Gun Control

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By willpayton

Paranoia + Constant Fear Mongering + Stupidity + Guns =

Would you really feel safe knowing this guy is walking around with a loaded gun? Do you feel safe knowing he probably owns dozens of weapons and might live near you? How about if you're a law enforcement official?

Avatar image for 7am_waking_up_in_the_morning
7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning

3947

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Liberalism

"No one better take my knives or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my guns or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my game console or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my pride or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my opinion or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my makeup or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my food or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my internet or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my legs or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my house or I'm going to start killing people"

Avatar image for soduh2
soduh2

1080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#3  Edited By soduh2
Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Liberalism

"No one better take my knives or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my guns or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my game console or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my pride or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my opinion or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my makeup or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my food or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my internet or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my legs or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my house or I'm going to start killing people"

What?

Avatar image for thespideyguy
thespideyguy

2770

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#5  Edited By thespideyguy

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Tanks and anti aircraft guns too.

Avatar image for deepdown
deepdown

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By deepdown

I am new to this forum and I do not want to stir the pot or cause discord, but I do have to say my piece.

Having been a Federal LEO I and had years of professional training and experience I feel my opinion may be worth something.

No one serious is arguing that civilians have nuclear weapons. Ignore the people, on both sides, who bring those, and other extreme scenarios into the conversation. They are arguing from emotional ignorance. Facts are what need to be examined in context to the whole picture. Also consider the source. It is impressive to say that x number of police chiefs support something, but police chiefs are politicians, appointed by politicians. No one works up through the ranks, and earns the title chief by objective examination like at the lower ranks of patrolman, sergeant, etc. Past work experience is taken into consideration, but ultimately they are political appointments. If a chief takes a stand on any issue, it is done with the political implications in mind. Our major cities, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, etc have some of the toughest gun regulations in the country and the worse violent crime rates. Chicago had over 500 murders last year, and an effective ban on legal gun ownership.

The media. The advent of the 24 hour news cycle has profoundly changed the way we consume news. It is possible to watch the same story being reported on multiple channels for 24 a day before FACTS are known. The commercial (monetary) drive to be the first with a story is the rule rather than the exception. This leads to different so called facts being reported at the same time even though they conflict with each other. Before the police released what weapons were used in the Newton incident, the Medical examiner was stating that the weapon used was a particular assault rifle. He is not qualified to make that type of statement. He is not a ballistic expert. He can determine the cause of death, but not match the bullets to a particular weapon. Police investigators must take their time in these investigations for good reason. They are building cases with facts. Facts take time. Time the media does not want to take to report.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Every firearms purchase is still background checked and has to abide by state laws. Gun dealers cannot do deals in the back alleys because the guns they have for sale are monitored through a bound book system. The dealer logs it in when he receives it, and logs it out when he sells it. The ATF has access and checks these books. The manufacturers also are similarly monitored. It is simply to risky to deal off book. It can mean loss of lively hood and prison time as well as steep fines.

While it is legal to own automatic weapons in the US, it is a lengthy and costly process. People who legally go thorough this process are not the criminal types. No to mention the cost to feed these guns is prohibitive to most people.

In the research I have done I have come to believe that overall society is safer when honest law abiding people have the freedom to procure and keep firearms easily. When you see the type of massacres take place like Newton, they are almost exclusively in gun free zones. Banning so called "assault weapons" or magazines will not stop crime or tragedies. On the contrary encourage legal gun ownership, concealed carry, and open carry. When the state of Florida loosed up on concealed carry restrictions they saw violent crime rates fall dramatically. Also encourage gun ownership and carry among the female population. It is a way for a 120 lb woman, or elderly person to be on equal footing with a larger attacker. Studies have shown that guns are used around 2 million times in this country for defensive purposes successfully. A gun dies not have to be discharged to be used. In the vast majority of cases displaying a gun effectively stops the crime.

I will add links when I have time and my daughter is not requiring attention.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By willpayton

@deepdown said:

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Every firearms purchase is still background checked and has to abide by state laws. Gun dealers cannot do deals in the back alleys because the guns they have for sale are monitored through a bound book system. The dealer logs it in when he receives it, and logs it out when he sells it. The ATF has access and checks these books. The manufacturers also are similarly monitored. It is simply to risky to deal off book. It can mean loss of lively hood and prison time as well as steep fines.

So you're claiming that every sale at a gun show has to go through a federal background check?

You're saying the following from wikipedia is wrong?

From wikipedia article:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms Licenseand perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By willpayton

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Tanks and anti aircraft guns too.

Tanks and anti-aircraft guns dont kill people!

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Tanks and anti aircraft guns too.

Tanks and anti-aircraft guns dont kill people!

All the more reason people should have every right to own them then :)

Avatar image for innervenom123
InnerVenom123

29886

Forum Posts

1786

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#11  Edited By InnerVenom123

Oh, my.

This thread will be enjoyable.

I can tell.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By willpayton

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Tanks and anti aircraft guns too.

Tanks and anti-aircraft guns dont kill people!

All the more reason people should have every right to own them then :)

Hey, Schwarzenegger has his own tank!

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

Tanks and anti aircraft guns too.

Tanks and anti-aircraft guns dont kill people!

All the more reason people should have every right to own them then :)

Hey, Schwarzenegger has his own tank!

No Caption Provided

That is not fair,everyone should be able to own tanks,I mean the military has them so why cant civilians?

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By willpayton

@mrdecepticonleader said:

That is not fair,everyone should be able to own tanks,I mean the military has them so why cant civilians?

Schwarzenegger is a one-man military, didnt you watch Commando? =)

It's true though. When Obama goes all tyrannical and tries to hand over US sovereignty to the UN... only us civilians and our tanks will stand in their way...

LOL

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

That is not fair,everyone should be able to own tanks,I mean the military has them so why cant civilians?

Schwarzenegger is a one-man military, didnt you watch Commando? =)

It's true though. When Obama goes all tyrannical and tries to hand over US sovereignty to the UN... only us civilians and our tanks will stand in their way...

LOL

The US military wont stand a chance.

Avatar image for robocopslayert800
RobocopSlayerT800

2345

Forum Posts

-100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Guns should and always be legal here.

Avatar image for dcsuperman0007
DCsuperman0007

573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By DCsuperman0007

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning: your so ignorant.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By willpayton

@RobocopSlayerT800 said:

Guns should and always be legal here.

The main question is, what guns? The right to own guns doesnt imply any guns, just some guns. We can probably all agree that some restrictions on types of guns and who can own them are a good idea.

Avatar image for xanni15
Xanni15

6791

Forum Posts

36572

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

#19  Edited By Xanni15

I don't think he realizes that he's actually making more people oppose him when he talks like that, rather than agree with him. If someone can have a rational response to what is going on, then fine we'll just have to disagree, but when you're just spewing stuff out of your mouth that's not even worth listening to.

Avatar image for nova_prime_
Nova`Prime`

4172

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Nova`Prime`

@WillPayton said:

@deepdown said:

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Every firearms purchase is still background checked and has to abide by state laws. Gun dealers cannot do deals in the back alleys because the guns they have for sale are monitored through a bound book system. The dealer logs it in when he receives it, and logs it out when he sells it. The ATF has access and checks these books. The manufacturers also are similarly monitored. It is simply to risky to deal off book. It can mean loss of lively hood and prison time as well as steep fines.

So you're claiming that every sale at a gun show has to go through a federal background check?

You're saying the following from wikipedia is wrong?

From wikipedia article:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms Licenseand perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Just had to point out, but that paragraph you cited from Wikipedia has no foot notes or evidence supporting it. So for all I know its just someone making shit up.

Avatar image for tronhammer
TronHammer

948

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 48

#21  Edited By TronHammer

Why is WillPayton spreading liberal propaganda? The bottom line is the citizens of the USA have the right to have guns. The constiturion does not specify numbers, sizes, or any other criteria. The citizens of the USA have to right to have guns. ANY guns. If you don't feet safe in the USA then please leave. Go to another country that has laws and a culture that you favor. Do NOT waste out time attempting to change the laws or the culture of the USA.

Avatar image for deepdown
deepdown

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By deepdown

@WillPayton: You and I are talking about 2 different things. A private sale is like you selling me a comic book, it does not have to take place at a comic convention. Some one not engaged in the business of dealing firearms is not a gun dealer and more than you selling me a comic makes you a comic dealer. Also look up the definitions of interstate and intrastate. Hint, they are similar to internet, and intranet.

I have bought firearms at gun shows. I had a NICS check performed on me at the time.

PS. No, Wikipedia is not considered to be an authoritative source.

Avatar image for kingofash
KingOfAsh

3935

Forum Posts

233

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#23  Edited By KingOfAsh

Not all those inside America may see it, but us outside can. Something has do be done about American gun laws. Say what you want, but almost every month we seem to hear of another school shooting or more violence. When it comes to buying a gun, physical chckups aren't so important as mental checkups. I doubt the King of England wants to invade you again and if he did, you have a rather large army to stop him. Since December 14 there have been 700 gun related deaths.

Avatar image for soduh2
soduh2

1080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#24  Edited By soduh2
Avatar image for tronhammer
TronHammer

948

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 48

#25  Edited By TronHammer

@KingofAsh American gun laws need to be left alone. We'll need to see the facts to support your 'claim'. It does not happen every month. I do have a fact for you. There was a massacre in Africa some years ago where nearly a million people we slaughtered n Rwanda. Were they armed with their own guns? I think not. Had they had their own guns far fewer would have been killed. Whilte it is true that people playing with less than a full deck can and do cause problems it is part of life. Earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and other disasters are simply disasters and are a part of life. If you're worried about crazy people then you can do something about it by volunteering in your community to help take care of them. Leave the rest o society alone so that they may live their lives as they see fit. By the way, who is the king of England?

Avatar image for thespideyguy
thespideyguy

2770

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#26  Edited By thespideyguy

If you want to take away our guns do it in away where you don't take a shit on the constitution. Just tax bullets, that way you don't take away our second amendment.

Avatar image for deepdown
deepdown

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By deepdown

You hear about school shooting an other such tragedies but what you almost never hear about is millions of times a firearms is used defensively in this country. These tragedies occur in UNARMED areas. Facilities where guns are BANNED. This makes them a soft target. Fact, when legal gun ownership increases, violent crime decreases. If you talk to prisoners, they nearly all say that they attacked the person they did because they were unarmed. A gun makes people equal. 100 lb woman or an elderly person can stand up to an attacker much larger and physically more capable than they are. In this country firearms restrictions are based on racism. Numerous gun laws were enacted to keep blacks and poor whites unarmed. If you want to see this in action today look at our leaders pushing for more restrictions while the enjoy the protection of armed protectors for themselves and their families. I am dmned sure that the proper exemptions will be in place for their convenience. The provision of safety in schools is ultimately the responsibility of the family units. Fathers need to raise their children with their mothers in a healthy environment. School districts need to be free to do as they want. I agree that there is no need to turn schools in to armed camps, that is just a misdirection used to confuse the debate with irrationality. Those people need to be ignored. However, defensive capabilities should be used in schools, as well as offensive. Each district should decide what is best for their district. One size fits all, actually fits none, and subverts innovation. It will only create another large bureaucracy that produces nothing but inflated egos surrounded by yes men convincing them of their own superiority, paid for by taxpayers not yet born.

The vast numbers of automatic weapons, or even so called "assault weapons" used in crime, is a Hollywood myth, and politicians lie. If one looks as the data provided by the Uniformed Crime Reports from the FBI, one will see that these crimes are in the absolute extreme minority. Automatic weapons are costly and time consuming to legally own there for rare. The US also has six times the number of population centers over 250,000 than the UK does. This is where the majority of crime happens. Many of these areas have very strict gun control laws. Chicago has some of the strictest, and they had over 500 murders last year. New York, Washington DC, all have very strict laws. Even though the UK violent crime rates may be trending down, they are still much higher than the US rates.

Now to the true purpose of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. They were designed as limits on government. Our rights are not granted to us by the benign graciousness of the government. Our founding fathers saw our rights as coming from God and the constitution was designed as restrictions on the Government, not the people. The framers of the US Constitution had just won a war against the greatest military power on the planet and a tyrannical government. Many of our soldiers had superior weaponry in comparison to the British. The Pennsylvania Rifle. The 2nd Amendment was always intended to acknowledge that the people had a divine right to protect themselves from an oppressive government.

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

Richard Henry Lee

writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."

Zachariah Johnson

Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

Philadelphia Federal Gazette

June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2

Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. 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 the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee

American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry

American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry

American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Thomas Jefferson

Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "

Thomas Jefferson

letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers at 184-8

The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."

Thomas Jefferson

Third President of the United States

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "

Noah Webster

American Lexicographer

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."

Edmund Burke

British Statesman, 1784

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

Thomas Jefferson

to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

American Statesman

Later Quotes on Gun Control

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."

Malcolm Wallop

former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."

Anon.

Seen on a bumper sticker

Pro Gun Control

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Sara Brady

Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum

The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Adolph Hitler

Chancellor, Germany, 1933

Acknowledgements

I did not personally do any research from original documents, but I would like to thank the following sources.

  • "Trader Bob" of Thunder Ridge Muzzleloading who had a selection in various places throughout the catalog.
  • "Colonel Dan" in the Cowboy Chronicle, who always has interesting commentary as well.
  • Marvin H. Meuser, Jr. in the "The Right Voice" has a selection of quotes supplemental to his essays on gun control.

"Never do your foe a minor injury." -- Machiavelli

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

The right to bear arms might just be that,you know you have the right to own a bears arms.

Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8951

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#29  Edited By BiteMe-Fanboy

Ain't going to happen. It would cause too much trouble if they outlawed guns.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By willpayton

@HammerTron said:

Why is WillPayton spreading liberal propaganda? The bottom line is the citizens of the USA have the right to have guns. The constiturion does not specify numbers, sizes, or any other criteria. The citizens of the USA have to right to have guns. ANY guns. If you don't feet safe in the USA then please leave. Go to another country that has laws and a culture that you favor. Do NOT waste out time attempting to change the laws or the culture of the USA.

You sound like you know nothing about what you're talking about. The Supreme Court, not you, interprets the Constitution. And, they have already decided that restrictions on gun ownership are Constitutional. That's a fact, not propaganda. What you are spreading, on the other hand, is ignorance.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By willpayton

@deepdown:

Thank you for the post, but I'm not sure I get your point. Is someone here suggesting that we ban all guns? No, not really. In fact the thread isnt about banning guns at all, but rather about the deranged and dangerous person on the video. Would you like to address the topic of the thread?

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45774

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

#32  Edited By Jonny_Anonymous

guns don't kill pepole, rappers do....

Loading Video...
Avatar image for nefarious
Nefarious

35727

Forum Posts

1020

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#33  Edited By Nefarious

This man is one of the reasons we need gun control. 

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By willpayton

@deepdown said:

@WillPayton: You and I are talking about 2 different things. A private sale is like you selling me a comic book, it does not have to take place at a comic convention. Some one not engaged in the business of dealing firearms is not a gun dealer and more than you selling me a comic makes you a comic dealer. Also look up the definitions of interstate and intrastate. Hint, they are similar to internet, and intranet.

I have bought firearms at gun shows. I had a NICS check performed on me at the time.

PS. No, Wikipedia is not considered to be an authoritative source.

How are we talking about two different things? You said there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" and that's exactly what I'm talking about. I didnt say that Wikipedia is authoritative, I asked you whether what it describes is correct or not, because what it describes is the gun show loophole.

Avatar image for xanni15
Xanni15

6791

Forum Posts

36572

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By Xanni15

Go buy a musket if you want a gun, our ancestors and people who fought for this country used them and got along fine. They do major damage to the body and look cool, plus they take a bit longer to reload so if you miss someone the first time you can make sure you actually want to shoot them the second time.

Avatar image for minigunman123
minigunman123

3262

Forum Posts

558

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By minigunman123

@thespideyguy said:

I think we need more guns. In my town everyone has a gun, and there isn't that much crime.

This isn't actually a bad idea.

In Israel, the school teachers are armed.

Their people are armed to the teeth.

They're one of the best fighting forces in modern history.

Aaaand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Israel is pretty low in gun-related homicides.

Firearm-related doesn't necessarily mean "caused by someone firing a gun at someone else" either. It might mean "someone tried to rob a gun store" or something. I didn't look it up though.

I used Wikipedia because it is easy to find, and it has proper citations for the article I posted. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. So, yes, more guns is one way to go, if we do it smart. Fewer guns means people will do one of two things:

A: get guns illegally

B: start using other objects as weapons.

Moreover, guns aren't even the main problem.

America has only roughly a million more crimes than the UK (which reportedly had over 9 million crimes in 2011/2012), one of the shining examples of "gun control in action", but we have many more times the population they do (5+ times their population by my reckoning). The UK also had 880,000 "violence against persons" crimes in 2008-2009, in only England and Wales, compared to America's ~1.4mil in the same year. (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html). Over five times the population... Not even twice as much violent crime, and only counting part of the UK.

Seems to me America's pretty great overall, except we're all killing each other, instead of causing fistfights and lighting stuff on fire like in the UK.

The problem is mental health caused by food and drugs. America has crap processed food, and way too many drugs, leading to deterioration of mental health. Many places in Europe including, to the best of my knowledge, the UK, are not nearly as drug-happy as the States are, and have more locally grown and less processed foods.

So, no. Guns are not the problem. More guns might be a good short-term solution to keeping people alive, in some scenarios, though. Arming teachers? Depends on if the teacher's safe, and go through a more-rigorous-than-usual background check... If they're fine, great. Now they can defend against the school shootings that have become the focus of so much media this last year.

Avatar image for thesecondopinion
TheSecondOpinion

625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By TheSecondOpinion

@mrdecepticonleader said:

The right to bear arms

That sounds so funny coming from Megatron.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@TheSecondOpinion said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

The right to bear arms

That sounds so funny coming from Megatron.

:)

"Peace through tyranny"

Avatar image for vercingetorixthegreat
VercingetorixTheGreat

2851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Kids used to be able to come to school with their hunting rifles.

Guns haven't changed at all, we as people have changed. Our culture has glorified violence and criminals and now we are paying the price.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Vaeternus

@Nova`Prime` said:

@WillPayton said:

@deepdown said:

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Every firearms purchase is still background checked and has to abide by state laws. Gun dealers cannot do deals in the back alleys because the guns they have for sale are monitored through a bound book system. The dealer logs it in when he receives it, and logs it out when he sells it. The ATF has access and checks these books. The manufacturers also are similarly monitored. It is simply to risky to deal off book. It can mean loss of lively hood and prison time as well as steep fines.

So you're claiming that every sale at a gun show has to go through a federal background check?

You're saying the following from wikipedia is wrong?

From wikipedia article:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms Licenseand perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Just had to point out, but that paragraph you cited from Wikipedia has no foot notes or evidence supporting it. So for all I know its just someone making shit up.

What he said ^. Wiki with various things are indeed off or wrong. I'm guessing some folks aren't aware that ANYONE can edit wikipedia right and it's known for being off on various topics?

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Liberalism

"No one better take my knives or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my guns or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my game console or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my pride or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my opinion or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my makeup or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my food or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my internet or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my legs or I'm going to start killing people"

"No one better take my house or I'm going to start killing people"

Pretty much...

From blaming violent vid games to "omg let's ban all guns, that'll solve the problem and make people stop killing others" lol

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By willpayton

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Vaeternus

@WillPayton said:

No Caption Provided

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Actually, yes it does happen...you just don't hear about it from the lamestream media because they pick and choose what to report...

Let me ask you then, what do you think people did before guns were even a thought/invented huh? By that logic, no guns=no deaths. Sorry, but that logic fails on all accounts being as how some of the most known serial killers, murderers in history did so WITHOUT a gun...

The strip proves my point, it just flew over your head apparently...blaming guns or violent games is the most retarded excuse in history when the reality is people need to take responsibility for killing people whether it being a gun or a bat or an arsonist. It doesn't matter...besides I can name you several ways to kill "multiple" people without a gun...

Yes, that's one unfortunate incident that killed 14-20 people..Ok, that's too easy to debunk. How about 9/11? Guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize 3,000+ people died that one day without ONE bullet fired...the hijackers got on the planes with small knives to the pilot's throats...and flew/took control of the planes themselves and flew them into buildings on top of the planes/buildings being filled with thousands of people in total yet funny...that was all done with a knife, intimidation and lots of fuel. Not one gun... Where's your "guns kill people" theory then? Oh wait, there weren't any...I rest my case. So by your logic, we should ban planes then? Yes? lol

Clearly you miss the point of the strip, it's not getting knowledge from a mere comic strip. So allow me to explain it to you. It's posting the truth through jest. Sorry, you were proved wrong. The point of the strip is people kill dozens or multiple people WITHOUT guns each year, they're called serial killers or pattern killers where they pick and choose victims over monthly periods before getting caught. So how is that any different then a nutjob with a gun taking out 10 people at once? I mean a life is a life, who cares how someone did it.

Guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people, but hey feel free to live in a liberal bubble where "guns and violent games" are the cause of nutjobs...

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By willpayton

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Actually, yes it does happen...you just don't hear about it from the lamestream media because they pick and choose what to report...

Let me ask you then, what do you think people did before guns were even a thought/invented huh? By that logic, no guns=no deaths. Sorry, but that logic fails on all accounts being as how some of the most known serial killers, murderers in history did so WITHOUT a gun...

The strip proves my point, it just flew over your head apparently...blaming guns or violent games is the most retarded excuse in history when the reality is people need to take responsibility for killing people whether it being a gun or a bat or an arsonist. It doesn't matter...besides I can name you several ways to kill "multiple" people without a gun...

Yes, that's one incident. How about 9/11? Guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize 3,000+ people died that day without ONE bullet fired...the hijackers got on the planes with small knives to the pilot's throats...and flew the planes into buildings on top of the planes being filled with thousands of people in total yet funny...that was all done with a knife, intimidation and lots of fuel. Where's your "guns kill people" theory then? Oh wait, there weren't any...I rest my case.

Clearly you miss the point of the strip, it's not getting knowledge from a mere comic strip. So allow me to explain it to you. It's posting the truth through jest. Sorry, you were proved wrong.

I did not miss the point of the strip, but the strip misses the point of the current gun-control argument, and you missed the point of my reply.

The strip, and people posting here on the pro-gun side, are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that you cant kill without a gun. No one is saying that we should ban all guns. No one is saying that we shouldnt have the right to own guns for self defense. This is not all happening because someone shot one person with a gun. I could try to explain this further, but since you didnt really read what I posted before, I have a feeling you'll just reply again with "The strip proves my point!".

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By Vaeternus

@WillPayton

I did not miss the point of the strip, but the strip misses the point of the current gun-control argument, and you missed the point of my reply.

The strip, and people posting here on the pro-gun side, are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that you cant kill without a gun. No one is saying that we should ban all guns. No one is saying that we shouldnt have the right to own guns for self defense. This is not all happening because someone shot one person with a gun. I could try to explain this further, but since you didnt really read what I posted before, I have a feeling you'll just reply again with "The strip proves my point!".

The strip covers it with using other methods of killing people, notice when the guy kills people with "other methods" the guy opposed to guns in the strip says nothing...but when he kills someone using a gun, he says something. Why's that? Since that's how everyone who is obsessed with gun control feels..

No I didn't miss anything, you misunderstood me by saying "some of us don't form opinions based on a strip" Hardly the case, I already formed my opinion long before I found that strip. I among others in here as I've noticed are trying to tell you that A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can't just have crazy gun control laws or bans because it won't do much and B. It's statistically proven that states with less strict gun laws tend to have less crime. Just click the links others have posted.

Yet, the most strict states with gun laws have the most crime most of the time. And again, speaking from life experience and where I live in NYC, we're one of the most liberal, anti-gun, strict states with it yet people get shot daily here...is it the worst crime wise? No. But do people still get shot regardless of "gun laws and tight gun control"? Yes. Nobody is attacking a straw man, we're merely upholding our constitutional rights and amendments that we wish to keep. Which the radicals anti-gun want to take away. So, you have a few crazies out there who happen to kill people with guns and you want to take everything away from everyone? That's not right. Let me ask you something, if Obama said tomorrow "I'm banning cars because of drunk drivers" and you have a car, you'll be 100% fine with that? I mean, a car can be deadly too and does indeed cause numerous deaths year in, year out drunk and non-drunk drivers...

Same with other things I've already posted, 9/11 was a rare thing yet are planes outlawed? Nope.

I understand what you're saying but we're all saying gun bans or gun control, either or won't solve anything. All you''ll be doing is inviting more illegal guns and more rebels doing everything in their power gaining access to guns. You also just contradicted yourself, you said before going on about assault rifles holding 100 rounds being an issue...that's a gun last time I checked, a firearm is it not? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. One second you're saying have strict laws on guns because of that incident implying you can't kill people without that one weapon, now you're saying otherwise?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Actually, yes it does happen...you just don't hear about it from the lamestream media because they pick and choose what to report...

Let me ask you then, what do you think people did before guns were even a thought/invented huh? By that logic, no guns=no deaths. Sorry, but that logic fails on all accounts being as how some of the most known serial killers, murderers in history did so WITHOUT a gun...

The strip proves my point, it just flew over your head apparently...blaming guns or violent games is the most retarded excuse in history when the reality is people need to take responsibility for killing people whether it being a gun or a bat or an arsonist. It doesn't matter...besides I can name you several ways to kill "multiple" people without a gun...

Yes, that's one incident. How about 9/11? Guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize 3,000+ people died that day without ONE bullet fired...the hijackers got on the planes with small knives to the pilot's throats...and flew the planes into buildings on top of the planes being filled with thousands of people in total yet funny...that was all done with a knife, intimidation and lots of fuel. Where's your "guns kill people" theory then? Oh wait, there weren't any...I rest my case.

Clearly you miss the point of the strip, it's not getting knowledge from a mere comic strip. So allow me to explain it to you. It's posting the truth through jest. Sorry, you were proved wrong.

I did not miss the point of the strip, but the strip misses the point of the current gun-control argument, and you missed the point of my reply.

The strip, and people posting here on the pro-gun side, are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that you cant kill without a gun. No one is saying that we should ban all guns. No one is saying that we shouldnt have the right to own guns for self defense. This is not all happening because someone shot one person with a gun. I could try to explain this further, but since you didnt really read what I posted before, I have a feeling you'll just reply again with "The strip proves my point!".

The strip covers it with using other methods of killing people, notice when the guy kills people with "other methods" the guy opposed to guns in the strip says nothing...but when he kills someone using a gun, he says something. Why's that? Since that's how everyone who is obsessed with gun control feels..

No I didn't miss anything, you misunderstood me by saying "some of us don't form opinions based on a strip" Hardly the case, I already formed my opinion long before I found that strip. I among others in here as I've noticed are trying to tell you that A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can't just have crazy gun control laws or bans because it won't do much and B. It's statistically proven that states with less strict gun laws tend to have less crime. Just click the links others have posted.

Yet, the most strict states with gun laws have the most crime most of the time. And again, speaking from life experience and where I live in NYC, we're one of the most liberal, anti-gun, strict states with it yet people get shot daily here...is it the worst crime wise? No. But do people still get shot regardless of "gun laws and tight gun control"? Yes. Nobody is attacking a straw man, we're merely upholding our constitutional rights and amendments that we wish to keep. Which the radicals anti-gun want to take away. So, you have a few crazies out there who happen to kill people with guns and you want to take everything away from everyone? That's not right. Let me ask you something, if Obama said tomorrow "I'm banning cars because of drunk drivers" and you have a car, you'll be 100% fine with that? I mean, a car can be deadly too and does indeed cause numerous deaths year in, year out drunk and non-drunk drivers...

Same with other things I've already posted, 9/11 was a rare thing yet are planes outlawed? Nope.

I understand what you're saying but we're all saying gun bans or gun control, either or won't solve anything. All you''ll be doing is inviting more illegal guns and more rebels doing everything in their power gaining access to guns. You also just contradicted yourself, you said before going on about assault rifles holding 100 rounds being an issue...that's a gun last time I checked, a firearm is it not? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. One second you're saying have strict laws on guns because of that incident implying you can't kill people without that one weapon, now you're saying otherwise?

I am just going to say that gun control would probably help matters,since the recent shootings might of been avoided if the person had,ha background checks and a psychological assessment.

Avatar image for jokergeist
Jokergeist

4713

Forum Posts

568

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By Jokergeist

Steps for Gun Control:

Step One: Ban real guns

Step Two: Give everyone these

No Caption Provided

Sincerely,

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By Vaeternus

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Actually, yes it does happen...you just don't hear about it from the lamestream media because they pick and choose what to report...

Let me ask you then, what do you think people did before guns were even a thought/invented huh? By that logic, no guns=no deaths. Sorry, but that logic fails on all accounts being as how some of the most known serial killers, murderers in history did so WITHOUT a gun...

The strip proves my point, it just flew over your head apparently...blaming guns or violent games is the most retarded excuse in history when the reality is people need to take responsibility for killing people whether it being a gun or a bat or an arsonist. It doesn't matter...besides I can name you several ways to kill "multiple" people without a gun...

Yes, that's one incident. How about 9/11? Guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize 3,000+ people died that day without ONE bullet fired...the hijackers got on the planes with small knives to the pilot's throats...and flew the planes into buildings on top of the planes being filled with thousands of people in total yet funny...that was all done with a knife, intimidation and lots of fuel. Where's your "guns kill people" theory then? Oh wait, there weren't any...I rest my case.

Clearly you miss the point of the strip, it's not getting knowledge from a mere comic strip. So allow me to explain it to you. It's posting the truth through jest. Sorry, you were proved wrong.

I did not miss the point of the strip, but the strip misses the point of the current gun-control argument, and you missed the point of my reply.

The strip, and people posting here on the pro-gun side, are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that you cant kill without a gun. No one is saying that we should ban all guns. No one is saying that we shouldnt have the right to own guns for self defense. This is not all happening because someone shot one person with a gun. I could try to explain this further, but since you didnt really read what I posted before, I have a feeling you'll just reply again with "The strip proves my point!".

The strip covers it with using other methods of killing people, notice when the guy kills people with "other methods" the guy opposed to guns in the strip says nothing...but when he kills someone using a gun, he says something. Why's that? Since that's how everyone who is obsessed with gun control feels..

No I didn't miss anything, you misunderstood me by saying "some of us don't form opinions based on a strip" Hardly the case, I already formed my opinion long before I found that strip. I among others in here as I've noticed are trying to tell you that A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can't just have crazy gun control laws or bans because it won't do much and B. It's statistically proven that states with less strict gun laws tend to have less crime. Just click the links others have posted.

Yet, the most strict states with gun laws have the most crime most of the time. And again, speaking from life experience and where I live in NYC, we're one of the most liberal, anti-gun, strict states with it yet people get shot daily here...is it the worst crime wise? No. But do people still get shot regardless of "gun laws and tight gun control"? Yes. Nobody is attacking a straw man, we're merely upholding our constitutional rights and amendments that we wish to keep. Which the radicals anti-gun want to take away. So, you have a few crazies out there who happen to kill people with guns and you want to take everything away from everyone? That's not right. Let me ask you something, if Obama said tomorrow "I'm banning cars because of drunk drivers" and you have a car, you'll be 100% fine with that? I mean, a car can be deadly too and does indeed cause numerous deaths year in, year out drunk and non-drunk drivers...

Same with other things I've already posted, 9/11 was a rare thing yet are planes outlawed? Nope.

I understand what you're saying but we're all saying gun bans or gun control, either or won't solve anything. All you''ll be doing is inviting more illegal guns and more rebels doing everything in their power gaining access to guns. You also just contradicted yourself, you said before going on about assault rifles holding 100 rounds being an issue...that's a gun last time I checked, a firearm is it not? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. One second you're saying have strict laws on guns because of that incident implying you can't kill people without that one weapon, now you're saying otherwise?

I am just going to say that gun control would probably help matters,since the recent shootings might of been avoided if the person had,ha background checks and a psychological assessment.

I think it's debatable honestly. The conn shooting that state has one of the most strict gun laws...yet it still happened. Just saying and I live in NY which also has strict gun laws and people still get show here every day.

I'm all for background checks, permits etc things that should be common sense but I'm not for taking people's guns away.

I can honestly see some people's points with perhaps increase guns with certain occupations such as bus drivers, teachers etc. I'm all for the good guy having something to defend himself/herself too. It'll make people who want to just shoot people think twice at least.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@Vaeternus said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

@WillPayton said:

@Vaeternus said:

This comic strip says it all lol

No Caption Provided

Where's the comic strip where the guy beats 20 people to death with the stick?

Oh, wait, that doesnt happen.

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why someone who wants to kill dozens at a movie theater would use an assault riffle w/ 100 round drum magazine instead of a stick.

Some of us dont get our opinions about solving complex social problems from comic strips.

Actually, yes it does happen...you just don't hear about it from the lamestream media because they pick and choose what to report...

Let me ask you then, what do you think people did before guns were even a thought/invented huh? By that logic, no guns=no deaths. Sorry, but that logic fails on all accounts being as how some of the most known serial killers, murderers in history did so WITHOUT a gun...

The strip proves my point, it just flew over your head apparently...blaming guns or violent games is the most retarded excuse in history when the reality is people need to take responsibility for killing people whether it being a gun or a bat or an arsonist. It doesn't matter...besides I can name you several ways to kill "multiple" people without a gun...

Yes, that's one incident. How about 9/11? Guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize 3,000+ people died that day without ONE bullet fired...the hijackers got on the planes with small knives to the pilot's throats...and flew the planes into buildings on top of the planes being filled with thousands of people in total yet funny...that was all done with a knife, intimidation and lots of fuel. Where's your "guns kill people" theory then? Oh wait, there weren't any...I rest my case.

Clearly you miss the point of the strip, it's not getting knowledge from a mere comic strip. So allow me to explain it to you. It's posting the truth through jest. Sorry, you were proved wrong.

I did not miss the point of the strip, but the strip misses the point of the current gun-control argument, and you missed the point of my reply.

The strip, and people posting here on the pro-gun side, are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that you cant kill without a gun. No one is saying that we should ban all guns. No one is saying that we shouldnt have the right to own guns for self defense. This is not all happening because someone shot one person with a gun. I could try to explain this further, but since you didnt really read what I posted before, I have a feeling you'll just reply again with "The strip proves my point!".

The strip covers it with using other methods of killing people, notice when the guy kills people with "other methods" the guy opposed to guns in the strip says nothing...but when he kills someone using a gun, he says something. Why's that? Since that's how everyone who is obsessed with gun control feels..

No I didn't miss anything, you misunderstood me by saying "some of us don't form opinions based on a strip" Hardly the case, I already formed my opinion long before I found that strip. I among others in here as I've noticed are trying to tell you that A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can't just have crazy gun control laws or bans because it won't do much and B. It's statistically proven that states with less strict gun laws tend to have less crime. Just click the links others have posted.

Yet, the most strict states with gun laws have the most crime most of the time. And again, speaking from life experience and where I live in NYC, we're one of the most liberal, anti-gun, strict states with it yet people get shot daily here...is it the worst crime wise? No. But do people still get shot regardless of "gun laws and tight gun control"? Yes. Nobody is attacking a straw man, we're merely upholding our constitutional rights and amendments that we wish to keep. Which the radicals anti-gun want to take away. So, you have a few crazies out there who happen to kill people with guns and you want to take everything away from everyone? That's not right. Let me ask you something, if Obama said tomorrow "I'm banning cars because of drunk drivers" and you have a car, you'll be 100% fine with that? I mean, a car can be deadly too and does indeed cause numerous deaths year in, year out drunk and non-drunk drivers...

Same with other things I've already posted, 9/11 was a rare thing yet are planes outlawed? Nope.

I understand what you're saying but we're all saying gun bans or gun control, either or won't solve anything. All you''ll be doing is inviting more illegal guns and more rebels doing everything in their power gaining access to guns. You also just contradicted yourself, you said before going on about assault rifles holding 100 rounds being an issue...that's a gun last time I checked, a firearm is it not? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. One second you're saying have strict laws on guns because of that incident implying you can't kill people without that one weapon, now you're saying otherwise?

I am just going to say that gun control would probably help matters,since the recent shootings might of been avoided if the person had,ha background checks and a psychological assessment.

I think it's debatable honestly. The conn shooting that state has one of the most strict gun laws...yet it still happened. Just saying and I live in NY which also has strict gun laws and people still get show here every day.

I'm all for background checks, permits etc things that should be common sense but I'm not for taking people's guns away.

I can honestly see some people's points with perhaps increase guns with certain occupations such as bus drivers, teachers etc. I'm all for the good guy having something to defend himself/herself too. It'll make people who want to just shoot people think twice at least.

I think the laws could be stricter.And more could be done that way,

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By willpayton

@Vaeternus said:

The strip covers it with using other methods of killing people, notice when the guy kills people with "other methods" the guy opposed to guns in the strip says nothing...but when he kills someone using a gun, he says something. Why's that? Since that's how everyone who is obsessed with gun control feels..

The strip suggests that people get upset when someone kills someone with a gun, but not with other means. That completely misses the point of the current debate because, among other things, the debate is not about 1 person killing 1 person with 1 gun. The whole, entire issue is that 1 person can kill 20 (or more) people with 1 gun. Do you really not see this? The strip is a straw man. If the Sandy Hook shooting, or the Aurora shooting, had been 1 guy that went berserk and shot 1 person, we would not be having this discussion.

The entire issue is that there are weapons that are meant for war, that can hold 10, 15, 30, and up to 100 rounds of ammo in their magazines, and that are easy to get. They are efficient killing machines, that are easily accessible to criminals and mentally ill people, and they are being used to commit mass murder. Where is that in your comic strip?

@Vaeternus said:

No I didn't miss anything, you misunderstood me by saying "some of us don't form opinions based on a strip" Hardly the case, I already formed my opinion long before I found that strip. I among others in here as I've noticed are trying to tell you that A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can't just have crazy gun control laws or bans because it won't do much and B. It's statistically proven that states with less strict gun laws tend to have less crime. Just click the links others have posted.

Fine, you didnt form your opinion based on the strip. But, you're now using the strip to make a straw man argument.

Yes, people kill people. Guns just make it much easier.

Who said anything about "crazy gun control"? In fact, when did I even say anything about any specific gun control measures?

@Vaeternus said:

Yet, the most strict states with gun laws have the most crime most of the time. And again, speaking from life experience and where I live in NYC, we're one of the most liberal, anti-gun, strict states with it yet people get shot daily here...is it the worst crime wise? No. But do people still get shot regardless of "gun laws and tight gun control"? Yes. Nobody is attacking a straw man, we're merely upholding our constitutional rights and amendments that we wish to keep. Which the radicals anti-gun want to take away. So, you have a few crazies out there who happen to kill people with guns and you want to take everything away from everyone? That's not right. Let me ask you something, if Obama said tomorrow "I'm banning cars because of drunk drivers" and you have a car, you'll be 100% fine with that? I mean, a car can be deadly too and does indeed cause numerous deaths year in, year out drunk and non-drunk drivers...

I would not be fine with banning cars, not am I fine with banning guns. Why are you asking me, did I say somewhere that I was for banning guns? Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

As far as the Constitution, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, not you. And, they already ruled that guns can be restricted.

@Vaeternus said:

I understand what you're saying but we're all saying gun bans or gun control, either or won't solve anything. All you''ll be doing is inviting more illegal guns and more rebels doing everything in their power gaining access to guns. You also just contradicted yourself, you said before going on about assault rifles holding 100 rounds being an issue...that's a gun last time I checked, a firearm is it not? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. One second you're saying have strict laws on guns because of that incident implying you can't kill people without that one weapon, now you're saying otherwise?

You can say that gun control wont solve anything, but unless you define what you mean by "gun control" then I have no idea what you're talking about. To you "gun control" could mean something completely different than what it means to me.

I didnt imply you cant kill people without guns. Where did I imply that? I'm talking specifically about the difference between having a knife and having an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine. I'm pro-gun and pro-self defense. But, I dont need an assault rifle with a 30 or 100-round magazine for self-defense. If getting rid of them means less people will get killed, then I'm willing to consider that as an option.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By willpayton

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I think the laws could be stricter.And more could be done that way,

Soooo.... you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, you hate America and our freedoms, and want to ban guns? You're as bad as Hitler! What's next, do you want to ban butter knives?

LOL... sorry, I was pretending to be a pro-gun nut there for a second. =)

But seriously, why do you hate America?