| I wonder what the hell you guys are talking about? ... Tyrone? DC? Kevin? ... the fuck, lol. I'm assuming its something to do with gun law of the US. |
SSJgoku91 said: Untrue. Gun-related homicides and suicides declined by nearly 25% following the gun ban when compared to suburbs around D.C. (Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.Homicides in D.C. rose dramatically following the handgun ban, and declined once the ban was repealed. Further studies showed violent crimes are 3-4 times more likely to happen when the victim of the original crime carried a gun. This is how simple theft turn into murders. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
SSJgoku91 said: America isn't one culture. Our country is 2/3 white, yours is over 90%. We have tons of different groups from all over the planet living here in large numbers, the same might be true in the UK, but not even close to the same scale. How many times have you driven through a local neighborhood and seen 5 foreign flags for every one of your own? I don't really see how this is relevant though. All of the shootings in the past week as far as we know, have no religious or racial reasoning behind them, as with most of the headline shootings in the past year. I can think of one with Sikh temple where 7 died, but that's about it. To answer your question though, none. But that doesn't really say a lot considering I don't even see my own countries flag on anyone's house or garden. In that sense (patriotism and so on), I would agree that the UK and USA are vastly different. |
Trapalicious said: SSJgoku91 said: America isn't one culture. Our country is 2/3 white, yours is over 90%. We have tons of different groups from all over the planet living here in large numbers, the same might be true in the UK, but not even close to the same scale. How many times have you driven through a local neighborhood and seen 5 foreign flags for every one of your own? I don't really see how this is relevant though. All of the shootings in the past week as far as we know, have no religious or racial reasoning behind them, as with most of the headline shootings in the past year. I can think of one with Sikh temple where 7 died, but that's about it. To answer your question though, none. But that doesn't really say a lot considering I don't even see my own countries flag on anyone's house or garden. In that sense (patriotism and so on), I would agree that the UK and USA are vastly different. It's relevant because so much diversity leads to individualistic mentalities, which can lead to violence. We have more diversity in economic background as well, ranging from the richest of the rich to Indians in reservations living in mud huts with no electricity or running water. Edit: And I think it's worth pointing out that while many Americans are very patriotic, there are a large number (probably more than any other 1st world country) who outright hate their own country (read some of the comments by Americans on this forum if you don't believe me). And there are many people (particularly in Hispanic communities) who don't consider themselves American at all. |
SSJgoku91Dec 16, 2012 8:37 PM
| Wow this SSJgoku guy is a joke. I love how he Cherry picks his data. Guns do not make us safer, if that was true the we would be the safest nation in the world, because we are the most highly armed nation in the world. On top of that Gun Ownership rates contradict crimes rates in America. http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/ http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime Crime rates between 2006 and 2010 dropped more then 6% you what also dropped? percentage of Gun ownerships. If people owning guns makes of safer should that amount of guns people own America reflect that in changes to crime rates? Even in 1977 when gun ownership was at a staggering 51% it did NOTHING to curb rising crime rates, not even a hair. Even when Gun ownership in 2000 was at a record low for past 50 years at 32%, crime rates where still about the same as 1996 when the gun ownership rate was at 40%. SSJgoku91 said: Sukha said: no one has ever tried to get in my house but if someone tries to get in I know the alarm will sound really loud and the security will come while my neighbors call the police ^^ Yep, nothing can go wrong there. I'm sure the police will arrive and apprehend the perps in the 45 seconds it takes for them to break in and kill your family. keep fear mongering retard, there where 485 murders last year and 9000+ robberies and 100,000+ Burglaries. The vast majority of robberies and burglaries don't end in murder. Ontop of that your more likely to be murdered and raped by some one you know intimately. Not mythological roving murder and rape squads. http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/7225a87f-1838-4f97-a559-4c441d317249/2011-Annual-Summary.aspx SSJgoku91 said: Now tell me guys, if you were a mass shooter looking to rack up as many kills as possible, which would you rather choose as your target a) A gun show b) A "safe" "gun-free zone" such as a school Oh god I fucking love this ridiculous argument. Hey I hear an Army base has alot of guns in it, No one would go on a shooting spree there right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting I hear Presidents have alot of guys around them with guns no one would go on a shooting spree near them right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_assassination_attempt_in_Sacramento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt On top of that most of the people who shot up "Gun Free Zones" still came in body armor and carrying assault weapons. So they where expecting to be shot at regardless of it being a "gun free zone" and even if people had guns in those places, I highly fucking doubt a Civilian who visits the range every other weekend would be any help against a guy in body armor carrying a Assault rifle. They would probably just get them selves killed trying to engage. |
JigeroDec 17, 2012 12:49 AM
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
Comogury said: That's racist. Why can't it be Kevin or something? Because Kevin doesn't steal things from your house, he steals your life and he doesn't need to force rape anyone, he constantly has a dildo shoved inside everyone's ass that he controls remotely. And he does all that with a suit and a smile. |
| or without gun control and a guy randomly walks into a kindergarten school and shoots 20+ kids. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Leonard93 said: or without gun control and a guy randomly walks into a kindergarten school and shoots 20+ kids. But that was done by Tyrone and his crew who broke out of some jail in Detroit. If anything, we should teach kids how to use guns so they can defend themselves in similar situations. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
BloodRequiem said: Leonard93 said: or without gun control and a guy randomly walks into a kindergarten school and shoots 20+ kids. But that was done by Tyrone and his crew who broke out of some jail in Detroit. If anything, we should teach kids how to use guns so they can defend themselves in similar situations. i know rite, murica logic too strunk? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
SSJgoku91 said: until Tyrone and his crew feel like breaking into and robbing your house, killing your kids, and raping your wife. All the while you can't do a damn thing because the libs in DC thought taking away law-abiding citizens best source of protection was a good idea. haha nice. |
 |
| Well, if it was up to me I'd have a 155mm howitzer in the garden and automated M2 Brownings as boobytraps behind every door. So, yes I certainly envy Americans for that. It's just absurd to be persecuted for murder if you execute some burglar in your own house and mount their heads on stakes in your driveway. We can't even have alligator moats either. Bloody lunacy. |
| Hey guys, Tyrone here. I am shocked and appalled by SSJgoku91's insinuations in the opening post of this thread; I have never killed, raped, or robbed anyone in my life. Right now I am working two jobs - one at a local homeless shelter and another at the ASPCA. I love all of God's creatures and would never harm a soul. My "crew", as he puts it, are close friends whom I run a soup kitchen with. These accusations laid at my feet by Mr. Goku are both slanderous and sickening. Please do not believe his lies. |
JeddyVII said: SSJgoku91 said: until Tyrone and his crew feel like breaking into and robbing your house, killing your kids, and raping your wife. All the while you can't do a damn thing because the libs in DC thought taking away law-abiding citizens best source of protection was a good idea. Wasn't there a weapon that humans used for centuries before guns?What was it called?...........................Oh yes!A FUCKING SWORD! Don't know why but I fucking lol'd at this. Anyway, I'm not really all that familiar with gun control and the statistics and all that so I don't think I'm qualified to even begin to comment all that much on this. |
| "Yes, I have been deprived of emotion. But not completely. Whoever did it, botched the job." - Geralt of Rivia |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Tyrone said: Hey guys, Tyrone here. I am shocked and appalled by SSJgoku91's insinuations in the opening post of this thread; I have never killed, raped, or robbed anyone in my life. Right now I am working two jobs - one at a local homeless shelter and another at the ASPCA. I love all of God's creatures and would never harm a soul. My "crew", as he puts it, are close friends whom I run a soup kitchen with. These accusations laid at my feet by Mr. Goku are both slanderous and sickening. Please do not believe his lies. You should sue him. It's the US after all. |
This is OP's profile picture: Why are you guys taking this retarded thread seriously? |
| Guns are for cowards. Instead of everyone owning a gun, everybody should learn martial arts and basic self-defence in P.E class from year one in school. Real men and women fight with their fists up close and personal. Little sissies with no skill or dignity stand from afar hiding behind a gun. |
| もののあはれ。。。 |
Tyestor said: This is OP's profile picture: Why are you guys taking this retarded thread seriously? You mean he doesn't look like Goku? I'm disappointed. |
BlueOni said: Fixed that for you.Guns are for smart, pragmatic people. Instead of everyone only knowing how to hit stuff and being utterly defenseless against someone with a real weapon, everybody should learn to shoot and basic gun safety in P.E class from year one in school. Real men and women try not to fight at all, but dispatch their aggressors tactically and precisely when they must. Wannabe macho retards with no class or dignity clobber around in close combat like cavemen. |
| The main argument against banning guns people automatically seem to go to is that we have the right to "bear arms". But most people don't look at the fact that the 2nd Amendment was passed during a time when young America was rebelling against Britain and had a weak military. Thus, the 2nd Amendment was passed in order to allow citizens to defend themselves in times of need. But that was 300 years ago. My main issue with guns is that, why the hell does Joe-Schmoe who works at an office for 12 hours a day need an assault rifle? If he wants to carry around a smaller gun for self defense, then fine, but again, what's an average person going to do with an assault rifle? Then there's the good ol' "Guns save lives" argument. Yes, there have been cases where guns have saved however many lives, and don't get me wrong, that's great. But the problem here lies in the stats. Many people toss around the number of 2.5 million DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) compared to the 8,583 gun related murders in the US in 2011. Quite a difference, no? But the study that resulted in the number 2.5 million was a single study done in '93 where close to 5,000 people were called up and asked gun related questions. Then, the number was projected to fit the number of people in the whole country. In addition, the situations involved did ranged from life threatening, to circumstances where a gun was not needed, making the number even more skewed. In 2011, there were 12,664 murders in the US. Compare that to the UK's stat of 551 murders in the same year. Unsurprisingly, the rate of gun ownership in the US is approximately 89 guns for every 100 Americans, compared to 6 in the UK. Yet, another reason why stricter gun control should be in effect. Getting back to the issue of the 2nd Amendment, many people believe in the "collective rights theory" which essentially interprets the 2nd Amendment to mean that individuals do not have the right to bear arms, but rather the states themselves are the ones who have the ability to regulate guns without a constitutional right. So, what I'm trying to say is I feel that there should be stricter regulations since it's going to be near impossible to completely ban gun ownership. If we can limit the total number of guns, then overall gun-related crimes should decline as a whole. Well, that's my rant opinion BlueOni said: Guns are for cowards. Instead of everyone owning a gun, everybody should learn martial arts and basic self-defence in P.E class from year one in school. Real men and women fight with their fists up close and personal. Little sissies with no skill or dignity stand from afar hiding behind a gun. This. |
baseball3bDec 17, 2012 7:23 AM
Tyestor said: This is OP's profile picture: Why are you guys taking this retarded thread seriously? why am i not suprised. |
 |
| もののあはれ。。。 |
Leonard93 said: or without gun control and a guy randomly walks into a kindergarten school and shoots 20+ kids. Pretending that stuff wouldn't happen anyway? Jigero said: Wow this SSJgoku guy is a joke. I love how he Cherry picks his data. Guns do not make us safer, if that was true the we would be the safest nation in the world, because we are the most highly armed nation in the world. On top of that Gun Ownership rates contradict crimes rates in America. http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/ http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime Crime rates between 2006 and 2010 dropped more then 6% you what also dropped? percentage of Gun ownerships. If people owning guns makes of safer should that amount of guns people own America reflect that in changes to crime rates? Even in 1977 when gun ownership was at a staggering 51% it did NOTHING to curb rising crime rates, not even a hair. Even when Gun ownership in 2000 was at a record low for past 50 years at 32%, crime rates where still about the same as 1996 when the gun ownership rate was at 40%. SSJgoku91 said: Sukha said: no one has ever tried to get in my house but if someone tries to get in I know the alarm will sound really loud and the security will come while my neighbors call the police ^^ Yep, nothing can go wrong there. I'm sure the police will arrive and apprehend the perps in the 45 seconds it takes for them to break in and kill your family. keep fear mongering retard, there where 485 murders last year and 9000+ robberies and 100,000+ Burglaries. The vast majority of robberies and burglaries don't end in murder. Ontop of that your more likely to be murdered and raped by some one you know intimately. Not mythological roving murder and rape squads. http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/7225a87f-1838-4f97-a559-4c441d317249/2011-Annual-Summary.aspx SSJgoku91 said: Now tell me guys, if you were a mass shooter looking to rack up as many kills as possible, which would you rather choose as your target a) A gun show b) A "safe" "gun-free zone" such as a school Oh god I fucking love this ridiculous argument. Hey I hear an Army base has alot of guns in it, No one would go on a shooting spree there right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting I hear Presidents have alot of guys around them with guns no one would go on a shooting spree near them right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_assassination_attempt_in_Sacramento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt On top of that most of the people who shot up "Gun Free Zones" still came in body armor and carrying assault weapons. So they where expecting to be shot at regardless of it being a "gun free zone" and even if people had guns in those places, I highly fucking doubt a Civilian who visits the range every other weekend would be any help against a guy in body armor carrying a Assault rifle. They would probably just get them selves killed trying to engage. Oh look the little guy knows how to use google. I love how you keep cherrypicking your data, when handguns were banned in DC homicides went up 73%, so go ahead and point out some more irrelevant single-digit changes in crime rates that happened to coincide with a decrease in OVERALL gun ownership. I don't know what it's like in the fairy-tale world you're living in, but out here in reality banning handguns makes the murder rate go up, that's a fact. Good going, you found one case of a mass shooting in a place with alot of guns, guess I should just ignore the dozens that happen in the gun-free zones. And what do presidential assassination attempts have to do with this? You libs think up the silliest things... |
Leonard93 said: or without gun control and a guy randomly walks into a kindergarten school and shoots 20+ kids. Or with gun control a guy still randomly walks into a kindergarten and shoots 20+ kids, because gun control doesn't make guns disappear into thin air, and on top of that our street gangs now have free reign over regular people, good thinking guy. |
Jigero said: Wow this SSJgoku guy is a joke. I love how he Cherry picks his data. Guns do not make us safer, if that was true the we would be the safest nation in the world, because we are the most highly armed nation in the world. On top of that Gun Ownership rates contradict crimes rates in America. http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/ http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime Crime rates between 2006 and 2010 dropped more then 6% you what also dropped? percentage of Gun ownerships. If people owning guns makes of safer should that amount of guns people own America reflect that in changes to crime rates? Even in 1977 when gun ownership was at a staggering 51% it did NOTHING to curb rising crime rates, not even a hair. Even when Gun ownership in 2000 was at a record low for past 50 years at 32%, crime rates where still about the same as 1996 when the gun ownership rate was at 40%. SSJgoku91 said: Sukha said: no one has ever tried to get in my house but if someone tries to get in I know the alarm will sound really loud and the security will come while my neighbors call the police ^^ Yep, nothing can go wrong there. I'm sure the police will arrive and apprehend the perps in the 45 seconds it takes for them to break in and kill your family. keep fear mongering retard, there where 485 murders last year and 9000+ robberies and 100,000+ Burglaries. The vast majority of robberies and burglaries don't end in murder. Ontop of that your more likely to be murdered and raped by some one you know intimately. Not mythological roving murder and rape squads. http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/7225a87f-1838-4f97-a559-4c441d317249/2011-Annual-Summary.aspx SSJgoku91 said: Now tell me guys, if you were a mass shooter looking to rack up as many kills as possible, which would you rather choose as your target a) A gun show b) A "safe" "gun-free zone" such as a school Oh god I fucking love this ridiculous argument. Hey I hear an Army base has alot of guns in it, No one would go on a shooting spree there right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting I hear Presidents have alot of guys around them with guns no one would go on a shooting spree near them right!? oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_assassination_attempt_in_Sacramento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt On top of that most of the people who shot up "Gun Free Zones" still came in body armor and carrying assault weapons. So they where expecting to be shot at regardless of it being a "gun free zone" and even if people had guns in those places, I highly fucking doubt a Civilian who visits the range every other weekend would be any help against a guy in body armor carrying a Assault rifle. They would probably just get them selves killed trying to engage. A breath of fresh air in a thread filled with nonsense. Thank you for all the great information. |
Leonard93 said: i know rite, murica logic too strunk? Another Euro who doesn't know a damn thing about America. |
Baman said: BlueOni said: Fixed that for you.Guns are for smart, pragmatic people. Instead of everyone only knowing how to hit stuff and being utterly defenseless against someone with a real weapon, everybody should learn to shoot and basic gun safety in P.E class from year one in school. Real men and women try not to fight at all, but dispatch their aggressors tactically and precisely when they must. Wannabe macho retards with no class or dignity clobber around in close combat like cavemen. As usual, coming from Baman: quality stuff. Personally I think guns on every street will lead to peace. But not assault rifles that do 900+ rpm. I mean, you don't permit civilians to use Frags, HE, whole RPGs, whole tanks, missile systems, etc to 'protect themselves.' That's what the Ministry of War does. Auto Glocks are a bad idea too. Semiauto, easy to aim, and light pistols should be allowed. There's a huge difference between carrying a cannon(S&W 500, or more practically simply an AK12 or 'just' a SAW) for war and a small firearm for defence. |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Seems like some people here are more inclined to believe in fear than in trust. Reminds me of the Roman-Catholic church in Index. |
Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
Zmffkskem said: In addition, they could make ammunition harder to get. Everyone needs a license to get a gun for personal defense, and then only get a couple of mags for it, needing to return the casings if possible and account for their use to the police in order to get more.There's a huge difference between carrying a cannon(S&W 500, or more practically simply an AK12 or 'just' a SAW) for war and a small firearm for defence. And have any other assault rifles and smgs and what have you be gun club related, requiring plenty of paperwork, membership fees and stuff, and have these gun clubs as proffessional and controlled as possible, with military level checks for leftover ammo after each session to ensure no one sneaks any with them. And of course, ensure anyone that goes into this gets proper mandatory gun use and safety training courses. Of course, the criminals will still get by as usual, but normal people will also be allowed to pack guns for fun and defense if they are willing enough to go through the fees and paperwork. At least such a solution should work splendidly over here. In America I'm sure the libertarians would be kicking up a fuss about it though. |
BlueOni said: Guns are for cowards. Instead of everyone owning a gun, everybody should learn martial arts and basic self-defence in P.E class from year one in school. Real men and women fight with their fists up close and personal. Little sissies with no skill or dignity stand from afar hiding behind a gun. Agreed.  |
Baman said: At least such a solution should work splendidly over here. In America I'm sure the libertarians would be kicking up a fuss about it though. That's how it works where I live, minus the possibility of even buying machine guns at all, we're "limited" to small arms and hunting rifles. Furthermore, you're not allowed to shoot anywhere other than at designated clubs and hunting grounds. |
| Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
| If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. |
 |
Virtual_BS said: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. This is very funny. Of course only outlaws will have guns, because having guns will be a crime, therefore making you an outlaw. Assuming that guns are that easy to get doesn't say much about your confidence in the Government applying their laws. As if just by outlawing them the nation would be authomatically filled with criminals who want to go through epic massacres. Maybe it's because it's illegal, you know, it's the same as trying booze as a teen but in a massive sociopath level. Lol. The last two phrases alluding to "honest citizens" (is it a separated race or anything?) and the "freedom of criminals" are so stupid I don't know how to answer, to be honest. |
jal90 said: It looks like you don't get it.Virtual_BS said: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. This is very funny. Of course only outlaws will have guns, because having guns will be a crime, therefore making you an outlaw. Assuming that guns are that easy to get doesn't say much about your confidence in the Government applying their laws. As if just by outlawing them the nation would be authomatically filled with criminals who want to go through epic massacres. Maybe it's because it's illegal, you know, it's the same as trying booze as a teen but in a massive sociopath level. Lol. The last two phrases alluding to "honest citizens" (is it a separated race or anything?) and the "freedom of criminals" are so stupid I don't know how to answer, to be honest. People won't become criminals because of gun control laws. The government may prevent the sale of new firearms and require existing gun owners to turn in their guns. The criminals on the other hand, using their unlicensed guns will be able to more easily commit crimes against the now defenceless citizens. The criminals will go about their business as before, only now with confidence that they won't be shot in the process. Example Where I live (in South Africa), you need to do a training course and obtain a separate licence for EACH gun you want to buy. ...but go to the right place in a suspicious neighbourhood and you can rent an AK-47 (an illegal gun in South Africa) for the explicit purpose of committing crime. It's obvious proof that the government hasn't been able to stop the spread and use of illegal guns. They've made it more difficult to get guns legally, so not as many people are buying them to protect themselves. If they were to make it impossible, then citizens would be completely defenceless against armed criminals. There is too much crime in this country for the police alone to control. Anyone that values their possessions has an alarm which is monitored by an armed response private security company. Anyone that values their life... let's not go there - If someone wants you dead, it's going to happen. Having a gun can protect you against opportunistic criminals that randomly break in though. |
NyaaDec 17, 2012 12:32 PM
|
Virtual_BS said: jal90 said: It looks like you don't get it.Virtual_BS said: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. This is very funny. Of course only outlaws will have guns, because having guns will be a crime, therefore making you an outlaw. Assuming that guns are that easy to get doesn't say much about your confidence in the Government applying their laws. As if just by outlawing them the nation would be authomatically filled with criminals who want to go through epic massacres. Maybe it's because it's illegal, you know, it's the same as trying booze as a teen but in a massive sociopath level. Lol. The last two phrases alluding to "honest citizens" (is it a separated race or anything?) and the "freedom of criminals" are so stupid I don't know how to answer, to be honest. People won't become criminals because of gun control laws. The government may prevent the sale of new firearms and require existing gun owners to turn in their guns. The criminals on the other hand, using their unlicensed guns will be able to more easily commit crimes against the now defenceless citizens. The criminals will go about their business as before, only now with confidence that they won't be shot in the process. Example Where I live (in South Africa), you need to do a training course and obtain a separate licence for EACH gun you want to buy. ...but go to the right place in a suspicious neighbourhood and you can rent an AK-47 (an illegal gun in South Africa) for the explicit purpose of committing crime. It's obvious proof that the government hasn't been able to stop the spread and use of illegal guns. They've made it more difficult to get guns legally, so not as many people are buying them to protect themselves. If they were to make it impossible, then citizens would be completely defenceless against armed criminals. There is too much crime in this country for the police alone to control. Anyone that values their possessions has an alarm which is monitored by an armed response private security company. Anyone that values their life... let's not go there - If someone wants you dead, it's going to happen. Having a gun can protect you against opportunistic criminals that randomly break in though. ^This guys right It seems like most people here supporting gun control are from western Europe. They live in safe homogeneous countries surrounded by other safe homogeneous countries. They don't know that it's different when you're in a diverse country that borders the 3rd world. |
Virtual_BS said: jal90 said: It looks like you don't get it.Virtual_BS said: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. This is very funny. Of course only outlaws will have guns, because having guns will be a crime, therefore making you an outlaw. Assuming that guns are that easy to get doesn't say much about your confidence in the Government applying their laws. As if just by outlawing them the nation would be authomatically filled with criminals who want to go through epic massacres. Maybe it's because it's illegal, you know, it's the same as trying booze as a teen but in a massive sociopath level. Lol. The last two phrases alluding to "honest citizens" (is it a separated race or anything?) and the "freedom of criminals" are so stupid I don't know how to answer, to be honest. People won't become criminals because of gun control laws. The government may prevent the sale of new firearms and require existing gun owners to turn in their guns. The criminals on the other hand, using their unlicensed guns will be able to more easily commit crimes against the now defenceless citizens. The criminals will go about their business as before, only now with confidence that they won't be shot in the process. Example Where I live (in South Africa), you need to do a training course and obtain a separate licence for EACH gun you want to buy. ...but go to the right place in a suspicious neighbourhood and you can rent an AK-47 (an illegal gun in South Africa) for the explicit purpose of committing crime. It's obvious proof that the government hasn't been able to stop the spread and use of illegal guns. They've made it more difficult to get guns legally, so not as many people are buying them to protect themselves. If they were to make it impossible, then citizens would be completely defenceless against armed criminals. There is too much crime in this country for the police alone to control. Anyone that values their possessions has an alarm which is monitored by an armed response private security company. Anyone that values their life... let's not go there - If someone wants you dead, it's going to happen. Having a gun can protect you against opportunistic criminals that randomly break in though. Well, yep, each country case responds to their own particularities. Gun control is a constant in many European countries and criminality is considerably low. But we are talking specifically about the US case. I can talk about my case and say that I have lived 22 years without having to take guns to protect my life or integrity, but I guess it doesn't go with the thread. You say that criminals would get it easier. No. They shouldn't. It's illegal. It's like saying that shoplifting is easier because there are camera vigilance systems. Approving a law also implies approving a series of measures to avoid people breaking it. And also, the citizens are not defenseless. Why do you associate "not having a gun" with being defenseless? Aren't there lots of alternatives? Alarms, dissuasive systems, stricter vigilance by the police... As said, I have a totally normal life without being forced to use them. If this can't happen in the US (and I doubt this is the problem), then the problem is in the flaws of the Government's security system for their citizens, not in the ability/inability to have guns. And the solutions must be set up from this point of view, not turning the whole country into a damn self-defense state. Edit: Oh, and I live in Spain, which is... yeah, safe. In terms of borders and applying that logic of first/third world, in the same position than the US. |
jal90Dec 17, 2012 12:54 PM
jal90 said: And also, the citizens are not defenseless. Why do you associate "not having a gun" with being defenseless? Aren't there lots of alternatives? Alarms, dissuasive systems, stricter vigilance by the police... Considering many parts of the US have less than one person per square mile, this isn't even close to a feasible solution nationwide. Edit: Oh, and I live in Spain, which is... yeah, safe. In terms of borders and applying that logic of first/third world, in the same position than the US. Being separated by a narrow and highly-policed piece of water is the same as sharing a 2000-mile border which is crossed thousands of times both legally and illegally on a daily basis? |
DateYutaka said: come its not like you share a Border with a truly hostile nation like say India or Russia do How is that relevant to this thread? The point is illegal guns could easily be smuggled in. They clearly have no trouble doing it with drugs and humans. And no I am not a "right wing nut", I support freedom of all types. Free speech, freedom of religion, gay marriage, abortion, legalizing drugs, and of course gun rights. |
SSJgoku91Dec 17, 2012 1:17 PM
SSJgoku91 said: jal90 said: And also, the citizens are not defenseless. Why do you associate "not having a gun" with being defenseless? Aren't there lots of alternatives? Alarms, dissuasive systems, stricter vigilance by the police... Considering many parts of the US have less than one person per square mile, this isn't even close to a feasible solution nationwide. Edit: Oh, and I live in Spain, which is... yeah, safe. In terms of borders and applying that logic of first/third world, in the same position than the US. Being separated by a narrow and highly-policed piece of water is the same as sharing a 2000-mile border which is crossed thousands of times both legally and illegally on a daily basis? And this 2000-mile border is a menace that threatens the stability of the whole country? Come on. Make more effective immigration policies, increase the security in that border, but don't justify the gun obsession in the whole US territory based on this because it's absurd. The American gun culture responds to social conceptions, not to real menaces. Also, I don't know why are we arguing this, since gun control doesn't freaking mean gun ban. |
jal90 said: Also, I don't know why are we arguing this, since gun control doesn't freaking mean gun ban. This can't be restated enough. There may have been a couple of people asking if banning guns is the solution but the vast majority realize that Americans would never accept this so they never even bring it up. So instead of panicking that the government is going to try and take away their beloved pieces of metal (which they aren't, ever.) how about the gun supporters try and come up with solutions to stop these mass shootings from happening. |
 |
sabconth said: jal90 said: Also, I don't know why are we arguing this, since gun control doesn't freaking mean gun ban. This can't be restated enough. There may have been a couple of people asking if banning guns is the solution but the vast majority realize that Americans would never accept this so they never even bring it up. So instead of panicking that the government is going to try and take away their beloved pieces of metal (which they aren't, ever.) how about the gun supporters try and come up with solutions to stop these mass shooting from happening. There's nothing we can do to stop them altogether, we just have to accept that as a fact of life. What we can do is allow teachers and school staff members to carry guns on campus, if this had been done someone could have probably stopped the recent shooting before it got out of hand. |
| They would have stopped it before if it wasn't so seemingly normal to walk through the street and enter a school with a damn assault rifle and two handguns. |
SSJgoku91 said: Oh look the little guy knows how to use google. I love how you keep cherrypicking your data, when handguns were banned in DC homicides went up 73%, so go ahead and point out some more irrelevant single-digit changes in crime rates that happened to coincide with a decrease in OVERALL gun ownership. I don't know what it's like in the fairy-tale world you're living in, but out here in reality banning handguns makes the murder rate go up, that's a fact. It's not a fact, you fuck wit Violet crime and murder in DC has been dropping since 1995. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Statistics but you can keep ignoring facts all you want, because you haven't provided any. Good going, you found one case of a mass shooting in a place with alot of guns, guess I should just ignore the dozens that happen in the gun-free zones. And what do presidential assassination attempts have to do with this? You libs think up the silliest things... Yet you have provided no evidence to suggest had they not been "gun free zones" would it have made any difference. The people who attack "Gun free zone" still show up expecting to be shot at and are prepared for it regardless. But you can just keep playing stupid if you like. Virtual_BS said: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! Gun control only makes it difficult or impossible to legally obtain a firearm. Criminals that really want guns will find another way to get them. (Stealing, smuggling, etc.) Gun control will only make it more difficult for for honest citizens to obtain guns with which to protect themselves. Criminals using illegally obtained guns will be able to freely steal, kill, and rape without fearing for their own lives. But the people doing mass shootings are buying their guns LEGALLY and show no abilities or connections to buy weapons iLLGEALLY. and who cares if gangs have guns because guess who gangs use guns on? OTHER GANGS. Civilians who die to gang related violence usually ended up in the cross fire or got mistaken for a rival gang member. and most murders are committed on people who know each other. Not murdering raping bogey men. Your family or lover is most likely to kill you. Not the fucking Bloods. |
JigeroDec 17, 2012 1:46 PM
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
SSJgoku91 said: There's nothing we can do to stop them altogether, we just have to accept that as a fact of life. No we don't, because in other countries that own guns, like your neighbor to the north Canada, mass shootings like this simply do not happen. This idea that we should simply tolerate these atrocities is so backwards and immature, especially without first trying to implement some sort of countermeasures. SSJgoku91 said: What we can do is allow teachers and school staff members to carry guns on campus, if this had been done someone could have probably stopped the recent shooting before it got out of hand. I can only assume you're joking here. Aside from the psychological damage this would do to schoolchildren not to mention how dangerous it might be if one of these gun carriers is incapacitated, has their gun stolen or misplaces it, the possibility that one of these carriers might actually cause a shooting for whatever reason is too big of a chance to take. |
|
Jigero said: SSJgoku91 said: Oh look the little guy knows how to use google. I love how you keep cherrypicking your data, when handguns were banned in DC homicides went up 73%, so go ahead and point out some more irrelevant single-digit changes in crime rates that happened to coincide with a decrease in OVERALL gun ownership. I don't know what it's like in the fairy-tale world you're living in, but out here in reality banning handguns makes the murder rate go up, that's a fact. It's not a fact, you fuck wit Violet crime and murder in DC has been dropping since 1995. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Statistics but you can keep ignoring facts all you want, because you haven't provided any. Good going, you found one case of a mass shooting in a place with alot of guns, guess I should just ignore the dozens that happen in the gun-free zones. And what do presidential assassination attempts have to do with this? You libs think up the silliest things... Yet you have provided no evidence to suggest had they not been "gun free zones" would it have made any difference. The people who attack "Gun free zone" still show up expecting to be shot at and are prepared for it regardless. But you can just keep playing stupid if you like. Now here's a find, another kiddie who likes to throw personal attacks around because he's a small little man nobody takes seriously in real life. Here's an article that addresses what your concerns: gunowners.org/sk0601.htm Don't bother posting again because I won't be reading it, your incoherent ramblings are a waste of brain energy. Come back when your balls drop, kid. |
More topics from this board
» What's the best way to translate Yu-Yu-Hakusho's titleAlphaMaleScotty - 4 hours ago |
5 |
by AlphaMaleScotty
»»
6 seconds ago |
|
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - 2 hours ago |
4 |
by Soverign
»»
45 minutes ago |
|
» Is it ok if your partner has a best friend (bestie) of the opposite sex?Thy-Veseveia - Apr 20 |
18 |
by Smugdear
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
664 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
56 |
by WaffleMaster89
»»
2 hours ago |