I had that nagging feeling that a gunfight could break out at any time. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people in this country would prefer a state where everyone is armed so that we can all "defend" ourselves against the "bad guys". The mentality of the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun will lead us to a point where everyone has to be armed. And, if that's the case, get ready to live with that nagging feeling that bullets can fly at any moment. Trust me...it's not fun...
Nobody said they want everyone to be armed, this is another emotionally concocted strawman from those who cant think rationally about the subject.
We want you to have the option, if you dont feel the need to own one then dont own one its that fucking simple. The experiences youve had lead you to feel you dont need to own one. The experiences Ive had along with those of ppl I know lead me to believe I should own them.
Why do you feel your experiences are more relevant than mine?
we have already proven that "gun free zones" dont work, why do you think making the entire country a gun free zone is going to be different?
please use facts instead of emotion...
-
Nobody said they want everyone to be armed, this is another emotionally concocted strawman from those who cant think rationally about the subject.
We want you to have the option, if you dont feel the need to own one then dont own one its that fucking simple. The experiences youve had lead you to feel you dont need to own one. The experiences Ive had along with those of ppl I know lead me to believe I should own them.
Why do you feel your experiences are more relevant than mine?
we have already proven that "gun free zones" dont work, why do you think making the entire country a gun free zone is going to be different?
please use facts instead of emotion...
His answer will be something stupid like this:
They're not babies if they're not born yet :-)
He is from Colombia. Coke head. You have to excuse him.
-
Nobody said they want everyone to be armed, this is another emotionally concocted strawman from those who cant think rationally about the subject.
We want you to have the option, if you dont feel the need to own one then dont own one its that fucking simple. The experiences youve had lead you to feel you dont need to own one. The experiences Ive had along with those of ppl I know lead me to believe I should own them.
Why do you feel your experiences are more relevant than mine?
we have already proven that "gun free zones" dont work, why do you think making the entire country a gun free zone is going to be different?
please use facts instead of emotion...
please...facts vs emotion? No need need to lecture me. I know the difference. The opinion I am forming has less to do with my experiences and more to do with facts. And, the fact is that if everyone around me is packing machine guns, then I better arm myself as well. Otherwise, I am vulnerable. If, however, no one has guns except for police and military, than I can walk the streets freely without concern for getting shot either accidentally by some idiot, on purpose by some asshole who's having a bad day or nonsensically by a maniac who wants to mow down a crowd of people. I don't need a stack of twisted and misconstrued stats to know that.
-
His answer will be something stupid like this:
He is from Colombia. Coke head. You have to excuse him.
Stupid because you disagree with it? That makes a lot of sense.
-
please...facts vs emotion? No need need to lecture me. I know the difference. The opinion I am forming has less to do with my experiences and more to do with facts. And, the fact is that if everyone around me is packing machine guns, then I better arm myself as well. Otherwise, I am vulnerable. If, however, no one has guns except for police and military, than I can walk the streets freely without concern for getting shot either accidentally by some idiot, on purpose by some asshole who's having a bad day or nonsensically by a maniac who wants to mow down a crowd of people. I don't need a stack of twisted and misconstrued stats to know that.
Please show me the facts behind your assertion that if law abiding gun owners are carrying guns that a person who isn't is vulnerable. Cite your sources, studies etc...
You do know that even if you ban gun ppl will still be walking around with guns, RIGHT???
also it's obvious your emotions are getting the better of you, how many ppl are walking around with machine guns?
-
ban burglary.
-
ban burglary.
You do know that even if you ban gun ppl will still be walking around with guns, RIGHT???
Let me get this straight. Since not all people follow laws, we shouldn't have any laws? Is that your logic?
-
also it's obvious your emotions are getting the better of you, how many ppl are walking around with machine guns?
What do my emotions have to do with this statement ??? And, I didn't say everyone was walking around with machine guns. But, that is what the NRA is advocating as a solution...arm everyone so that when a bad guy starts to empty his machine gun into a crowd, we're all armed and ready to stop him. I don't agree with this "solution" and would instead prefer to get rid of all guns :)
-
Please show me the facts behind your assertion that if law abiding gun owners are carrying guns that a person who isn't is vulnerable. Cite your sources, studies etc...
LOL. You're missing the whole point. How can you ensure that everyone who is carrying a gun will be law abiding?
-
Let me get this straight. Since not all people follow laws, we shouldn't have any laws? Is that your logic?
No, that's too generalized. The context of Tonys stance is banning guns, specifically, which will not eradicate the wrong people possessing them.
The only ones the ban will impact are "good" people by withholding from them the ability to defend themselves.
-
LOL. You're missing the whole point. How can you ensure that everyone who is carrying a gun will be law abiding?
You can't, but with the existing saturation of guns in our society, it makes little sense to enact any type of ban whose restrictions only effect truly law-abiding folks.
-
You can't, but with the existing saturation of guns in our society, it makes little sense to enact any type of ban whose restrictions only effect truly law-abiding folks.
That is a good point that I struggle with...
-
You can't, but with the existing saturation of guns in our society, it makes little sense to enact any type of ban whose restrictions only effect truly law-abiding folks.
Even with the saturation and such gun homicides rates per 100,000 people have been flat for 15 years.
And if you ban guns overnight (Extreme example) and confiscate ever last single one from a national registry you will still have gun crime because criminals won't follow the laws and now will be more brazen. Tightening up background checks, cool down periods, gun show/flea market/private sellers? Fine, go ahead.
This country has a Gun Culture problem mixed with a low value on human life problem.
-
Let me get this straight. Since not all people follow laws, we shouldn't have any laws? Is that your logic?
WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THIS FROM???
Ive said many times that we need to adddress the problem, AND GUNS ARENT THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!
What do my emotions have to do with this statement ??? And, I didn't say everyone was walking around with machine guns. But, that is what the NRA is advocating as a solution...arm everyone so that when a bad guy starts to empty his machine gun into a crowd, we're all armed and ready to stop him. I don't agree with this "solution" and would instead prefer to get rid of all guns :)
again where are you getting this from?
first who is walking around with machine guns? a machine gun hasnt been used in a mass killing in the history of the US to my knowledge. where do you get this shit?
second the NRA isnt for everyone owning a gun, they are for the right to own a gun meaning you get to choose.
They are also for not having gun free zones which weve already proven dont work at preventing violence and instead attract it as the ppl perpetrating the violence know they wont meet resistance.
LOL. You're missing the whole point. How can you ensure that everyone who is carrying a gun will be law abiding?
LMFAO THATS THE FUCKING POINT!!!!
banning guns will only take guns out of the hand of law abiding citizens. IT WONT DO AWAY WITH GUNS, JUST GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOOD GUYS!!!!
That is a good point that I struggle with...
So you agree that banning guns will only take guns away from law abiding citizens leaving guns in the hands of criminals yet you still want to ban guns?
fucking brilliant!!!
you see why youre argument is seen as being based in nothing but emotion? BC IT IS!!!!
-
You can't, but with the existing saturation of guns in our society, it makes little sense to enact any type of ban whose restrictions only effect truly law-abiding folks.
Excellent way to put it. I have always struggled with a way to express that idea to people.
There are so many firearms in circulation that a ban at this point would be counter-productive.
-
WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THIS FROM???
Ive said many times that we need to adddress the problem, AND GUNS ARENT THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!
again where are you getting this from?
first who is walking around with machine guns? a machine gun hasnt been used in a mass killing in the history of the US to my knowledge. where do you get this shit?
second the NRA isnt for everyone owning a gun, they are for the right to own a gun meaning you get to choose.
They are also for not having gun free zones which weve already proven dont work at preventing violence and instead attract it as the ppl perpetrating the violence know they wont meet resistance.
LMFAO THATS THE FUCKING POINT!!!!
banning guns will only take guns out of the hand of law abiding citizens. IT WONT DO AWAY WITH GUNS, JUST GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOOD GUYS!!!!
So you agree that banning guns will only take guns away from law abiding citizens leaving guns in the hands of criminals yet you still want to ban guns?
fucking brilliant!!!
you see why youre argument is seen as being based in nothing but emotion? BC IT IS!!!!
Wow...lots of emotion in your email. I hope you're nowhere near your guns :P
-
...you will still have gun crime because criminals won't follow the laws and now will be more brazen.
Yes, because they know there's a much lower chance of meeting resistance. Personally, I like the idea of bad guys wondering if I'm armed. The mere possibility is a form of deterrent; maybe not much, but it is. I want every advantage I can get!
-
Excellent way to put it. I have always struggled with a way to express that idea to people.
There are so many firearms in circulation that a ban at this point would be counter-productive.
It is a good point. Lots of guns out there already. It would be very difficult to take the "scary" ones away. It would be easier to just ignore this and let the problem continue to escalate. But, this is one of those instances where we have to do the hard thing.
It wasn't that long ago that some argued that slaves where essential to our economy. Too many people owned slaves and it would be too hard to get them to give up their free labor. It took a war to undo that wrong. If this ever came to war, all of you gun fanatics would be on the losing end :)
-
That is a good point that I struggle with...
There are lots of factors to consider in this debate. Opinions differ greatly. There is no perfect solution, and certainly not one that will appease everybody. Of course emotion comes into play here. We're humans; we HAVE fukking emotions!
You're emotional about your stance. My buddy Tony is emotional about his. I hate to see anything bad happen to little kids, and I'm also quite passionate about my right to have guns. But, in the midst of our emotional charge, we all have to remember to still use sensibility and analyze this from all angles.
I see very few people doing that - I don't mean here, but in general. I get so pissed watching footage about this on TV. I really don't think we'll ever get a group of debaters and/or decision-makers to sit down together and discuss this from the viewpoints it needs to be considered.
-
Excellent way to put it. I have always struggled with a way to express that idea to people.
There are so many firearms in circulation that a ban at this point would be counter-productive.
Maybe if we were starting from scratch, but to do it now would only serve to make the criminals stronger and the good folks more vulnerable. And, you're right - that's certainly not at all productive.
-
Too many people owned slaves and it would be too hard to get them to give up their free labor.
Dumb analogy. Freeing slaves =/= disarming a population while said populations criminals would remain armed.
-
It is a good point. Lots of guns out there already. It would be very difficult to take the "scary" ones away. It would be easier to just ignore this and let the problem continue to escalate. But, this is one of those instances where we have to do the hard thing.
It wasn't that long ago that some argued that slaves where essential to our economy. Too many people owned slaves and it would be too hard to get them to give up their free labor. It took a war to undo that wrong. If this ever came to war, all of you gun fanatics would be on the losing end :)
as usual the facts dont support your stance, learn some history brain child...
so you agree that a gun ban will leave only the criminals with guns and youre still for it eh?
fucking brilliant you are mindspin
-
It is a good point. Lots of guns out there already. It would be very difficult to take the "scary" ones away. It would be easier to just ignore this and let the problem continue to escalate. But, this is one of those instances where we have to do the hard thing.
It wasn't that long ago that some argued that slaves where essential to our economy. Too many people owned slaves and it would be too hard to get them to give up their free labor. It took a war to undo that wrong. If this ever came to war, all of you gun fanatics would be on the losing end :)
Oh, and FYI, gun violence has been on a steady decline in the states for the last several years.
We already tried an AWB, and guess what, it didn't do shit.
-
as usual the facts dont support your stance, learn some history brain child...
so you agree that a gun ban will leave only the criminals with guns and youre still for it eh?
fucking brilliant you are mindspin
That's not what I said. Nice try.
-
Oh, and FYI, gun violence has been on a steady decline in the states for the last several years.
We already tried an AWB, and guess what, it didn't do shit.
Gun violence may be on a decline, but what about mass murders?
-
Gun violence may be on a decline, but what about mass murders?
What about mass murders? They account for what, less than a percent of total gun violence?
Where is the logic in taking something away from millions of law abiding citizens to try and stop a couple maniacs?
Where is the logic in trying to ban something that is used in less that 1% of firearms related crimes but not worry about the weapons that are used in the vast majority of gun related crimes? (Handguns)
I'll tell you, there is no logic. It's emotion because "WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDRENZZZ!!!!!"
-
What about mass murders? They account for what, less than a percent of total gun violence?
Where is the logic in taking something away from millions of law abiding citizens to try and stop a couple maniacs?
Where is the logic in trying to ban something that is used in less that 1% of firearms related crimes but not worry about the weapons that are used in the vast majority of gun related crimes? (Handguns)
I'll tell you, there is no logic. It's emotion because "WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDRENZZZ!!!!!"
You may not value the life of little kids, but many of us do. Just ONE mass murder is enough. Sadly there's been too many. I support taking away the guns.
-
That's not what I said. Nice try.
thats the facts of your idiotic and emotional stance mindspin.
Do you agree that a gun ban will not take the guns away from criminals but will take them away from law abiding citizens?
-
You may not value the life of little kids, but many of us do. Just ONE mass murder is enough. Sadly there's been too many. I support taking away the guns.
another emotional and ignorant strawman, "if youre not for banning guns you dont care about children dying"
right mindspin ::)
-
You may not value the life of little kids, but many of us do. Just ONE mass murder is enough. Sadly there's been too many. I support taking away the guns.
Yeah we know bro, you make decisions based on emotion, like a woman. It's cool, but leave the rational thinking to those of us with testicles please.
I value the lives of kids, I just don't put the lives of 20-ish kids over the rights of millions.
In case you r dunt math good,
20 < Millions
-
...with the existing saturation of guns in our society, it makes little sense to enact any type of ban whose restrictions only effect truly law-abiding folks.
-
Yeah we know bro, you make decisions based on emotion, like a woman. It's cool, but leave the rational thinking to those of us with testicles please.
I value the lives of kids, I just don't put the lives of 20-ish kids over the rights of millions.
In case you r dunt math good,
20 < Millions
wow...you just proved exactly how little you value the lives of innocent kids. A lot more than 20 kids have been gunned down in mass murders. But even if it were just one kid, that is FAR more important than your right to cling to your precious guns.
-
wow...you just proved exactly how little you value the lives of innocent kids. A lot more than 20 kids have been gunned down in mass murders. But even if it were just one kid, that is FAR more important than your right to cling to your precious guns.
how many more ppl will be put in danger when you take away their ability to defend themselves against guns?
b/c as we already know the criminals will still have guns....
-
wow...you just proved exactly how little you value the lives of innocent kids. A lot more than 20 kids have been gunned down in mass murders. But even if it were just one kid, that is FAR more important than your right to cling to your precious guns.
Really? Go ahead and tell me how many children in the US have died because of mass murderers using AR's.
I'll wait.