Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill

[longhornfan1234]

Quote:

(CNN)

[BMOGEFan]

lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers

[johndeeregreen]

Actually limiting clip size on semiautomatic rifles to 10 rounds is long overdue. Honestly down to 5 rounds would probably even be better. No need to ban these rifles altogether IMO but there's no doubt these high capacity mags need to go.

[TheSilentKiller]

lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers
That's a really good analogy








:facepalm

[The Real JW]

Saw this on facebook.

http://i.imgur.com/CO74Ll.jpg

[rsoares28]

Longtime lurker, not many posts but i just went through 5 failed login attempts, + a password reset just so i could say that BMOGEFan is a fcking retard. Worst analogy ever.

Give me one good reason why anybody outside of a military trained assassin would require the services of an assault rifle

[The Real JW]

Give me one good reason why anybody outside of a military trained assassin would require the services of an assault rifle

Doomsday preppers, sir.

[Loneshot]

Saw this on facebook.

http://i.imgur.com/CO74Ll.jpg

Yeah, another bad analogy.:facepalm

How many Mcveigh incidents are there vs incidents involving mass shootings with high powered weaponry that you'd only see in the hands of military or police officers?

I'll gladly take my chances against my neighbor if he has to go through a bunch of task to build a bomb vs simply picking up a gun and shooting me.

[longhornfan1234]

Saw this on facebook.

http://i.imgur.com/CO74Ll.jpg


Oh LAWD... there's too many simpletons on facebook.:facepalm

[BMOGEFan]

Longtime lurker, not many posts but i just went through 5 failed login attempts, + a password reset just so i could say that BMOGEFan is a fcking retard. Worst analogy ever.

Give me one good reason why anybody outside of a military trained assassin would require the services of an assault rifle

You are a ****ing idiot. so you want to punish hunters, sports recreationalist all due to a nut case?

[BMOGEFan]

You know what else is the problem...white people. Look at all them killers...all white people.

[UConnCeltics]

People don't need assault rifles in their homes. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. are fine but assault rifles, who seriously needs one?

[BMOGEFan]

People don't need assault rifles in their homes. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. are fine but assault rifles, who seriously needs one?

There are lots of things you don't NEED, but want. I'm pretty sure I can name 2 dozen things in your room if i stepped in and said you don't need this crap.

[Loneshot]

People don't need assault rifles in their homes. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. are fine but assault rifles, who seriously needs one?

Not even handguns. If you can easily conceal it, you shouldn't have it. You don't need a revolver and a .45 for recreational hunting.

[shlver]

If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.

[BMOGEFan]

If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.

Exactly. If someone really wanted to go on the rampage, with or without a gun, they can do it.

Who's stopping a nut case from driving a car into a park

[BMOGEFan]

You know what else is the problem...white people. Look at all them killers...all white people.

Whoever gave me a neg here is an idiot. I was being sarcastic.

Similar to how you want to ban all weapons because of a nut case.

[ripthekik]

If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.
The chinese guy that committed the exact same crime on the same day killed 0 because he couldn't find a gun, he only got a knife.

When someone really wants to commit a crime, they will do it. But why make it so easy for them? Why put their mother's gun on the counter where they can pick up within 2 minutes and walk out the door firing? Why not put another roadblock that makes it harder for them to commit the crime, which might possibly deter them, and lower the chances of something like this happening?

[Loneshot]

If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.

That is such a bad excuse for NOT further regulating guns. :oldlol:

The infrastructure of our schools has so little to due with ones ability to purchase high powered weaponry, get angry one day, and kill whoever they please.

To partially quote someone from another message board about the subject

the right will push for bringing "God" back into the schools or perhaps some new conceal & carry lunch-box edition for smaller arms for minors...
:roll:
I swear people will want to argue we need to add assault weapons training to our school curriculum to discourage individuals from taking up arms against any other human out of fear that their opposition will be carrying a weapon and have been trained to use it...even if they are children.

[shlver]

That is such a bad excuse for NOT further regulating guns. :oldlol:

The infrastructure of our schools has so little to due with ones ability to purchase high powered weaponry, get angry one day, and kill whoever they please.

To partially quote someone from another message board about the subject

:roll:
I swear people will want to argue we need to add assault weapons training to our school curriculum to discourage individuals from taking up arms against any other human out of fear that their opposition will be carrying a weapon and have been trained to use it...even if they are children.
I never said anything about not further regulating guns. Stop putting words in my mouth. The failing infrastructure and lack of security measures in schools is a more pressing issue than regulating guns. At my old high school, anybody could walk in through any door.

[rsoares28]

There are lots of things you don't NEED, but want. I'm pretty sure I can name 2 dozen things in your room if i stepped in and said you don't need this crap.

Again another stupid analogy....

If someone has a hardon to fire an assault rifle go rent it for the hour at a range.... no need for it at any other point in a civilains life.

[DonDadda59]

People don't need assault rifles in their homes. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. are fine but assault rifles, who seriously needs one?

You'll see once the King of England launches an invasion. I can imagine him now licking his chops, just waiting for this law to go into effect.

http://www.internetstones.com/image-files/king-charles-ii-of-england-coronation-robes.jpg

"Soon"

But on a serious note, this is a good start. Hopefully people will still remember this event by next month, Americans have ridiculously short attention spans. This should've been done after Aurora.

[ripthekik]

I never said anything about not further regulating guns. Stop putting words in my mouth. The failing infrastructure and lack of security measures in schools is a more pressing issue than regulating guns. At my old high school, anybody could walk in through any door.
And your solution would be to give all the teachers a gun so they can defend themselves right? Security of the schools is the issue here? And the solution is a shootout between teachers/guards/perpetrator when something like this happens?

How about another perspective: restricting guns so it'll be harder for a nutjob to get a gun and walk through that door?

[shlver]

The chinese guy that committed the exact same crime on the same day killed 0 because he couldn't find a gun, he only got a knife.

When someone really wants to commit a crime, they will do it. But why make it so easy for them? Why put their mother's gun on the counter where they can pick up within 2 minutes and walk out the door firing? Why not put another roadblock that makes it harder for them to commit the crime, which might possibly deter them, and lower the chances of something like this happening?
Having a security measure like a mantrap is a much more significant roadblock than gun regulation; especially with so many guns out there now.. My university lab has this. You enter, and the door locks behind you If you have proper identification, then you can pass or someone can identify you from the inside and let you in. If you fail to provide id, then you are stuck there until the police come. I know there are logistical issues, but having designated points where there is security and metal detectors where a high volume of students can pass is doable

[shlver]

And your solution would be to give all the teachers a gun so they can defend themselves right? Security of the schools is the issue here? And the solution is a shootout between teachers/guards/perpetrator when something like this happens?

How about another perspective: restricting guns so it'll be harder for a nutjob to get a gun and walk through that door?
What are you talking about?

[BMOGEFan]

Again another stupid analogy....

If someone has a hardon to fire an assault rifle go rent it for the hour at a range.... no need for it at any other point in a civilains life.

Originally Posted by bmulls
Then you must necessarily support alcohol prohibition.

15,000 people die every year in drunk driving wrecks as opposed to roughly 10,000 gun murders.

Of the millions of people who responsibly partake in alcohol daily, very few are going to get behind the wheel and kill somebody. But our laws should be designed to protect us from the minority, thus alcohol must be banned.

Right?

Right????



You, sir, are a moron.

[bdreason]

I don't trust our government enough to hand over my guns. I don't trust them to adequately protect me against fellow citizens, and I don't trust that they have my best interest in mind.

[ripthekik]

What are you talking about?
The fact that you said security of schools are a bigger concern. We can't protect EVERYONE everywhere all the time 24 hours. What's next, security at movie theaters, church, parks? Is security really the problem? It's not. Schools are fine the way they are.

The problem is nutjobs being able to get the guns.


Originally Posted by bmulls
Then you must necessarily support alcohol prohibition.

15,000 people die every year in drunk driving wrecks as opposed to roughly 10,000 gun murders.

Of the millions of people who responsibly partake in alcohol daily, very few are going to get behind the wheel and kill somebody. But our laws should be designed to protect us from the minority, thus alcohol must be banned.

Right?

Right????

This argument has be dead and yet here comes another idiot with it.
Every single day alcohol is consumed about a million times more than a gun is used. The probability that a death is caused by alcohol is smaller than winning a lottery, getting in a planecrash, or getting hit by thunder. On the other hand, even though guns has maybe a bit less death per year, it's usage is MUCH less than alcohol usage, making it's rate MUCH higher. Not to mention it's designed as a weapon, meant to cause damage and harm. What harm does alcohol do directly to you?

[daily]

Actually limiting clip size on semiautomatic rifles to 10 rounds is long overdue. Honestly down to 5 rounds would probably even be better. No need to ban these rifles altogether IMO but there's no doubt these high capacity mags need to go.
It's actually funny. Shotguns are limited to the amount of shells they can hold to save migratory birds from over hunting but the guns that are more often used in crimes against humans are not regulated at all

[BMOGEFan]

This argument has be dead and yet here comes another idiot with it.
Every single day alcohol is consumed about a million times more than a gun is used. The probability that a death is caused by alcohol is smaller than winning a lottery, getting in a planecrash, or getting hit by thunder. On the other hand, even though guns has maybe a bit less death per year, it's usage is MUCH less than alcohol usage, making it's rate MUCH higher. Not to mention it's designed as a weapon, meant to cause damage and harm. What harm does alcohol do directly to you?

This is by far the DUMBEST argument I have ever heard.

If you want to take consumption into factor, lets count by how many rounds are fired then we divided it up by deaths.

[ripthekik]

This is by far the DUMBEST argument I have ever heard.

If you want to take consumption into factor, lets count by how many rounds are fired then we divided it up by deaths.
How about everytime alcohol is consumed (could be 10 cans a night counted as 1) compared with anytime a gun is fired (in a session).

Seriously, you have 0 grounds. Just STFU, go to bed, and get ready for algebra class tomorrow.

[shlver]

The fact that you said security of schools are a bigger concern. We can't protect EVERYONE everywhere all the time 24 hours. What's next, security at movie theaters, church, parks? Is security really the problem? It's not. Schools are fine the way they are.

The problem is nutjobs being able to get the guns.

Because any attempt at gun regulation is met by heavily funded, political opposition. It will bring in too many pov's and won't get anything done in the short term. Investing in our schools as well as better securing them is an immediate benefit with a larger multiplier.

[BMOGEFan]

How about everytime alcohol is consumed (could be 10 cans a night counted as 1) compared with anytime a gun is fired (in a session).

Seriously, you have 0 grounds. Just STFU, go to bed, and get ready for algebra class tomorrow.

You are just generalizing on ALL of your arguments.

One nut case killed someone, so we should ban all guns. Thats why gun advocates use the analogy of alocholism and drunk driving because its IDIOTS like you who make this generalization in the first place.

How about making a different argument about rehabilitation on mental health before just deciding, hey lets get rid of all the guns altogether.

[ripthekik]

More with the alcohol:

What the F is death caused by alcohol anyways? I should have stopped this conversation before it began. There is simply NO SUCH THING. Alcohol is an indirect cause, it does NOT cause death directly, unless you are talking about alcohol poisoning. Tell me, how do I die from alcohol? Drowning in a pool of vodka? Someone throws a bottle of whisky to my head and kill me?

Drunking driving causing death? Auto accident, the death is caused by the car. A drunk man killing another person? Murder/manslaughter, caused by whatever weapon he used: knife or gun.

On the other hand, GUNS do kill people. Someone kills another guy with a gun, what is cause of death? the Gun. Guns directly cause death to the person.

How the hell do you even start to compare the two? Not to mention no matter how you try to use statistics, it sides with alcohol as less chance of death occurring (close to impossible)

[shlver]

There are more guns in this country than there are people. We have reached a point of no return in the amount of firearms in the US. Putting our efforts into things that give real benefits is a much better use of our resources than a superficial change in gun law.

[BMOGEFan]

More with the alcohol:

What the F is death caused by alcohol anyways? I should have stopped this conversation before it began. There is simply NO SUCH THING. Alcohol is an indirect cause, it does NOT cause death directly, unless you are talking about alcohol poisoning. Tell me, how do I die from alcohol? Drowning in a pool of vodka? Someone throws a bottle of whisky to my head and kill me?

Drunking driving causing death? Auto accident, the death is caused by the car. A drunk man killing another person? Murder/manslaughter, caused by whatever weapon he used: knife or gun.

On the other hand, GUNS do kill people. Someone kills another guy with a gun, what is cause of death? the Gun. Guns directly cause death to the person.

How the hell do you even start to compare the two? Not to mention no matter how you try to use statistics, it sides with alcohol as less chance of death occurring (close to impossible)

Argument By Selective Observation:
also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)

Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good.


Confusing Correlation And Causation:
earthquakes in the Andes were correlated with the closest approaches of the planet Uranus. Therefore, Uranus must have caused them. (But Jupiter is nearer than Uranus, and more massive too.)
When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops. Does this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime ? No, it means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold.

The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the child's handwriting. Does having big feet make it easier to write ? No, it means the child is older.

[ripthekik]

Try to type something that makes sense yourself. If you have the ability to.

Can alcohol directly cause death? Nope.
Can guns directly cause death? Yes.

End of comparison.

[BMOGEFan]

Try to type something that makes sense yourself. If you have the ability to.

Can alcohol directly cause death? Nope.
Can guns directly cause death? Yes.

End of comparison.

Switzerland all people own a gun...lowest homicide rate in the world. Please explain the causation/correlation

[shlver]

Try to type something that makes sense yourself. If you have the ability to.

Can alcohol directly cause death? Nope.
Can guns directly cause death? Yes.

End of comparison.
Of course alcohol can directly cause death.

[Droid101]

Exactly. If someone really wanted to go on the rampage, with or without a gun, they can do it.

Who's stopping a nut case from driving a car into a park
Another bad example, until they start regulating guns as much as they regulate cars.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TpyCfRO6Wf0/UA26RNJIgII/AAAAAAAAB1g/ARDwJpua558/s1600/zz.png

[ripthekik]

Of course alcohol can directly cause death.
I assume you mean alcohol poisoning? Or someone being hit over the head with a glass of bottle? Or lung related injuries?

[Droid101]

Switzerland all people own a gun...lowest homicide rate in the world. Please explain the causation/correlation
And all guns are banned in the UK. Check where they are on the chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

Maybe... culture has something to do with it too?

(PS All guns are banned in Japan too)

[shlver]

The case for gun control is a good one. I would ban all firearms except hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection. With the current state of affairs, real money is at stake here and any attempt at regulation is met by heavily funded opposition. If the shooting at the elementary school is the real deciding issue, then why isn't school security being discussed? Why are assault weapons being banned and not handguns which are the majority of gun homicides in the US?

[daily]

And all guns are banned in the UK. Check where they are on the chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

Maybe... culture has something to do with it too?

(PS All guns are banned in Japan too)
And they're banned in Mexico which has a death rate so high it doesn't fit on the chart.

Already posted in another thread.

[shlver]

I assume you mean alcohol poisoning? Or someone being hit over the head with a glass of bottle? Or lung related injuries?
Alcohol poisoning is a direct cause of death by alcohol.

[ripthekik]

Switzerland all people own a gun...lowest homicide rate in the world. Please explain the causation/correlation


The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

When the U.S. has also implemented these policies, then we can talk.

[ripthekik]

Alcohol poisoning is a direct cause of death by alcohol.
Yes, I have mentioned it in my previous post. Alcohol poisoning is indeed a direct cause of death by alcohol. But do you really want to compare the death rates of alcohol poisoning and death by gunshot? I thought it really wasn't worth even being talked about.

[shlver]

Yes, I have mentioned it in my previous post. Alcohol poisoning is indeed a direct cause of death by alcohol. But do you really want to compare the death rates of alcohol poisoning and death by gunshot? I thought it really wasn't worth even being talked about.
? You posted something wrong then bring up something completely irrelevant to what you said.:lol

[97 bulls]

Another bad example, until they start regulating guns as much as they regulate cars.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TpyCfRO6Wf0/UA26RNJIgII/AAAAAAAAB1g/ARDwJpua558/s1600/zz.png
Great point. I heard over the radio yesterday.

There was a caller that identified himself as a hotdog vendor. After a day of work, he was robbed. So he decided to get a gun. It took seven days for him to get a license to carry a firearm. Then it dawned on him, it took three months to get a license to sale hotdogs.

[ripthekik]

? You posted something wrong then bring up something completely irrelevant .:lol
What??? What are you talking about?
So do you want to compare death rate caused by alcohol poisoning now? I'm saying the chances of that happening is so miniscule.. it's pretty much possible to consider that alcohol does not cause death.

It's like saying scissors cause death because 5 kids per year are killed by it. It's so little, the chances of it happening are so slim, you have a higher chances of seeing an unicorn wearing a leather jacket than it happening.

[shlver]

What??? What are you talking about?
So do you want to compare death rate caused by alcohol poisoning now? I'm saying the chances of that happening is so miniscule.. it's pretty much possible to consider that alcohol does not cause death.

It's like saying scissors cause death because 5 kids per year are killed by it. It's so little, the chances of it happening are so slim, you have a higher chances of seeing an unicorn wearing a leather jacket than it happening.
What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.

[BMOGEFan]

What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.

I gave up on this guy...no one knows what he is talking about.

I stopped when he said alcohol doesn't cause deaths.

[ripthekik]

What are you talking about? YOU said that alcohol doesn't directly cause death. I said you were wrong, then you brought up something irrelevant to your initial statement. You go off in random tangents and make assumptions. You did it with my earlier post as well. Stay on topic of what I write, not what you want to write to save face.
:facepalm
Ok, I'll play your game.
So alcohol causes death directly through alcohol poisoning. Should we ban alcohol because of alcohol poisoning?

What are the death per year caused by alcohol poisoning divided by consumption of alcohol (in a session)?

Compare that with death per year caused by guns divided by usage of a gun (in a session)?

You want me to eat my words and make this comparison? How does this help anything or your point? My point was made: alcohol is no where comparable to guns. You just wanted to argue with semantics.

Stop discussing things that go no where. Alcohol is not comparable to guns. If you want to dispute that point, go ahead.

[ripthekik]

I gave up on this guy...no one knows what he is talking about.

I stopped when he said alcohol doesn't cause deaths.
What happened after I shut up your argument with bringing up Switzerland?

Alcohol causes death? OK, fine. I did the math formula above. You think it has any, ANY chance at all at being higher than guns?

So many retards here, seriously.

[shlver]

:facepalm
Ok, I'll play your game.
So alcohol causes death directly through alcohol poisoning. Should we ban alcohol because of alcohol poisoning?

What are the death per year caused by alcohol poisoning divided by consumption of alcohol (in a session)?

Compare that with death per year caused by guns divided by usage of a gun (in a session)?

You want me to eat my words and make this comparison? How does this help anything or your point? My point was made: alcohol is no where comparable to guns. You just wanted to argue with semantics.

Stop discussing things that go no where. Alcohol is not comparable to guns. If you want to dispute that point, go ahead.
Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?

[ripthekik]

Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?
Sure, my claim in saying it doesn't cause direct death was wrong, I fixed it, now I set it up above for comparison. Since you challenged me on that, now why don't you take on the comparison and tell me which is likely to cause more death?

[Graviton]

This bill is gonna fail, too many assault weapons in circulation for a ban to be effective. And NRA/Republicans will still resist it.

[BMOGEFan]

Once again, YOU made the claim that supposedly made it a void comparison. Your claim was wrong. Proportionality is a completely different comparison. Why do you insist on changing the discussion we were having?

Just ignore him. He still doesn't believe mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders. He still believes guns are the biggest factor.

[Droid101]

And they're banned in Mexico which has a death rate so high it doesn't fit on the chart.

Already posted in another thread.
Mexico's cartels are more powerful than their government. They can't enforce anything, let alone any kind of weapons ban.

[D-Rose]

This bill is gonna fail, too many assault weapons in circulation for a ban to be effective. And NRA/Republicans will still resist it.
The bill will NOT be retroactive...as in it will not effect the assault weapons that people already have...it will ban further purchases.

I think it's a decent start. Look, obviously most gun deaths aren't from these types of weapons. These weapons are still the ones most capable of mass killing and overall convey and uphold a culture of gun obsession and gun nurturing. I would be fine with having a specific license with an extensive process to allow people like hunters to have these weapons...but they don't belong in anyone's house or in the streets of our neighborhoods.

[BMOGEFan]

Mexico's cartels are more powerful than their government. They can't enforce anything, let alone any kind of weapons ban.

The deaths cannot be compared.

One is a nut case, shoot up innocents at a school, while the other are shooting up drug dealers and for territory.

[Godzuki]

If someone really wanted to commit an extreme crime like this, they will find a way to do it. What should be discussed is finding and implementing better security measures and fixing the broken infrastructure of our schools.


there is just no way to play defensive against these attacks. they're so random and its so easy for anyone to walk into a school during a random time of day and start blowing people away. just think of how easy something like that would be for you to do....and then to think they're supposed to be on the lookout for you 365 days a year at every hour? yeah right...

then again i feel the same way about our defensive posture vs terrorism. eventually its going to happen again until you can do something about the sources of it all.

[ripthekik]

Just ignore him. He still doesn't believe mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders. He still believes guns are the biggest factor.
I'll take your word for it. Mental illness is the biggest contributor to murders.

What is the solution? How about getting guns out of their hands while helping them? How do we do that? Gun restriction, accountability, so on.

Thinking guns will have absolutely no effect is naiive. Give a nutcase access to a knife and a gun will give you totally different scenarios.

[Droid101]

The deaths cannot be compared.

One is a nut case, shoot up innocents at a school, while the other are shooting up drug dealers and for territory.

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities2-01_0.png

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/possessedandobtained_225.gif

[AlphaWolf24]

lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers


- You are the road....in a vehicle that mostly is built for transportation/safety.....you take a chance everytime you operate a motorized vehicle in wich is useful to 99% of the population....someone could cuase a accident...I'am fully aware of that everytime I Drive.


- Going to Kindergarden?......to the movies?.....shopping?......with a threat of someone with high powered Firearm ( a firearm That is 99% useless to the civilian population) Killing everyone in sight....


weak sauce.....not even in the same area code kid.


next

[shlver]

Sure, my claim in saying it doesn't cause direct death was wrong, I fixed it, now I set it up above for comparison. Since you challenged me on that, now why don't you take on the comparison and tell me which is likely to cause more death?
There is a comparison imo. Alcohol is heavily regulated because of the danger it causes. It is illegal in some places like public areas, while legal in some where it is managed like homes and bars. If used improperly, as in the case of drunk driving, it does cause harm which comes with legal ramifications. Similarly, I agree, that something that is designed to kill should be heavily regulated. There is a comparison there. Not an outright ban, but heavy regulation.

[Graviton]

The bill will NOT be retroactive...as in it will not effect the assault weapons that people already have...it will ban further purchases.

I think it's a decent start. Look, obviously most gun deaths aren't from these types of weapons. These weapons are still the ones most capable of mass killing and overall convey and uphold a culture of gun obsession and gun nurturing. I would be fine with having a specific license with an extensive process to allow people like hunters to have these weapons...but they don't belong in anyone's house or in the streets of our neighborhoods.
I would agree with that. I am just wondering if they will go for handgun bans next if another nut kills 30+ people while duel wielding pistols. Outright bans are never the answer because you don't know where they will stop.

[D-Rose]

I would agree with that. I am just wondering if they will go for handgun bans next if another nut kills 30+ people while duel wielding pistols. Outright bans are never the answer because you don't know where they will stop.
They won't do outright bans...it's impractical and literally impossible here too. If that became an issue too, I'd imagine more background checks,etc before being able to buy a gun.

[BMOGEFan]

- You are the road....in a vehicle that mostly is built for transportation/safety.....you take a chance everytime you operate a motorized vehicle in wich is useful to 99% of the population....someone could cuase a accident...I'am fully aware of that everytime I Drive.


- Going to Kindergarden?......to the movies?.....shopping?......with a threat of someone with high powered Firearm ( a firearm That is 99% useless to the civilian population) Killing everyone in sight....


weak sauce.....not even in the same area code kid.


next

read my other post regarding why gun advocates make an argument regarding drunk drivers.

[shlver]

there is just no way to play defensive against these attacks. they're so random and its so easy for anyone to walk into a school during a random time of day and start blowing people away. just think of how easy something like that would be for you to do....and then to think they're supposed to be on the lookout for you 365 days a year at every hour? yeah right...

then again i feel the same way about our defensive posture vs terrorism. eventually its going to happen again until you can do something about the sources of it all.
Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.

[ripthekik]

Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.
I don't know how there can be a solution to this problem though. How can you protect every single public place? Schools aren't the only places shooting can occur. The next shooting could be at another movie theater, park, church. The main problem here isn't school shooting, it's shooting.
You'd need to hire so much manpower and security guards and forces, it wouldn't really be efficient in the end.

[TheMan]

You are a ****ing idiot. so you want to punish hunters, sports recreationalist all due to a nut case?
What's the "sport" in hunting with assault rifles? I could take down a rhino with a AK-47 equipped with a grenade launcher...hell, gimme a bazooka and I'll be the GOAT hunter, Dumbo and his pack won't have a chance:bowdown:

You want sport? Tackle a silverback gorilla mano a mano, fakkit, shooting him from 100 yards away with a high powered sniper rifle doesn't make you more of a man.

[shlver]

I don't know how there can be a solution to this problem though. How can you protect every single public place? Schools aren't the only places shooting can occur. The next shooting could be at another movie theater, park, church. The main problem here isn't school shooting, it's shooting.
You'd need to hire so much manpower and security guards and forces, it wouldn't really be efficient in the end.
By attacking the real underlying problems of criminality.It does have its roots in mental health, culture, and yes it is influenced by ease of access. You're missing the point about schools. It is our responsibility to provide a safe environment where children can learn. A place that can be entered by ANY individual is not safe and is irresponsible. My point about legislation is that our political system is so influenced by money that any regulation is futile. Better to invest in our rundown schools and make them safer than to start another congressional deadlock.

[DonDadda59]

Isn't that a problem?:lol That's what my post is addressing. Security of schools.

But schools aren't the only places where mass shootings occur. What about movie theaters, malls, parks, buses, subways, etc and so on? Is your solution to have guards with M-16s or metal detectors in those places 24/7? The issue that some people keep bringing up ridiculous and nonsensical comparisons to deflect is guns and people's access to them. If I'm not mistaken, the school where the massacre occurred upped their security in the days/weeks leading up to the massacre. But someone with legally obtained killing machines made that null and void.

Give me one good reason why the populace should have access to these weapons (without counting 'fighting tyranny' like this is 1776, or 'it's a more fun hobby than playing poker').

[shlver]

But schools aren't the only places where mass shootings occur. What about movie theaters, malls, parks, buses, subways, etc and so on? Is your solution to have guards with M-16s or metal detectors in those places 24/7? The issue that some people keep bringing up ridiculous and nonsensical comparisons to deflect is guns and people's access to them. If I'm not mistaken, the school where the massacre occurred upped their security in the days/weeks leading up to the massacre. But someone with legally obtained killing machines made that null and void.

Give me one good reason why the populace should have access to these weapons (without counting 'fighting tyranny' like this is 1776, or 'it's a more fun hobby than playing poker').
I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.

[DonDadda59]

I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.

Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?

If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.

[daily]

I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated. It's time. The need for non hunting guns has run it's course. Guns are designed for one thing and that's killing there's no other use for them so why have them around. The recent events have made it clear changes need to be made.

I'll keep my shotguns and the cap and ball, give up the Beretta.

[The Real JW]

The probability that a death is caused by alcohol is smaller than winning a lottery, getting in a planecrash, or getting hit by thunder.

:facepalm

[Droid101]

Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?

If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
Saw this on another site. Liked it:


I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.

Even the argument that an armed populace is the last defense against tyrannical government doesn't make much sense in the drone age. Your ability to engage in a firefight is worth very little against the largest standing military on the planet. In truth, the best safeguard against tyrannical government is the conscience, compassion and individual values of our service members and law enforcement personnel, like the Egyptian soldiers who refused to fire on unarmed civilians.

I do believe in the principle of private ownership, but we're not using our right to own guns to defend or shores or keep our government in check. We're using them to kill each other. I'm fine putting Amendment 2 on the table. Effective government should be a running experiment, not unwavering devotion to the best ideas of previous centuries.

[shlver]

Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?

If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
You're right. Even if we protect one soft target, these kinds of people will find a multitude of other soft targets.
People are ignorant of how many people die from firearms daily because it is not news worthy unless something like the elementary school shooting happens. A significant portion of this country accept that those daily deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun possession. Unless public ignorance and attitude changes, we have to figure out how to fix a psychological/cultural problem without infringing on a large portion of the US that believes that gun possession is their civil liberty.

[miller-time]

I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.

That is a point I made in another thread. If your actual military has fallen I'm afraid that is it for you.

[Joshumitsu]

Hold on.

I'm all for shortening clips though but what is the definition of an "assault weapon"?

Also, aren't hand guns responsible for the majority of gun related deaths on top of being more easily concealed/portable, readily available, and cheaper? If so, couldn't this actually cause an influx of handguns and therefore, possibly more violence on the streets?

[bmulls]

Video for miller time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGBXqaF2dg

[bmulls]

Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.

[shlver]

Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.
So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.

[Balla_Status]

So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.

How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.

[Lakers Legend#32]

One of the less publicizied heinous acts of the Bush Administration was letting the assault weapons ban expire. It's awesome that Feinstein is going to bring this bill back.

[shlver]

How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.
What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.

[Balla_Status]

What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.

Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.

[bmulls]

What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.

Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?

[shlver]

Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.
Post it then.

Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?
Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.

[bmulls]

Post it then.

Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.

What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country. Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.

[bmulls]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.

[shlver]

What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country.
No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.

Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.
You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.

[shlver]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.
Which is why I made a case for tighter measures of gun control, not an outright ban. I already said shotguns for stopping power and protection and hunting rifles should be allowed but heavily regulated.

[bmulls]

No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.

You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.

:biggums:

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.

Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year.

There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.

[daily]

Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.


From the study page 670


But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.

This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands

[shlver]

:biggums:

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.
That's what gun control is. It's about guns.:lol You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.


Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year.
That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.


There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.
Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.

[bmulls]

From the study page 670



Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll:

[D-Rose]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.
Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.



[QUOTE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law

[bmulls]

That's what gun control is. It's about guns.:lol You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.


That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.


Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.

You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?

[shlver]

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll:
Read it! It basically says the problem is rooted in culture and society. However, it shows a decrease in gun murders in tighter regulated countries meaning a more effective method of committing murder(guns) is abated.

[bmulls]

Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.

I based that statement on the video.

After googling it, it would appear that the study you have cited was written by serious gun control advocates.

Other studies have found "no structural breaks" in the rate of homicide, or "no significant result for homicide":

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf
http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/br_j_criminology_2006_.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

I can't find where the video got those numbers, so I apologize if they are bogus.

[shlver]

You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?
Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.

[daily]

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll: :facepalm context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.


Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening

[bmulls]

:facepalm context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.


Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening

The first paragraph simply explains the phenomenon, it does not change the bottom line: gun control does not positively correlate with reduced murder rates.

As for the rest...you know how you know when somebody has lost a debate? They start making personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.

[bmulls]

Of course you can't prove causality,but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.

This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.

We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.

We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.

We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.

The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.

[daily]

Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.

That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.

Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.

What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.

I said it before. It's amazing that migrating birds are protected more by what type of weapon and ammunition can be used to kill than humans are

[shlver]

This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.

We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.

We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.

We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.

The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.
I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?

[shlver]

That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.

Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.

What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.
Yeah, I didn't even bother reading the study, because the problem of crime is so intractable and influenced by society and culture that gun control cannot have a significant impact on the total crime rate but you can limit a very effective tool of murder.

[bmulls]

I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?

Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.

[daily]

Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.

It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.

If you don't see that then there's nothing to say

[bmulls]

It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.

If you don't see that then there's nothing to say

Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?

[RaininThrees]

Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?

You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?

Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.

[shlver]

Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.
That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?

[bmulls]

You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?

Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.

Sorry, wrong.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.

99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?

[shlver]

Sorry, wrong.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.

99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?
No. The original purpose of a gun was to kill. Nice try though.

[bmulls]

That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?

Using statistics and the large picture to justify getting drunk is awfully selfish. Why would you not support prohibition on something as potentially as dangerous as alcohol?

[Sarcastic]

It's not a ban on all guns. Just one that serve no purpose to the general population.

[bmulls]

Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.

[shlver]

Using statistics and the large picture to justify getting drunk is awfully selfish. Why would you not support prohibition on something as potentially as dangerous as alcohol?
Are you even comparing the two? Currently, guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product.

[MJ23forever]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg

Why didn't the "NO GUNS" policy work?! Now consider why teachers in Israel are armed.

More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.

[D-Rose]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg

Why didn't the "NO GUNS" policy work?! Now consider why teachers in Israel are armed.

More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.
Don't be daft..they are constantly threatened by terrorist attacks around them, this is a completely different situation. :facepalm

[daily]

More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.
nonsense

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weapagetab.cfm

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Longtime lurker, not many posts but i just went through 5 failed login attempts, + a password reset just so i could say that BMOGEFan is a fcking retard. Worst analogy ever.

Give me one good reason why anybody outside of a military trained assassin would require the services of an assault rifle

Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).

You would need one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.

While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you want to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Are you even comparing the two? Currently, guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product.

Wait a minute, what?

If you are 21 years old with an id you can buy as much Vodka as you want. They even have drive-through liquor stores. Firearms, on the other hand, usually require a criminal background check and/or a waiting period to purchase.

I'm questioning if you understand what the word regulated means.

[D-Rose]

Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).

You would need one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.

While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you want to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.

Are you freaking stupid or just trolling us?

Why don't you pick up a history book and realize that never before in history has there been more of a disparity between civilian militia and government military capabilities as in the first world today. Do you honestly think that rifles and machine guns operated by civilians would be able to stop the United States Military with tanks, planes, nukes, missiles, bombs, grenades, snipers, trained military professionals, etc? Seriously?

To even say that the U.S. government would or even could turn on its people like that is asinine and shows a deep rooted paranoia.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Are you freaking stupid or just trolling us?

Why don't you pick up a history book and realize that never before in history has there been more of a disparity between civilian militia and government military capabilities as in the first world today. Do you honestly think that rifles and machine guns operated by civilians would be able to stop the United States Military with tanks, planes, nukes, missiles, bombs, grenades, snipers, trained military professionals, etc? Seriously?

To even say that the U.S. government would or even could turn on its people like that is asinine and shows a deep rooted paranoia.

Well the government has us outgunned so lets just all thow our weapons in the trash. F**k the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.

By the way, your reply was spoken like a true liberal. I make a post answering a direct question with an honest and logical answer and your reaction is "Are you freaking stupid". Nice.

[DonDadda59]

Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).

You would need one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.

While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you want to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.

This:

http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif

Vs

This (AKA what 'tyranny' is packing nowadays instead of single-shot muskets)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/06/article-2155099-0E294D5700000578-288_634x377.jpg

Is a fight that ends long before it begins. You would never see it coming.

The paranoia-driven, imaginary fight against the 'tyrannical government' is just about the silliest reason given to justify people needing automatic/semi-automatic killing machines.

These are the guns that the shooter used in Sandy Hook:

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-used-by-adam-lanza-in-shooting-owned-by-nancy-lanza.jpg

Fighting the illuminati or whatever imagined 'tyrannical' government body justifies a suburban CT mother with a disturbed child having this in her home? :wtf:

[MJ23forever]

I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.




"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler

[johndeeregreen]

Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.
I own guns, hunt, shoot clays and paper alike, and you're still being unreasonable when you say a gun isn't designed to kill things. Talk about "mental gymnastics.":oldlol:

[BMOGEFan]

Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.

i stopped hours ago. these people here do not understand period.

they accuse you of making a fallacy yet they are making the same one back at you. its tiresome and circular.

FYI: you people say guns are made for the intended purpose of killing. what is the intended purpose of alcohol? to make someone act like an idiot?

[D-Rose]

Well the government has us outgunned so lets just all thow our weapons in the trash. F**k the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.

By the way, your reply was spoken like a true liberal. I make a post answering a direct question with an honest and logical answer and your reaction is "Are you freaking stupid". Nice.

Yeah, ooookay. The United States is the longest standing democracy in the world without any dictators or monarchs in its history. One dictator as an enigmatic leader is a lot different than all three branches of government being a part of some mass conspiracy to oppress their own people. What possible motivation would they even have against the general populace? Usually it's religion or race...neither of which make sense in a multicultural and integrated society. Seriously the paranoia is RIDICULOUS!

Anyway, even if they did want to kill their own people, they'd use things like drones and fighter jets...your freaking handguns aren't going to do shit. You do realize the disparity between military and civilian capability in 21st century life? It's not the 18th century anymore, pal.

[miller-time]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg

This is ludicrous. What happens when a teacher has a melt down? Do you really want them within arms reach of a firearm?

Or are they kept unloaded in a safe where they are essentially useless as someone fires round after round into the class of students? I guess a teacher from another class can lock and load as the first class gets blown away. Guns solve gun problems!

[miller-time]

i stopped hours ago. these people here do not understand period.

they accuse you of making a fallacy yet they are making the same one back at you. its tiresome and circular.

FYI: you people say guns are made for the intended purpose of killing. what is the intended purpose of alcohol? to make someone act like an idiot?

No one is saying alcohol is a particularly good thing. This is the thing though. It doesn't matter if everyone thought alcohol was great (when it isn't) and thought guns are bad (when they aren't always). Just because they are using a double standard doesn't mean that guns are good or better or should be untouched. Regardless of their opinions on alcohol, even if they are using double standards (which I don't think they are to the extent you think they are) it doesn't have any bearing on gun policy. Gun policy is gun policy. Alcohol policy is alcohol policy. They have nothing to do with each other.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

This:

http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif

These are the guns that the shooter used in Sandy Hook:

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-used-by-adam-lanza-in-shooting-owned-by-nancy-lanza.jpg

Fighting the illuminati or whatever imagined 'tyrannical' government body justifies a suburban CT mother with a disturbed child having this in her home? :wtf:

In my opinion gun owners with children, disturbed or otherwise, should make sure that those weapons aren't accessable to the children. Also, law abiding citizens shouldn't need to justify what they own or how the choose to defend themselves. If you don't like guns then don't buy any. If you have 100% trust in the government and aren't concerned about what the future might bring then good luck to you. With the entire world economy teetering on the brink of collapse I think you are being naive but to each their own.

The issue that's really at the root of these mass shootings is being ignored. Some people are either mentally ill or just plain evil. Passing laws don't affect these type of individuals. What about anti-depressants that most of these mass killers are on. What about the fact that our media makes them famous by posting their names, pictures all over the news for weeks. Bottom line if some nut is determined to kill people they will find away to do it and I'm not about to sacrifice my constitutional rights in a vain attept to try.

[MJ23forever]

The issue that's really at the root of these mass shootings is being ignored. Some people are either mentally ill or just plain evil. Passing laws don't affect these type of individuals. What about anti-depressants that most of these mass killers are on. What about the fact that our media makes them famous by posting their names, pictures all over the news for weeks. Bottom line if some nut is determined to kill people they will find away to do it and I'm not about to sacrifice my constitutional rights in a vain attept to try.

Gun crime happens to like .003% of Americans, honestly its not a problem like the media makes it out to be.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Gun crime happens to like .003% of Americans, honestly its not a problem like the media makes it out to be.

About 3000 people got killed at once on 9/11. Liberals like Michael Moore were trying to tell us that there was no terrorist threat because the risk was statistically very small to the average American. Do you think they would apply that same logic here?

[MJ23forever]

>With one shot, an off-duty sheriff

[MJ23forever]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg

[miller-time]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg

Switzerland can have guns because they aren't a country full of people with mental health issues and socioeconomic problems. Once you fix that then maybe you can have some guns.

Just to add. I am not being totally serious here...

[miller-time]

First that mall CCW guy and now this, things are looking up. Of course these stories won't go national.

So luckily his gun jammed the first time and then he shot someone later anyway. When this is a positive story FOR guns you have to be really behind the line of wrong.

[D-Rose]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg
They go through extensive training as essentially reserves for the Swiss forces. It's not even close to the same thing :facepalm

[MJ23forever]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg

[miller-time]

I really feel like I make this post every time something like this happens, but here it goes again I guess.
If you're trying to look at the root of the problem with violence in the US, it's pretty clear to me it's not the weapons that are the origination at all. The truth is that in most cities, the crime happens in pockets. Usually the poorest parts. Access to guns isn't different, but the culture is. It is first and foremost a cultural problem, and drugs are probably the biggest single cause. I can't remember the exact number, but a huge percentage of crimes are commited by drug addicts.
So, get better mental healthcare, try and solve the drug problem (which is somewhere in between difficult and impossible, but the US does a particularly awful job at it) and try and make some slight cultural changes.
I do think the US is going to make some changes in the law, but mostly stupid stuff like an assault weapons ban that won't do much. I wish we could get some real change.

I agree with what you are saying but I think the very nature of "the right to bear arms" is a cultural problem in itself. It seems to feed this ideological belief that owning guns is tantamount to breathing oxygen - when it isn't. Despite my protests to gun ownership I don't actually have anything against guns in and of themselves. But I don't think they should be available to the extent they are and I don't think they are solutions to any of the problems the pro-gun people say they are. I'd sooner give someone my TV than have to shoot them to stop them from taking it. And I think in part my belief stems from my cultural background. I think the US fascination with guns only worsens the situation they are finding themselves in today.

[Brunch@Five]

you guys are talking total crime rate like some going on a killing spree in an elementary school is regular crime. That guy Adam Lanza lost his mind, and due to a culture of gun ownership/usage and little gun regulation, he opted for taking 3 of his weapons to a school.

Not really a problem you can solve, because 95% of this is him losing his mind.
There is relatively strict gun regulation in Germany, but there have been killings in schools involving guns too (former student breaking into his dad's gun rack, going to his former school and killing a dozen).

[johndeeregreen]

I think you have to be from the US to understand the right to bear arms thing. Just the fact that people want to over ride one of the clearest parts of the constitution is frustrating to many people. You can't really argue for much gun control when the only real absolute law of the land clearly states you have a right to a gun.
I really don't get this argument. The Constitution was written in a different time, and it has been, ahem, amended, many times before. Why is this untouchable? If the Constitution was left as is women wouldn't be able to vote and you could still own slaves. And here we're saying that changing what's in it would be some sort of heinous act?

Just saying.

[DirtySanchez]

We are a nation of gun lovers.
Plain and simple.

I get it...guns are cool. Plenty of friends who have assault weapons and pistols and I love going to the gun ranges with them to fire them off. It's a hobby for many of them. And I have thought of owning a gun or two.

I also have two kids now....I'm a Dad.
What happen last week is deeply disturbing if you are a parent.
So because of the age group on these boards I think few can feel me.

I don't think rifles and even hand guns should be banned....but creating and enforcing stronger and efficient gun laws is needed.

It's not the only problem at hand with this mess....we have the mental issue side to handle....but it sends the right message. And really why do we need 30 round clips? Hunting????? Sports??? Zombie attacks?????
And we must have strict strict laws to obtain and keep firearms.
More so them ever right now.

[chips93]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg

according to kevinNYCs thread, switzerland has one of the higher gun related murder rates in the developed world.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284531

[MJ23forever]

http://oi45.tinypic.com/sb4w21.jpg




GUN CONTROLS AND RESULTS:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves Were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century Because of gun control: 56 million.


http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg

[MJ23forever]

We are a nation of gun lovers.
Plain and simple.

I get it...guns are cool. Plenty of friends who have assault weapons and pistols and I love going to the gun ranges with them to fire them off. It's a hobby for many of them. And I have thought of owning a gun or two.

I also have two kids now....I'm a Dad.
What happen last week is deeply disturbing if you are a parent.
So because of the age group on these boards I think few can feel me.

I don't think rifles and even hand guns should be banned....but creating and enforcing stronger and efficient gun laws is needed.

It's not the only problem at hand with this mess....we have the mental issue side to handle....but it sends the right message. And really why do we need 30 round clips? Hunting????? Sports??? Zombie attacks?????
And we must have strict strict laws to obtain and keep firearms.
More so them ever right now.

http://oi47.tinypic.com/2hpoh0w.jpg

[D-Rose]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/2hpoh0w.jpg
There is "car control", that's why you have to go through an extensive process to register your car and have to pass a driver's license test to drive it. Not to mention the inspection stickers, speed limits, drunk driving, seat belt, etc. Cars are far more regulated and controlled than guns.

And the argument is a stupid one anyway because a car is built for transportation while a gun is built for killing/hurting.

[Droid101]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg
Check the income gap between their poorest and their richest.

Check their UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE including MENTAL HEALTH CARE.

Different situations calls for different solutions.

Guns are banned in UK and Japan and they have the lowest gun crime in the world.

[MJ23forever]

Why do you need a car that goes faster than 30 mph?

You may want a car that goes faster but you don't need it, do you? I didn't think so.


This country has more guns than cars, and YET more people are killed by cars than guns in the USA each year. Cars are bigger threat to human safety and loss of life than guns are.

So even though cars aren't designed to kill (just like knives or baseball bats aren't), they do more things than that. We need to ban cars asap! But what do I know? After all if guns were banned, Nicole Brown Simpson would still be alive today, right?

[D-Rose]

Why do you need a car that goes faster than 30 mph?

You may want a car that goes faster but you don't need it, do you? I didn't think so.


This country has more guns than cars, and YET more people are killed by cars than guns in the USA each year. Cars are bigger threat to human safety and loss of life than guns are.

So even though cars aren't designed to kill (just like knives or baseball bats aren't), they do more things than that. We need to ban cars asap! But what do I know? After all if guns were banned, Nicole Brown Simpson would still be alive today, right?

You argument is completely flawed, you're comparing apples to watermelons and just trolling.

[MJ23forever]

You argument is completely flawed, you're comparing apples to watermelons and just trolling.

Sorry, but facts are facts. It's not comparing apples to watermelons, it's more like comparing fuji apples to gala apples if anything. Anyway the point isn't comparing a car to a gun. It's comparing the effects of enacting a law to prevent people from being killed one way with those of another law enacted to prevent people from being killed another way.

[Droid101]

Sorry, but facts are facts. It's not comparing apples to watermelons, it's more like comparing fuji apples to gala apples if anything. Anyway the point isn't comparing a car to a gun. It's comparing the effects of enacting a law to prevent people from being killed one way with those of another law enacted to prevent people from being killed another way.
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jpg

Just ignore this moron and move on.

[MJ23forever]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jpg

Just ignore this moron and move on.

In other words "pretend he dosen't exist so we can continue to act as though our opinions are unrefuted fact". :oldlol:

[Droid101]

In other words "pretend he dosen't exist so we can continue to act as though our opinions are unrefuted fact". :oldlol:
Except that you never respond to any points we bring up, you just post the same old tired talking points we've heard for the last twenty years.

The very definition of a troll.

[daily]

Any legislation to change gun laws will be a true test of the Obama administration. He's a lame duck, nothing to lose so there should be no problem with him throwing all his support behind new laws.

[TheMan]

http://oi45.tinypic.com/sb4w21.jpg




GUN CONTROLS AND RESULTS:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves Were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century Because of gun control: 56 million.


http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg
The UK has had gun control for decades, so when are they gonna start rounding up Brits and executing them:confusedshrug:

BTW, all those countries were under authoritarian regimes BEFORE they enacted strict gun control...

I hope you also realize that under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi households had more guns per family than the US, still they couldn't do anything against that regime. Admit it, if a government with armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter, jets, chemical, biological and tactical nuclear weapons wants to **** with you, you have little chance with that 9mm Baretta you got.

[Droid101]

Any legislation to change gun laws will be a true test of the Obama administration. He's a lame duck, nothing to lose so there should be no problem with him throwing all his support behind new laws.
I'd rather he focus on legalizing drugs. He'd do more for gun violence that way, honestly.

[MJ23forever]

The UK has had gun control for decades

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2ih8h2c.jpg


If you ban guns, criminals still get guns. It's just you at the disadvantage.
The UK banned guns and surprisingly gun crime is up almost double.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

[ripthekik]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg
:oldlol:
Son, if one of these dictators come into power again and you happen to live in such nation, you think your gun will do shit? You're heading to the concentration camp either way, boy :oldlol: Except it might be another option to off yourself before they get to you :confusedshrug:

[MJ23forever]

I hope you also realize that under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi households had more guns per family than the US, still they couldn't do anything against that regime. Admit it, if a government with armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter, jets, chemical, biological and tactical nuclear weapons wants to **** with you, you have little chance with that 9mm Baretta you got.



Too bad all the revolutions in human history had equal odds and still worked. It's more complex then the entire military just wrecking the civilians sh*t.

Not to mention Iraq's army folded like a house of cards instead of bothering.




More guns per family
[citation needed]

You're also implying there was no sectarian & ethnic conflicts in iraq think "divide and conquer" and also implying a large number of those gun-owning iraqi's were pro saddam.

[rsoares28]

This thread got nuts. Are some of you really worried about your govt turning on you?

Can anyone give me a reason why assault rifles should be owned by civilians? And please stop comparing cars and alcohol to guns. Guns are for one thing.... killing albeit hunting or spraying a school of young kids.

You can't defend what happend on friday and other random acts of mass violence over the years. Plain and simple it shouldnt have happened.... or at least to that scale..... if that lunatic only had access to handguns the outcome would've 100% been different.

[Droid101]

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2ih8h2c.jpg


If you ban guns, criminals still get guns. It's just you at the disadvantage.
The UK banned guns and surprisingly gun crime is up almost double.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
A guy with a knife would have only killed one, maybe two of the kids at Sandy Hook before he was wrestled to the ground by the adults.

UK Gun Ban:

What effect did the ban have?
According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.
Since then the number has fallen in each year. In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% -- from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 -- in 2010/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/?hpt=wo_t4

Try not to quote three+ year old articles when making a point. Gun crime is way down since its peak in the UK in 2004.

[longhornfan1234]

Where's the stats in US that prove banning a specific type of firearm results in less crime? There's not one example or study of how banning an assault rifle helps.

[MJ23forever]

:oldlol:
Son, if one of these dictators come into power again and you happen to live in such nation, you think your gun will do shit? You're heading to the concentration camp either way, boy :oldlol: Except it might be another option to off yourself before they get to you :confusedshrug:

If the VAST majority isn't against us, yes.

[TheMan]

Too bad all the revolutions in human history had equal odds and still worked. It's more complex then the entire military just wrecking the civilians sh*t.

Not to mention Iraq's army folded like a house of cards instead of bothering.
They folded to a way superior military machine, the one you would take on with your AK-47:oldlol: thank you for making me point for me:lol

The Iraqi army had tanks, yet they knew they weren't gonna beat the US military and you think with an assault rifle you gonna knock down a fighter jet carpet bombing your neighborhood:facepalm

This isn't 1700s fool, where a musket would put you on more or less equal terms with the army, you got any anti-aircraft missle launchers in your attic?:roll: you gon need a bunch of those

[Droid101]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg

What's that....for some reason the government wants to enslave it's own people, and you're the last line of defense?! Well thank god you bought those Bushmasters at that gun show. Now you can barricade yourself and.......what's that sound???

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/uploads/1/drone_missiles-500.jpg

[Droid101]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg
Oh, you have a semi-automatic rifle and you're going to fight the #1 superpower in the world with it? Hold on a sec...look out the window....

http://pcdn.500px.net/1942543/34b42b0ca31de291a966350fcf9073e5bdc2c0ee/4.jpg

[MJ23forever]

A guy with a knife would have only killed one, maybe two of the kids at Sandy Hook before he was wrestled to the ground by the adults.



>he thinks it's hard to kill people with a knife

Nobody wants to f*ck with the guy with the knife. Principal lunges, you stab her in the throat. other admins and teachers lunge, stab them in the throat. Room full of kids? They're not gonna be strong enough to fight back.

Keep thinking gun crime is down in the UK though. When there were 100 and now there are 90, you took EVERYBODY'S guns for fu*king nothing.

[MJ23forever]

They folded to a way superior military machine, the one you would take on with your AK-47:oldlol: thank you for making me point for me:lol


>we were there to do it for them
>making you point for you

pick one, please?

[MJ23forever]

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2rzqp2t.jpg

[ripthekik]

This is what happens when nutcases don't have access to guns. Same psycho, different story.


22 Chinese schoolchildren hurt in stabbing spree

A man wielding a knife stabbed an elderly woman and then 22 children outside an elementary school in China on Friday before being subdued by security guards.

The attack happened in the village of Chengping in Henan, a landlocked province about halfway between Beijing and Shanghai. A 36-year-old named Min Yingjun from Guangshan county is accused of bursting into the home of a 85-year-old woman before stabbing her with a kitchen knife and then moving on to children as they were arriving for school after 8 a.m. local time.

On Saturday, the Chinese government's Xinhua News Agency quoted police who said that Min was possibly "mentally ill" and is now in custody.

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that nine students had been admitted, two of which were subsequently transferred to better-equipped hospitals elsewhere in the country. None of the children have died.

Some of the children had their fingers or ears cut off.

It's not clear how old the children were, but the primary school in China covers children between six and 11 years old.

The man attacked almost two dozen children before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years.

[maybeshewill13]

:roll: OP mad as hell, love it.

[MJ23forever]

Oh, you have a semi-automatic rifle and you're going to fight the #1 superpower in the world with it? Hold on a sec...look out the window....


Implying armed insurgency and asymmetrical warfare doesn't work.

>firing rockets at a building full of non-hostiles who may even side with them

Yeah, sure. That'll be happening.

[The Real JW]

A guy with a knife would have only killed one, maybe two of the kids at Sandy Hook before he was wrestled to the ground by the adults.

What about a guy with access to fertilizer, fuel, a vehicle, an internet guide and a few functioning brain cells?

People who are focusing on removing all the tools instead of dealing with the people using the tools, while they probably have good intentions, are missing the bigger picture. You don't ban airplanes and all air travel after 9/11. You try to make air travel as safe as possible and ensure that the murderous, unstable people in the world can't use them to kill people.

[D-Rose]

What about a guy with access to fertilizer, fuel, a vehicle, an internet guide and a few functioning brain cells?

People who are focusing on removing all the tools instead of dealing with the people using the tools, while they probably have good intentions, are missing the bigger picture. You don't ban airplanes and all air travel after 9/11. You try to make air travel as safe as possible and ensure that the murderous, unstable people in the world can't use them to kill people.
No one is suggesting an outright ban on all guns, just tighter restrictions.

[TheMan]

Implying armed insurgency and asymmetrical warfare doesn't work.

>firing rockets at a building full of non-hostiles who may even side with them

Yeah, sure. That'll be happening.
So this tyrannical government you fear so much also has feelings :confusedshrug:

[The Real JW]

No one is suggesting an outright ban on all guns, just tighter restrictions.

I've seen posters on here and other sites advocating a blanket ban.

[MJ23forever]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/vw96d.jpg

[ripthekik]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/vw96d.jpg
You use guys like Ghandi and dalai lama?
seriously?
Ok this is on a whole new level of retardedness.
U.S., the problem is education, not guns. I've been convinced.

[TheMan]

MJ23forever, must suck to be you, to be so fearfull and to feel like less than a man unless you have a big gun...what are you so afraid of? Fvcking pvssy:oldlol:

Grow a pair, son

[MJ23forever]

This is what happens when nutcases don't have access to guns. Same psycho, different story.

Except that in most of these Chinese school stabbing sprees (which happen all the time), there have been fatalities as well.

All this proves is that taking away gun rights won't eliminate these kinds of mass, random attacks. Some nut will always be trying for a high score.

Sh*t, look at Utoya - all that strict gun control in Norway didn't do shit.



What's that....for some reason the government wants to enslave it's own people, and you're the last line of defense?! Well thank god you bought those Bushmasters at that gun show. Now you can barricade yourself and.......what's that sound???

Yo check out this sound I'm hearing!

It's an RPG, it just blew up this larger-than-life RC.

What? I live near mexico...

[Rysio]

fakkits trying to take my guns whats next your gonna take my cars because theres too many drunk drivers. :rolleyes:

[MJ23forever]

fakkits trying to take my guns whats next your gonna take my cars because theres too many drunk drivers. :rolleyes:

http://oi48.tinypic.com/rmo9dt.jpg




Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

[MJ23forever]

MJ23forever, must suck to be you, to be so fearfull and to feel like less than a man unless you have a big gun...what are you so afraid of? Fvcking pvssy:oldlol:

Grow a pair, son

Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

[InspiredLebowski]

I'm sure most of you don't know/care who Megan McArdle is, but if you ever see her name on a byline feel free to skip that story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html


My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity. I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

She really wrote that.

[bmulls]

I'm sure most of you don't know/care who Megan McArdle is, but if you ever see her name on a byline feel free to skip that story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

She really wrote that.

:biggums:

And I'm sure she'd totally be the first one to charge too :rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

:biggums:

And I'm sure she'd totally be the first one to charge too :rolleyes:
Lol shed be the only person charging

[TheMan]

Lol shed be the first one hiding
fixed

They should do a prank at her building, have a fake gunman go in there shooting blanks and see how she reacts, 1000 bucks says the bitch is full of hot air and she'd do like George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode where he pushes kids and old people out of the way to get out first of the burning house. Always seems to be that those who talk the loudest are usually the first to fold like cheap seats.:facepalm

[DonDadda59]

You tryna put me in a communist death camp Obamer?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30698330.jpg

Over mah dead body, you commie basterd. John Muthaf*ckin Rambo reporting for duty.

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ObamaPointing.jpg

Obama: Cancel that bitch.

1 drone, 1 shot, 6 heavily armed insurgents down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-dNu5uOQc)

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obama-king.jpg

A basic rundown for the idiots thinking they are going to take on the military with their guns :oldlol:

[InspiredLebowski]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/nra-promises-meaningful-contributions

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam emails the first statement from the organization since Friday's massacre in Newtown.

National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

[DonDadda59]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/nra-promises-meaningful-contributions

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam emails the first statement from the organization since Friday's massacre in Newtown.


Hopefully it won't be a repeat of THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4)

[bmulls]

Hopefully it won't be a repeat of THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4)

Damn that gave me a boner.

[DonDadda59]

Damn that gave me a boner.

Git er done. :pimp:

[RedBlackAttack]

Damn that gave me a boner.
:cletus:

[General]

[B]A basic rundown for the idiots thinking they are going to take on the military with their guns :oldlol:
The Military can't take down Al Qaeda for good, you think they'll be able to take down a large insurgency of Americans in their own country:oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

The Military can't take down Al Qaeda for good, you think they'll be able to take down a large insurgency of Americans in their own country:oldlol:

Al Qaeda is made up of hardened cave-dwelling fanatics willing to die for their cause. The American 'insurgency' would be made up of obese McDonald's binging, reality TV watching gun club card holders. The uprising would be over once they realized they would miss the American Idol finale.

[RedBlackAttack]

Al Qaeda is made up of hardened cave-dwelling fanatics willing to die for their cause. The American 'insurgency' would be made up of obese McDonald's binging, reality TV watching gun club card holders. The uprising would be over once they realized they would miss the American Idol finale.
Not only that, but Al Qaeda is able to operate through a campaign of fear, which keeps villagers quiet in third world countries. There is a reason they thrive in undeveloped, uneducated parts of the world where they are able to intimidate.

In this case, you would have a relatively tiny band of gun nuts whom the vast majority of the country would despise and actively work against. Even among gun nuts, only a tiny portion would attempt to partake in government overthrow to protect their assault rifles.

They would be decimated in a matter of days if they actually attempted something so grand, which they wouldn't because they are all talk.

[DonDadda59]

Not only that, but Al Qaeda is able to operate through a campaign of fear, which keeps villagers quiet in third world countries. There is a reason they thrive in undeveloped, uneducated parts of the world where they are able to intimidate.

In this case, you would have a relatively tiny band of gun nuts whom the vast majority of the country would despise and actively work against. Even among gun nuts, only a tiny portion would attempt to partake in government overthrow to protect their assault rifles.

They would be decimated in a matter of days if they actually attempted something so grand, which they wouldn't because they are all talk.

In a nutshell :oldlol:

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.

[RedBlackAttack]

In a nutshell :oldlol:

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.
:roll:

[The Real JW]

A theoretical civilian militia would benefit from any firearm advantage. As mentioned, Iraqi insurgents were able to resist the U.S. military despite being outgunned by Apaches, artillery and heavy armor. They actually have an advantage with infantry weapons like AK-47s, heavy machine guns, semi-auto sniper rifles, etc. Although the U.S. military can use weapons better suited for the task, they're just not standard issue now. Either way... a determined, well-armed opponent can make any military bleed, if the military doesn't engage in genocide. The Taliban and Iraqis demonstrated that well enough.

So it's not that fancy luxury weapons wouldn't be useful to U.S. militias. It's that the situation seems extremely unlikely. There's no cohesive, desperate population group in the U.S. that would coordinate to fight government forces, except some cartels like in Mexico. The people that want fancy machine guns want them for entertainment. They are more fun to shoot.

On a killing spree you're typically facing unarmed opponents. You can get celebrity status with a handgun if you choose the right situation. Virginia Tech only used a handgun. Sikh temple was just a handgun. If you want to shoot up a police station where every one of your targets has a handgun, only then do you really need an assault rifle.

[ripthekik]

In a nutshell :oldlol:

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mKgww2ohcsM/TEYEx9DKFkI/AAAAAAAAALM/hFUmnvLkk30/s1600/redneck6tc.jpg
Protectang dey property :pimp:

[guy]

I love the idiotic argument that we shouldn't ban guns because if someone wanted to kill someone they'll do it some other way. Its no different then asking why do we have locks on our doors? If someone wanted to break into your home they could just break through your window anyway.

[flipogb]

lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers

cars serve a purpose that isn't killing or hurting people.

a gun's only purpose is to hurt or kill animals/people

[BMOGEFan]

Thread Date Comment
Feinstein to introduce... 12-18-2012 07:05 AM You're one of the most stupid people I've ever read on this board. I hope you and your family get shot in the next mass shooting.



whoever wrote this...you do know karma is a bitch. And things do tend to bite you in the ass.

[Sarcastic]

A theoretical civilian militia would benefit from any firearm advantage. As mentioned, Iraqi insurgents were able to resist the U.S. military despite being outgunned by Apaches, artillery and heavy armor. They actually have an advantage with infantry weapons like AK-47s, heavy machine guns, semi-auto sniper rifles, etc. Although the U.S. military can use weapons better suited for the task, they're just not standard issue now. Either way... a determined, well-armed opponent can make any military bleed, if the military doesn't engage in genocide. The Taliban and Iraqis demonstrated that well enough.

So it's not that fancy luxury weapons wouldn't be useful to U.S. militias. It's that the situation seems extremely unlikely. There's no cohesive, desperate population group in the U.S. that would coordinate to fight government forces, except some cartels like in Mexico. The people that want fancy machine guns want them for entertainment. They are more fun to shoot.

On a killing spree you're typically facing unarmed opponents. You can get celebrity status with a handgun if you choose the right situation. Virginia Tech only used a handgun. Sikh temple was just a handgun. If you want to shoot up a police station where every one of your targets has a handgun, only then do you really need an assault rifle.


They would only make the military bleed as much as the military was attempting to reduce civilian casualties.

[miller-time]

They would only make the military bleed as much as the military was attempting to reduce civilian casualties.

Exactly. I also love how in one argument they are telling us how safe guns are, and in another they are telling us how useful and powerful they are for defending yourself against the military.

[TheMan]

The Military can't take down Al Qaeda for good, you think they'll be able to take down a large insurgency of Americans in their own country:oldlol:
Al Qaeda>>>>>>bunch of fat rednecks

A lot of Al Qaeda members have fought in actual wars in the middle east, they are battle hardened, fat rednecks on the other hand, are really good at Call of Duty Black Ops.:roll:

[ripthekik]

I love the idiotic argument that we shouldn't ban guns because if someone wanted to kill someone they'll do it some other way. Its no different then asking why do we have locks on our doors? If someone wanted to break into your home they could just break through your window anyway.
Exactly. They don't even think, they just grab anything they can to try to make an argument.

Oh.. a criminal is going to come after me regardless... so who cares if he has a gun or a knife.. I'm going to take my chances.

:facepalm

[Droid101]

http://i50.tinypic.com/2hnb1qq.jpg

[miller-time]

Al Qaeda>>>>>>bunch of fat rednecks

A lot of Al Qaeda members have fought in actual wars in the middle east, they are battle hardened, fat rednecks on the other hand, are really good at Call of Duty Black Ops.:roll:

I think they would have to go back to fighting WW1 armies to even have a chance at all. WW2 is probably where modern armies really take off from competing with civilians.

How would they stop this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress.jpg

Let alone this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/640px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg

[bmulls]

Al Qaeda>>>>>>bunch of fat rednecks

A lot of Al Qaeda members have fought in actual wars in the middle east, they are battle hardened, fat rednecks on the other hand, are really good at Call of Duty Black Ops.:roll:

Fat rednecks?

http://i40.tinypic.com/rvc3lw.jpg

Let's see your pics Studmaster Flex.

[Droid101]

Fat rednecks?

Let's see your pics Studmaster Flex.
You really ARE compensating for something! We were just joshing, too. Hilarious! :lol

[TheMan]

Fat rednecks?

http://i40.tinypic.com/rvc3lw.jpg

Let's see your pics Studmaster Flex.
If that's you, impressive torso, congrats...all them muscles still won't help you against a drone missle:oldlol:

[bmulls]

http://i.imgur.com/5mARU.png

vs this badass:

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Al-Qaeda-Iraq-Baghdadi.jpg

[bmulls]

You really ARE compensating for something! We were just joshing, too. Hilarious! :lol

Nice try, but I'm not gonna post dick pics

[TheMan]

http://i.imgur.com/5mARU.png

vs this badass:

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Al-Qaeda-Iraq-Baghdadi.jpg
bmulls, serious question, have you ever served in the military? Ever been in a war zone?

If you haven't, my money is on that Islamist dude:oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

http://i.imgur.com/5mARU.png

vs this badass:

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Al-Qaeda-Iraq-Baghdadi.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw3w4fQSui1r5jtugo1_500.png

Let's see you do all that flexing while carrying a vest strapped with bombs as you get ready to blow yourself to bits for your cause. Then we'll compare the two.

[InspiredLebowski]

well this got weird

[Droid101]

well this got weird
I know, right? Some pants-wetting ***** started posting pictures of his bare chest (bro workout, NO LEGS BRO) to compensate for his small genitalia.

Weird. I'd close this thread Mr. ModMan.

[bmulls]

bmulls, serious question, have you ever served in the military? Ever been in a war zone?

No, and I fully understand that it is impossible to be ready for something like that unless you have experienced it first hand. I have a profound respect for our soldiers. I just wanted to shut these phagg0t circle jerkers up sitting here acting like every gun owner is a fat Call of Duty playing dumbass American.

[miller-time]

No, and I fully understand that it is impossible to be ready for something like that unless you have experienced it first hand. I have a profound respect for our soldiers. I just wanted to shut these phagg0t circle jerkers up sitting here acting like every gun owner is a fat Call of Duty playing dumbass American.

It is called hyperbole.

[TheMan]

No, and I fully understand that it is impossible to be ready for something like that unless you have experienced it first hand. I have a profound respect for our soldiers. I just wanted to shut these phagg0t circle jerkers up sitting here acting like every gun owner is a fat Call of Duty playing dumbass American.
I understand, I exaggerated for effect...regardless, a battle between you and that Islamist terrorist you posted? No offense but I'm betting that guy is a cold blooded dude who wouldn't hesitate to put a slug in a college guy who's nevet shot at another person.

Islamist willing to die for his cause>>>muscle bound college kid with zero battle experience

[BMOGEFan]

http://i.imgur.com/5mARU.png

vs this badass:

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Al-Qaeda-Iraq-Baghdadi.jpg

his ak-74 is a beautiful machine.

why can't these be sold in America

[sunsfan1357]

Fat rednecks?

http://i40.tinypic.com/rvc3lw.jpg

Let's see your pics Studmaster Flex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

[MJ23forever]

cars serve a purpose that isn't killing or hurting people.

a gun's only purpose is to hurt or kill animals/people
Yet more people are killed by cars each year..

[Nanners]

yeah this thread did get weird. i would put my money on the bearded guy with the ak for sure.

more people die to obesity than cars and guns combined then multiplied 20 times. lets make soda and fast food illegal while we are writing new laws.

[MJ23forever]

You tryna put me in a communist death camp Obamer?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30698330.jpg

Over mah dead body, you commie basterd. John Muthaf*ckin Rambo reporting for duty.

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ObamaPointing.jpg

Obama: Cancel that bitch.

1 drone, 1 shot, 6 heavily armed insurgents down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-dNu5uOQc)

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obama-king.jpg

A basic rundown for the idiots thinking they are going to take on the military with their guns :oldlol:
FYI, much of the military hate the government, even top brass. Especially the Marines.

[D-Rose]

FYI, much the military hate the government, even top brass. Especially the Marines.
Which defeats your own point in our hypothetical "government of America suppresses its own people"...if a dictatorship or oppressive government doesn't have a military behind them, they can't do shit.

[bmulls]

Which defeats your own point in our hypothetical "government of America suppresses its own people"...if a dictatorship or oppressive government doesn't have a military behind them, they can't do shit.

Look at Syria right now. It's rebels vs. the government, but many of the rebels are ex Syrian military. The government is infinitely better equipped with planes and tanks, but the rebels are still gaining ground every day.

[D-Rose]

Look at Syria right now. It's rebels vs. the government, but many of the rebels are ex Syrian military. The government is infinitely better equipped with planes and tanks, but the rebels are still gaining ground every day.
The rebels are equipped and trained mostly by organizations such as terrorist ones and Islamists, they are not merely common civilians such as we have in the West. I don't think the comparison is valid because the Syrian military is far inferior to the United States military, even in relative terms. The gap between military and civilian capabilities is far smaller in 3rd world countries.

The point overall is that the political structure of the United States along with the nature of the military pretty much makes turning on its people in this "Us vs. them" dream scenario as impossible. People need to stop hiding behind that facade, it truly isn't 1776 anymore. This country is the most sovereign in the world, no one dares an invasion and really ever has in modern times.

[Rose]

So much for the old cars kill more people than guns thing.

Even more sickening is almost a thousand killed in mass murders in 4 years. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html)

[bmulls]

So much for the old cars kill more people than guns thing.

Even more sickening is almost a thousand killed in mass murders in 4 years. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html)


The CDC estimates that auto-related deaths--long on the decline as more motorists wear seat-belts and face harsher penalties for drunk driving--will fall to 32,000 in 2015. Deaths from firearms, which include suicides and accidents, are estimated to rise to 33,000 over the same period.
Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides. This figure is still lower than 1993's peak in gun deaths (37,666), but has risen significantly since firearm deaths reached a low in 2000 (28,393). The data goes back to 1979.

We gonna act like these people wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns?

53/85 = 62% of gun deaths are suicides.

Besides which this is pure speculation anyway. 2015? lol

[bmulls]

So now 774 = 1000?

Looks like you missed this too:


Meanwhile, USA Today, which looked at FBI figures, reports that 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer, defined as a person who kills four or more people in one incident. The figures show that mass killers strike on average once every two weeks. A third of the 156 mass killings did not involve firearms, but rather fire, knife or other weapon. Almost all of the mass killers in those years were men, and their average age was 32. The dozens of deaths caused by mass killers represented about 1 percent of all homicides between 2006 and 2010.

You think people weren't gonna read the article?

:kobe:

[Droid101]

We gonna act like these people wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns?

Not as many.

It's easy to press a button and die... if you have to actually sit there and slit your wrists (gruesome) or jump off a bridge or something, a lot less would happen.

[bmulls]

Not as many.

It's easy to press a button and die... if you have to actually sit there and slit your wrists (gruesome) or jump off a bridge or something, a lot less would happen.

Swallow a handful of pills, turn your car on and shut the garage door, etc. Slitting your wrists and jumping off a bridge are not the only options here.

Anyways this is just more evidence that the bigger issue is mental health. Think about it for a second. More people use guns to kill themselves each year than are used to kill other people.

[Rose]

So now 774 = 1000?

Looks like you missed this too:



You think people weren't gonna read the article?

:kobe:
Is it almost a 1000? Yes.

And did I say they were all gun related? No. learn to read.

Also I'm totally fine with people committing suicide by whatever means, even assisted suicide. Go for it. Effects me and the safety of others...not at all.



Also I didn't realize 2015 is only 2 years away! :eek: OH NOES IT'S NOT WORSE THAN CAR DEATHS YET DOE, DON'T WORRY. BUT IN 2015 WE WILL AGREE FOR GUN CONTROL! :facepalm.or find something else that it's only purpose isn't pain/death and say we should take that away too if we're gonna take guns away!

[D-Rose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DuaadYFjwhU

hmm, who would have known Bill O'Reilly could be middle of the road and sensible on this issue...unless this is some major troll attempt lol

[miller-time]

Swallow a handful of pills, turn your car on and shut the garage door, etc. Slitting your wrists and jumping off a bridge are not the only options here.

Anyways this is just more evidence that the bigger issue is mental health. Think about it for a second. More people use guns to kill themselves each year than are used to kill other people.

Although I more agree with you on this point, I think the difference is between guns and other forms of suicide is that the other types generally give the person time to back out. Guns do deliver death very quickly and efficiently. If there were less guns around less people would end up killing themselves (even though the same number of people will attempt suicide). Which means that yes there is an under lying problem here that banning guns won't solve.

[guy]

Swallow a handful of pills, turn your car on and shut the garage door, etc. Slitting your wrists and jumping off a bridge are not the only options here.

Anyways this is just more evidence that the bigger issue is mental health. Think about it for a second. More people use guns to kill themselves each year than are used to kill other people.

Mental health issues and gun issues aren't mutually exclusive.

No one is saying mental health isn't an issue.

And anyway, you can say that suicide incidents have little to do with guns because a person can easily kill himself another way. That's true. But what about innocent people that want to live and and in an incident like this are trying to resist death? 27 deaths in this case would've probably been like 7 or 8 if Lanza was chasing everyone around with a knife instead. Still a tragedy, but lives are saved.

[n00bie]

I think i'm missing the point here. What exactly is the need for assault rifles / semi-automatics? Hand guns & single shot hunting rifles aren't good enough?

What are these "hunters" planning to do to that deer? Spray it with bullets?

[97 bulls]

I think i'm missing the point here. What exactly is the need for assault rifles / semi-automatics? Hand guns & single shot hunting rifles aren't good enough?

What are these "hunters" planning to do to that deer? Spray it with bullets?
I asked this same question. The answer was better accuracy and some other nonsense.

[MJ23forever]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell


http://www.tsowell.com/images/tom_4b.jpg


>But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries

[longhornfan1234]

Details of Feinstein's ridiculous bill.


Quote:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

[RaininThrees]

We gonna act like these people wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns?


[QUOTE]Terry Stadler tears up as he talks about his daughter