Printable View
[QUOTE=bmulls]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?[/QUOTE]
Are you even comparing the two? Currently, guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product.
[IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG]
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG]
Why didn't the "NO GUNS" policy work?! [B]Now consider why teachers in Israel are armed.
[/B]
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.[/QUOTE]
Don't be daft..they are constantly threatened by terrorist attacks around them, this is a completely different situation. :facepalm
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]
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.[/QUOTE]
nonsense
[url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weapagetab.cfm[/url]
[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
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 [U]need[/U] 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 [U]want[/U] 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.
[QUOTE=shlver]Are you even comparing the two? Currently, [B]guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product[/B].[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]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 [U]need[/U] 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 [U]want[/U] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]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 [U]need[/U] 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. [B]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. [/B] 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 [U]want[/U] 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.[/QUOTE]
This:
[IMG]http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif[/IMG]
Vs
This (AKA what 'tyranny' is packing nowadays instead of single-shot muskets)
[IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/06/article-2155099-0E294D5700000578-288_634x377.jpg[/IMG]
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:
[IMG]http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-used-by-adam-lanza-in-shooting-owned-by-nancy-lanza.jpg[/IMG]
Fighting the illuminati or whatever imagined 'tyrannical' government body justifies a suburban CT mother with a disturbed child having this in her home? :wtf:
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]
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.
[/QUOTE]
"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
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]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? [B]to make someone act like an idiot?[/B][/QUOTE]
No one is saying alcohol is a particularly good thing. This is the thing though. It doesn't matter if [B]everyone[/B] 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.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]This:
[IMG]http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif[/IMG]
These are the guns that the shooter used in Sandy Hook:
[IMG]http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-used-by-adam-lanza-in-shooting-owned-by-nancy-lanza.jpg[/IMG]
Fighting the illuminati or whatever imagined 'tyrannical' government body justifies a suburban CT mother with a disturbed child having this in her home? :wtf:[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]
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.[/QUOTE]
Gun crime happens to like .003% of Americans, honestly its not a problem like the media makes it out to be.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]Gun crime happens to like .003% of Americans, honestly its not a problem like the media makes it out to be.[/QUOTE]
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?
>With one shot, an off-duty sheriff
[IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
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...
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]First that mall CCW guy and now this, things are looking up. Of course these stories won't go national.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
They go through extensive training as essentially reserves for the Swiss forces. It's not even close to the same thing :facepalm
[IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=magnax1]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 [B]make some slight cultural changes[/B].
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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).
[QUOTE=magnax1]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
according to kevinNYCs thread, switzerland has one of the higher gun related murder rates in the developed world.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284531[/url]
[IMG]http://oi45.tinypic.com/sb4w21.jpg[/IMG]
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.
[IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/oqfv4z.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/2hpoh0w.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/2hpoh0w.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/67rxgl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
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.
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?
[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]
You argument is completely flawed, you're comparing apples to watermelons and just trolling.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]You argument is completely flawed, you're comparing apples to watermelons and just trolling.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]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.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jpg[/IMG]
Just ignore this moron and move on.
[QUOTE=Droid101][IMG]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jpg[/IMG]
Just ignore this moron and move on.[/QUOTE]
In other words "pretend he dosen't exist so we can continue to act as though our opinions are unrefuted fact". :oldlol:
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]In other words "pretend he dosen't exist so we can continue to act as though our opinions are unrefuted fact". :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
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.
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.