Gun Control

  • 424 results
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • ...
  • 9
Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8951

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#201  Edited By BiteMe-Fanboy

I will never support banning guns. IF they are banned, I guess I will just get arrested for refusing to give my guns up.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#202  Edited By isaac_clarke

@minigunman123 said:

1. No gun that is still currently allowed in civilian hands is used solely to kill people (and hell, even decommissioned tanks aren't for killing, people just like to collect stuff.) Recreational activities and gun collecting, as well as self defense and hunting, are all valid reasons to own a gun outside of any armed military or police force. Ever seen an M4 carbine in the hands of a decently skilled marksman? I've actually shot one, very powerful, very fun, very effective. This makes it useful for many civilian activities besides criminal activities. You oversimplified what guns are and do.

2. Refer to above.

Useful for many civilian activities? I understand people like to hunt, they like to collect things and have fun doing things; I don't get this demand to have semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons easily accessible to all. Call me silly when I don't think civilians should be sporting weapons of war because they're fun or they want them (which honestly isn't much of a justification to allow much of anything to still be circulation).

They are tools to blow holes in whatever is in-front of you, they aren't toys, they aren't trading cards and the only acceptable scenario they should be in the arms of non-soldiers should be in very controlled situations. Feel free to disagree.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke said:

1. That thing(s) that serves no other purpose in our society outside gunning down and killing multiple people.

Evidence for this please.

Evidence of what? The killing potential of select semi or fully automatic weapons?

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#203  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Avatar image for AssertingValor
AssertingValor

8401

Forum Posts

6403

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 64

#204  Edited By AssertingValor

My weapons were confiscated by the 5o :/

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#205  Edited By isaac_clarke

@Vaeternus said:

Wrong. Deleted post means you make a post, then literally "delete" it it even says so underneath each person's post via your own profile options

Reply, quote, edit, delete and flag.

I chose edit because i realized i'd only be wasting my breath.

lol, nope sorry but again I asked you to quote me in this topic "flaming or cursing anyone" and you failed to do so because you have no/ that's 0% evidence because again as I said, i never did.You merely posted an old post from yt another site addressing someone else nobody in this topic, which is not only irrelevant but against screams desperation on your part. How does me pointing out biden's hypocrisy prove I'm cursing? i don't believe you know what cursing or flaming really is....

You had an entire post dedicated to defending yourself; its gone. It wasn't just a sentence or short response and you already wasted your breath writing it.

I like how you make up a quote and claim that is what you said, despite what you said being quoted already. You asked for proof of cursing, I brought up two instances in one of your posts in this thread. Read page 11, 2nd post for reference to the use of profanity, straight from this thread.

You brought up fictitious arguments where Biden was out to get video games based off nothing. You kept muttering about a lack of controversy over crossbows, despite that also not being the case.

@Vaeternus said:

Nah, if anything you're my worst enemy on here giving me grielf over nothing, well difference in opinions but then most people with your mentality are like that. Actually, yeah I asked for proof of me flaming or cursing anyone out in here and you post a yt post from my yt name from a year ago practically...which proves nothing. Again, quote proof of me doing such from this topic I haven't. You're trying to use yt to compensate for your already lacking argument.

If I'm your worst enemy, then you're my best bud in these arguments - you give me everything in these arguments with what you write and it is all easily available for everyone who wants to bring up your past to do so in an argument. You're getting repetitive.

@Vaeternus said:

I'm well aware of what hate speech is and again, there's no evidence here to support in this topic to prove I've done "hate speech" as you say, when i say "lib" that's not an insult, it's short for "liberal" for you to take offense to that just goes to show how off you are, unless you feel the word liberal is some how a bad word?lol you said it, not me. I merely disagree with radical liberal mentality and philosophy.

I'm sure you do, the problem is you pretend you don't. Hate Speech isn't singular words, it is what follows when you write liberal or lib in your arguments that constitute as hate speech with anything you associate with liberalism.

@Vaeternus said:

p.s. your post addressing noose's point just proves you have a one tracked mind of where you hear guns=you automatically think omg guns are used for evil and nothing but!!!

Really? and shall i post tons of evidence that proves otherwise where guns have helped protect people or saved lives?

Call it whatever you want, people shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms that realistically have no purpose outside war and killing multiple targets. They aren't toys and people arguing they should be allowed for purchase because they're "fun" are being unrealistic.

This evidence?

Loading Video...

Rocket launchers, F-16's or hell anything that explodes or blows things up is a lot fun. Doesn't mean the US should open its armories to hand this stuff out to civilians that want to purchase it.

People need to start living in the reality that this stuff isn't for civilians to have for whatever.

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#206  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#207  Edited By isaac_clarke

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

So that random guy on the street not being able to buy an AK-47 encourages victimization? Glad people from the 1700's are being channeled to devise what regulations should be placed on firearms now.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Which one protects me from shadowy assailants and which one do I use to go hunting?

Avatar image for masterjohn
MasterJohn

2663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#208  Edited By MasterJohn

Loading Video...

4:35 This is the scary rifle your trying to ban, when fully automatic Military weapons have been banned ever since 1934.

You can obviously hunt with an AR-15. Now it does depend on the clips, but banning the rifle itself? Come on, it looks scary but it's absoloutly HARMLESS.

Loading Video...

1:15 You are trying to ban this.

Loading Video...

The scary fully automatic military assault style weapon demonic weapon you want to ban.

Oh wait, you mean the FULLY auto AR-15.

Loading Video...

You realize these aren't available to the public, right? nly automatic weapons that are registered in 1986 and prior models are able to be obtained by citizens with extensive background checks, paperwork, and a tax stamp. And appearently, the shooters STill Got them. Gun laws WON'T prevent newtown.

Avatar image for masterjohn
MasterJohn

2663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#209  Edited By MasterJohn

Everyone, the AR-15 is a sporting rifle. It is not the scary weapon that Feinstein, Obama, and all these vassals here on Comicvine want you to think. That is an fully automatic assault weapon which as been BANNED from the public since 1934 and unobtainiable unless extensive backround checks, Paperwork, and a tax stamp. Do NOT think a criminal can just walk into a place and buy a fully automatic scary assault weapon. It's untrue, you can hunt with a AR-15. Period.

/thread

Avatar image for minigunman123
minigunman123

3262

Forum Posts

558

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#210  Edited By minigunman123

@isaac_clarke said:

@minigunman123 said:

1. No gun that is still currently allowed in civilian hands is used solely to kill people (and hell, even decommissioned tanks aren't for killing, people just like to collect stuff.) Recreational activities and gun collecting, as well as self defense and hunting, are all valid reasons to own a gun outside of any armed military or police force. Ever seen an M4 carbine in the hands of a decently skilled marksman? I've actually shot one, very powerful, very fun, very effective. This makes it useful for many civilian activities besides criminal activities. You oversimplified what guns are and do.

2. Refer to above.

Useful for many civilian activities? I understand people like to hunt, they like to collect things and have fun doing things; I don't get this demand to have semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons easily accessible to all. Call me silly when I don't think civilians should be sporting weapons of war because they're fun or they want them (which honestly isn't much of a justification to allow much of anything to still be circulation).

They are tools to blow holes in whatever is in-front of you, they aren't toys, they aren't trading cards and the only acceptable scenario they should be in the arms of non-soldiers should be in very controlled situations. Feel free to disagree.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke said:

1. That thing(s) that serves no other purpose in our society outside gunning down and killing multiple people.

Evidence for this please.

Evidence of what? The killing potential of select semi or fully automatic weapons?

Fully automatic weapons are allowed where in the USA, exactly?

What do you consider "war weapons" that are causing so much harm in the USA? Pistols are the major cause of gun related crimes, especially homicides. What exactly are you trying to even do? "Ban assault weapons! They're responsible for like, a small fraction of gun related deaths!... And stuff.... But they make a lot of noise and sh*t, that makes them really really bad!!!!"

As well, I happen to think the rights of the entire country are more important than any single citizen's life. Why not ban kitchen knives, since they are also weapons of war? They have combat knives on soldiers! Forget recreational activities with knives. OMG BAN KITCHEN KNIVES!

What about string? It's used to choke people, recreational activities aside. OMG BAN STRING!

Guns are legal with many limitations already, and it is because of the fact they're legal, non-cowards can protect themselves. Guns are legal for self defense and protection from criminals, and yes, the government; people can lead an uprising of the government, because if the people do, the government won't exactly have a lot of infrastructure left to make war on the people, and the people can actually win. There's this thing called strategy... It's how wars are fought, if we have to have another civil war. It was written in a time where they, the founding fathers, most likely thought they wouldn't have a civil war any time soon, they get free from the British, they're relatively unified, life is good, but then we had a civil war anyway. Who's to say we wouldn't have another in 20 years?

What about, more likely, a cop goes on a rampage and starts shooting people? What if a cop simply doesn't obey the law or does something criminal, and endangers or directly and intentionally threatens lives? What about ex-military personnel? What about gun smugglers and organized crime? These are all real threats, while a civil war seems very unlikely but still possible.

If you take guns away from the law abiding citizens and keep them in what you apparently think are perfect, shining examples of people, who need guns (as opposed to the dreaded citizen that pays for those cops and military personnel), then when those people do something even a little bit dangerous, we have no defense. We can't defend ourselves. We are at the mercy of our government, law enforcement, organized criminals, whatever - if there is ever any kind of threat, people can't defend themselves.

I speak as if you are threatening to ban all guns. That is because banning assault weapons is just the first step to banning more and more guns, because assault weapons are not even the real issue. Pistols are the biggest issue. Assault weapon gun control is just PR for tools who think AR's are the greatest scourge since Stalin. When assault weapons are banned, people will still be killed. Then what? All rifles! Then what, after people are still killed? Pistols! Then what? Enforced curfew! Then what? Nazi Germany.

No. No more restrictions on guns. There have always been shootings, they're just getting more press this year it seems, and there's still way more, proportionately, violent crime in the UK than the USA (not that you brought this up, but others have), so there is no reason to restrict the best defense we have against violent offense. A better tactic is to start classes for citizens to better use and be more effective and comfortable with guns, and teach them proper techniques on shooting, drawing, loading and reloading, storage, and self defense with guns. Killers obviously know how to use guns. We need to teach sane civilians how to use them and be comfortable with them too. That is how you fix the problem.

Plus, it wouldn't hurt if American citizens grew a backbone.

*Puffs his pipe*

Avatar image for deepdown
deepdown

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#211  Edited By deepdown

@nick_hero22 said:

@deepdown said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@minigunman123 said:

Evidence to support this?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_interventions.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/17/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTx4G7PSOg

http://www.legallyarmed.com/resources/policearticle.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972741/posts

http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2013/01/mass-shooting-averted-and-related.html

Is this enough evidence?

This is not telling the whole picture.

It does not break down the use of guns.

Does it include shootings by police?

Suicides are not taken into consideration.

Are any of the gun deaths the death of criminals in the act of hurting someone? To put that on the same moral plain as an accidental shooting is bordering on criminal (morality wise) in my mind.

In some respects breaking down by state is not enough. With most states having a large diversity of rural and urban populations and some cities having further restrictions than the state overall it really needs to be broken down more to see where the actual problem areas are. I can guarantee that Chicago is much more violent than the rest of Illinois, and NYC versus NYS.

Yes, there can be more firearm education. Put rifle teams back into schools as a school sport. Improve our public education system through competition. Allow parents to decide where their children go to school.

What I am saying is that banning or controlling a tool that is used in statistically rare cases does next to nothing to solve the problem. The biggest problems are social issues: family break down, economic, and education. All these take time to fix. Allowing people the ability and tools to defend themselves is logical.

Why are people so unwilling to discuss gun violence in context of violent crime? I suppose because they believe it more moral to allow other violent crime to rise dramatically if guns are taken away.

@isaac_clarke said:

@deepdown said:

They come in from other states, where they are purchased (maybe legally or illegally), then they break the law (criminals do not care about the law), by bringing them into New York, where they again, use them illegally. Most criminals use cheap, small, handguns that are easily concealed. Contrary to what is flowing in the media now, so far undefined, "assault weapons", are used extremely rarely in crime. Tell me how banning them will drastically save lives.

Music to my ears; that's exactly right - they are coming out of state. The efforts of any singular state are undermined by the fact the nation doesn't play by the same set of rules and that allows states with far more lenient gun legislation, say Texas, to provide the weapons to shoot at New York's finest. Same for the drug cartels in Mexico that get to enjoy the lenient gun legislation in said states to buy a lot of guns to kill people in Mexico.

You're putting words in my mouth when you say "drastically" save lives. I think it is fairly obvious that banning weapons that serve no other purpose than to killing multiple people with ease would only serve to lower the loss of life. Can't hurt to take off assault rifles from drug cartel's options at least.

Also, contrary to popular portrayal in the media, gun enthusiasts are not fearful, paranoid fringes of society. Even most of the outspoken ones are not as the media usually portrays them. People who take the time and effort to legally carry concealed are some of the most honest responsible members of society. They carry because they know evil exists in the world, and people who want to hurt others are real, not comic book villains. They carry because they know they are not adequately prepared to fight in hand to hand combat with an attacker.

I'm well aware the media as the awful habit of putting on the more insane voices in the crowd a platform to speak nationally. But at least I can sleep soundly they are prepared to gun down evil wherever it lurks. Perhaps it is that young lad walking home from the store?"

Honestly your post is mostly fluff after this point.

The AR-15 is 50 year old technology. It could be purchased for 200 dollars in the 1960's. Where was all the assault weapon violence committed then? Society has changed. The problem will not be solved with capacity limits, registries, bans, etc. Society changed when the welfare state increased in size. It affects poor areas worse than others. If your logic is correct there should be more gun crime in areas with looser restrictions, and less in stricter areas. Even accounting for the transporting of guns from one area to another. If your logic is correct I should be able to confront an armed attacker without a gun and survive.

You mean more than 30,000,000 guns ago? Society has certainly changed, thank god for modern medicine saving more than half the people shot annually. My "logic" allows people to dodge bullets? (assuming the armed attacker can aim the gun with any precision and doesn't decide to melee me with it)

I would state that you have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you have no education, training, or experience in the security/law enforcement world. You have no expertise in armed confrontation beyond what you learn from Hollywood and comic books. You have no answer to protect the innocent victims of crime. Your solution would be to call 911 after the fact and let the police take reports.

Say it loud and say it proud as I always say. More fluff.

You issac_clarke have constantly refused to define "assault weapon". You have no replies to more than a few points I have made. You are unwilling to objectively look at the facts. You only consider "gun violence" while ignoring the much higher violent crime rates in the UK in comparison to the US and since gun bans there. I would state that you hate the weaker members of society by refusing to allow for them to protect themselves. A woman raped should just grin and bear it. A child should just accept his own murder. Yes, roughly 30,000 gun deaths occur in the US yearly. Break the number down. About 1,100 are accidental, between 9,000 and 11,000 are suicides. Suicides can be ignored from a statistical standpoint and all but a few find another way to kill themselves. What you have no answer for is that since the end of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 violent crime as well as gun related crime has dropped significantly. Some areas have seen a 54% drop. You have no reply as to the difference in gun violence and violent crime rates between strict areas, and not so strict areas. You are unwilling to discuss these because you are not mentally equipped to do so. It is remarkably similar to the way I see you showing up to a gun fight, unarmed.

"Anything that can spray bullets into multiple people with ease and serves no purpose outside killing a lot of people. We're talking about gun control, not crime rates in the UK or rape, feel free to make an appropriate thread to tell everyone how guns will stop rape or any victimization for that matter in any society.

I'm glad you broke the numbers down though, out of those 70,000+ thousand getting shot a year, the 30,000 that die yearly in the United States are for multiple reasons; from accidental to suicide - in particular as of late after gunning down a school filled with kids or their family. Cherry picking aren't we now? When in doubt, add more fluff."

I am willing to have a honest non political discussion concerning what should be done. I have stated several times here a multi-prong approach to address the root causes. You have no reply. You are more interested in hurling accusations about sore election losers. I will state it now, I do not like what Barrack Obama has done as president. I do not like his economic, healthcare, foreign, or domestic policies. You can accuse me of racism for policy disagreements, but that is pure ignorance, and deflection from the topic on your part. I do not like the way he handled the attack on our embassy in Libya. I do not like the manner in which the healthcare bill was passed. I do not like the way he treats our strongest allies. I do not like the way he treats police officers. But those are other issues that are not part of the discussion at hand.

"I question your motives. It could be the ridiculous argument of how gun ownership stops victimization or the default avatar (weapon of choice for trolling) or the massive amount of fluff in your post that serves no real purpose outside being fluff. But yes I'm certainly interesting in calling MKF30 out for going thread to thread to complain about Romney losing by bashing the 65 million Americans who voted for him."

Most of the guns provided to the Mexican drug cartel came from Fast and the Furious and other programs by the US Government. Are there straw purchases going on? Yes. Here is a clue, they are already illegal. They do not account for the sheer number of actual assault weapons in Mexico. The US Government has been sending real military weapons to the Mexican military and police forces for many years. These organizations are so heavily infiltrated by the cartels that we might as well send them the weapons directly.

You question how gun ownership stops victimization.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm

http://westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol5.html

And for more recent accounts.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://www.officer.com/news/10846005/calif-resident-kills-intruder-during-home-invasion

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

As far as AR 15's go. They are not military weapons. They (by definition) are not capable of select fire or automatic fire. By definition they are also not assault weapons. Assault weapons must be capable of select or automatic fire. AR 15' are not. They are no more powerful or deadly than hunting rifles. In fact the .223 or 5.56 round (the most popular caliber) is considered to be an intermediate range caliber. A hunting rifle in the .30 caliber (.308, 30-06, etc) range has significantly more range and power. What makes the AR so attractive to people is the modularity, and low recoil. The low recoil is very popular among female and smaller shooters. It also used to be fairly inexpensive to shoot.

I am not advocating that everyone should be armed anymore than I advocate everyone needs to go to college. Carrying concealed is a big responsibility that only an individual can make for themselves. Having that option for concealed carry or to keep a gun in the home, is in my belief morally right. Even if it is what the media refer to as an "assault weapon".

Society has changed, and not for the better in many respects. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.

To talk about gun violence separate from overall violent crime is missing out on half the story. It all needs to be discussed. The fact is that when guns are banned or severely limited from honest private ownership, overall violent crime skyrockets. The UK can be seen as an example. Chicago can be seen as an example. To postulate that banning "assault rifles" will make things safer is wrong. Having gun free zones does not stop gun violence. It only assures the offenders of having an easy target.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

http://www.cabinet.com/cabinet/cabineteditorials/990571-308/most-multiple-victim-shootings-occur-in-gun-free-zones.html

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/12/lawmakers-question-gun-free-zones-in-wake-of-massacre/

Am I advocating turning schools into the often mention armed camps or concentration camps that is mentioned by the media? No. Just allow parents who already are lawfully allowed to CCW carry in schools when picking up or dropping off their children, or having other legitimate purpose on school . Allow trained teachers, janitors, principals to carry concealed. Make them meet a qualification standard. Install passive security measures as well. Security glass, reinforced doors, central alarms and procedures, and access control. But, for heaven's sake, do not do this through a national central plan. All that will do is create another inefficient bureaucracy that determines it needs more money, while solving nothing. Allow individual districts to determine their own methods, and policies according to their own needs.

I am not cherry picking data when breaking down statistics. Not doing so shows an unwillingness to understand the whole picture. Suicides can be statistically discounted as all but a few find another way. If we consider the whole number 30,000, it does not tell us the majority is criminal on criminal, or how many were killed in the defense of life. Yes, it is possible to kill to preserve life. It is even legal. To treat the last to as morally equivalent is in error. It is not cherry picking to acknowledge that areas with stricter gun control laws have an overall higher crime rate. Honest people have been disarmed.

As far as my using avatar, I have no desire at the moment to change it. Avatars are not important.

Tell me how banning the AR-15 will take assault weapons from drug cartels. AR-15 do not fit the internationally accepted definition of assault weapons.

Fully automatic weapons have been banned for many years. As a result large numbers are not for sale in gun shops. Also as a result they are very expensive and take literally months to get the proper background checks to purchase.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms/

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/30/u-s-admits-that-mexican-cartels-get-military-weaponry-from-central-america/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

While some do come from the US, the vast majority do not.

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

So that random guy on the street not being able to buy an AK-47 encourages victimization? Glad people from the 1700's are being channeled to devise what regulations should be placed on firearms now.

AK-47? I thought we were talking about assault weapons?

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Which one protects me from shadowy assailants and which one do I use to go hunting?

Quit dodging the question.

Avatar image for masterjohn
MasterJohn

2663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#213  Edited By MasterJohn

Wow, I post my bombshell video and you liberals don't respond. YOUR TRYING TO BAN A SPORTING RIFLE. Stop listening to Pughes Stefan Morgan's propaganda. AR-15 is a sporting weapon and does not fire faster then a hand gun.

So as Senator Feinstien sits up in Facist California with her bodyguards armed with explosive rounds and fully automatic weapons, she will be taking OUR weapons away.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#214  Edited By Vaeternus

@isaac_clarke said:

@Vaeternus said:

You had an entire post dedicated to defending yourself; its gone. It wasn't just a sentence or short response and you already wasted your breath writing it.

I like how you make up a quote and claim that is what you said, despite what you said being quoted already. You asked for proof of cursing, I brought up two instances in one of your posts in this thread. Read page 11, 2nd post for reference to the use of profanity, straight from this thread.

You brought up fictitious arguments where Biden was out to get video games based off nothing. You kept muttering about a lack of controversy over crossbows, despite that also not being the case.

If I'm your worst enemy, then you're my best bud in these arguments - you give me everything in these arguments with what you write and it is all easily available for everyone who wants to bring up your past to do so in an argument. You're getting repetitive.

I'm sure you do, the problem is you pretend you don't. Hate Speech isn't singular words, it is what follows when you write liberal or lib in your arguments that constitute as hate speech with anything you associate with liberalism.

Call it whatever you want, people shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms that realistically have no purpose outside war and killing multiple targets. They aren't toys and people arguing they should be allowed for purchase because they're "fun" are being unrealistic.

This evidence?

Loading Video...

Rocket launchers, F-16's or hell anything that explodes or blows things up is a lot fun. Doesn't mean the US should open its armories to hand this stuff out to civilians that want to purchase it.

People need to start living in the reality that this stuff isn't for civilians to have for whatever.

I made a few points yes but decided to discuss it with someone else but again, I never flamed/cursed or insulted someone directly like you claim. And using YT just proves you're trying to compensate for that.but again I didn't use profanity. Profanity is actual curses, that again I did not do don't believe me? Ask a mod, because mods warn people when doing so and I didn't see anyone here warned for using profanity(at least not me) That argument concerning Biden who you're trying to defend wasn't fictious, it was factual. If you want I can even link you to liberal news papers speaking of it if you wish? I read the Daily News every day for sports, and guess what...huge article last week called "Biden to target Video Games and NRA" kind of self explanatory there.

Not really, I've already debunked your "anti-gun" claims and provided why Biden is a hypocrite owning a shot gun(which you conveniently ignored already) yet he's blaming NRA and violent games for the problem...thus he's a hypocrite. You sir would be my enemy or in this case more of an obsessive one being as how you thought my initial post was to "bait" you? When that was hardly the case, paranoid much? I guess a guy can't have an opinion on a topic without you thinking someone is out to get you? lol if I'm so repetitive then you're a broken record by now, that's why everyone on this page alone disagrees with you let's see here.

People I agree with in this topic and clearly share the same views

People who you're arguing with, oh interesting...same people lol besides myself of course.

lol Commando? Really dude? Movie=fiction. Curious, do you have issues when people use guns, or kill say if Wolverine slashes someone with his blades in Marvel Comics or when Galactus destroys a world? No complaints there because you're a marvel fan...hmmm no hypocrisy there lol yet you'll now target movies? So, you realize another example of you contradicting yourself is that you sport a Dead Space 3 photo right? Not just a violent game but I'm pretty sure he uses guns, weapons in that game...so if you REALLY felt as strongly as you do, you would not play games like that.

I call it based on the facts, what about cops? Military? lol curious what exactly do you want these people who protect YOU btw from dangerous criminals to use? Rocks? Knives? Their fists? Slingshots? Bows? Because I'm so sure those would suffice going up against a nutty guy with a gun...totally...

Lastly, again me saying "lib" isn't an insult, it's merely a short abbreviation for liberal because it saves time...if you take offense to that, that's your problem. I've seen tons of people on here use "con" short for conservative or neo cons or right winger, yet you say nothing...so again clearly you're biased with that stuff.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215  Edited By isaac_clarke

@MasterJohn: I figured after I posted that people would poke at the chink of the Fully Automatic mention, but I didn't expect the exalted MasterJohn to grace me with a response.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

So that random guy on the street not being able to buy an AK-47 encourages victimization? Glad people from the 1700's are being channeled to devise what regulations should be placed on firearms now.

AK-47? I thought we were talking about assault weapons?

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Which one protects me from shadowy assailants and which one do I use to go hunting?

Quit dodging the question.

My mistake, I thought we were discussing how the opinions of long dead white men are hardly worth a mention in regards to modern firearm legislation.

Start asking relevant questions.

@minigunman123 said:

Fully automatic weapons are allowed where in the USA, exactly?

Highly regulated, not illegal. At least I haven't heard anything to the contrary in the last few months. Also to point out, I said the meaning behind "this demand" for people to have easy access to such firearms is elusive to me.

@minigunman123 said:

What do you consider "war weapons" that are causing so much harm in the USA? Pistols are the major cause of gun related crimes, especially homicides. What exactly are you trying to even do? "Ban assault weapons! They're responsible for like, a small fraction of gun related deaths!... And stuff.... But they make a lot of noise and sh*t, that makes them really really bad!!!!"

"Made of quotes ftw" - I don't see what the challenge is for posters here to actually quote something, adding "of" won't kill an argument. "Weapons of War" - and honestly I feel like I'm just going to end up repeating myself when I say something that has no realistic function outside killing a lot of people and doing it very fast. You know, stuff originally designed for military use and are now available to your average civilian.

This whole twisting of any argument calling for regulation / a ban on these weapons being, 'but small cheap guns are doing most of the killing!' is ridiculous. Columbine, Virginia tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek - all familiar names I suppose - semi-automatics or large capacity ammunition magazines common throughout all.

Just because you don't give a damn these things are weapons made for killing and want to have fun playing with them doesn't warrant them being circulation. It's beyond childish.

@minigunman123 said:

As well, I happen to think the rights of the entire country are more important than any single citizen's life. Why not ban kitchen knives, since they are also weapons of war? They have combat knives on soldiers! Forget recreational activities with knives. OMG BAN KITCHEN KNIVES!

Yes the rights of all Americans are your concern - defending the right for everyone to be able to buy guns; the right to people feeling safe while getting a cup of coffee, dropping their kids off at school knowing they will be safe or even going out to watch a movie - meh, who cares? Its more important that we all get to play with M4 Carbines.

Soldiers are sporting kitchen utensils to fight in wars? Bad arguments keep getting worse.

@minigunman123 said:

What about string? It's used to choke people, recreational activities aside. OMG BAN STRING!

I forgot about the last time someone walked into a crowded movie theater and strangled over a dozen people to death. Remind me when that was again?

@minigunman123 said:

Guns are legal with many limitations already, and it is because of the fact they're legal, non-cowards can protect themselves. Guns are legal for self defense and protection from criminals, and yes, the government; people can lead an uprising of the government, because if the people do, the government won't exactly have a lot of infrastructure left to make war on the people, and the people can actually win. There's this thing called strategy... It's how wars are fought, if we have to have another civil war. It was written in a time where they, the founding fathers, most likely thought they wouldn't have a civil war any time soon, they get free from the British, they're relatively unified, life is good, but then we had a civil war anyway. Who's to say we wouldn't have another in 20 years?

Civilian justice, cue commando trailer. In my book, If you aren't sporting a rocket launcher for self defense your a coward. I'd love to see the people revolt against the government with their guns believing they have a prayer against Uncle Sam. The government has a bad habit of crushing that kind of opposition under the heel of their boot.

@minigunman123 said:

What about, more likely, a cop goes on a rampage and starts shooting people? What if a cop simply doesn't obey the law or does something criminal, and endangers or directly and intentionally threatens lives? What about ex-military personnel? What about gun smugglers and organized crime? These are all real threats, while a civil war seems very unlikely but still possible.

So I should start being afraid of veterans and civil servants going on a shooting rampages, hoping for a brave law abiding gun owner to stop them? Preferably with their semi-automatic?

@minigunman123 said:

If you take guns away from the law abiding citizens and keep them in what you apparently think are perfect, shining examples of people, who need guns (as opposed to the dreaded citizen that pays for those cops and military personnel), then when those people do something even a little bit dangerous, we have no defense. We can't defend ourselves. We are at the mercy of our government, law enforcement, organized criminals, whatever - if there is ever any kind of threat, people can't defend themselves.

So instead of depending on police officers to uphold the law and in general protect the civilian population I should be putting my faith on this guy:

Loading Video...

Brilliant, sounds like the prelude to a bad joke. I do enjoy the idea that the average civilian with a gun is suddenly going to best a trained officer or member of the armed forces. It's fool proof.

@minigunman123 said:

I speak as if you are threatening to ban all guns. That is because banning assault weapons is just the first step to banning more and more guns, because assault weapons are not even the real issue. Pistols are the biggest issue. Assault weapon gun control is just PR for tools who think AR's are the greatest scourge since Stalin. When assault weapons are banned, people will still be killed. Then what? All rifles! Then what, after people are still killed? Pistols! Then what? Enforced curfew! Then what? Nazi Germany.

Banning all firearms isn't a realistic goal in my book. The same way it was when H.W. Bush did it?

Generally a rule of thumb in arguments, the moment you start talking about the Nazi's its not looking good for you.

@minigunman123 said:

No. No more restrictions on guns. There have always been shootings, they're just getting more press this year it seems, and there's still way more, proportionately, violent crime in the UK than the USA (not that you brought this up, but others have), so there is no reason to restrict the best defense we have against violent offense. A better tactic is to start classes for citizens to better use and be more effective and comfortable with guns, and teach them proper techniques on shooting, drawing, loading and reloading, storage, and self defense with guns. Killers obviously know how to use guns. We need to teach sane civilians how to use them and be comfortable with them too. That is how you fix the problem.

Plus, it wouldn't hurt if American citizens grew a backbone.

*Puffs his pipe*

To quote David Foster "Blind certainty - a close mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up."

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#216  Edited By Vaeternus

@MasterJohn said:

Wow, I post my bombshell video and you liberals don't respond. YOUR TRYING TO BAN A SPORTING RIFLE. Stop listening to Pughes Stefan Morgan's propaganda. AR-15 is a sporting weapon and does not fire faster then a hand gun.

So as Senator Feinstien sits up in Facist California with her bodyguards armed with explosive rounds and fully automatic weapons, she will be taking OUR weapons away.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

I agree, personally I can't understand how anyone can argue that point especially. It's the sole reason cops have guns...and military.

@BiteMe-Fanboy said:

I will never support banning guns. IF they are banned, I guess I will just get arrested for refusing to give my guns up.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that..

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#217  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke: You never really answered my first question so let me make it clearer.

Why should it be illegal to own semi-automatic weapons.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#218  Edited By isaac_clarke

@Vaeternus said:

I made a few points yes but decided to discuss it with someone else but again, I never flamed/cursed or insulted someone directly like you claim. And using YT just proves you're trying to compensate for that.but again I didn't use profanity. Profanity is actual curses, that again I did not do don't believe me? Ask a mod, because mods warn people when doing so and I didn't see anyone here warned for using profanity(at least not me) That argument concerning Biden who you're trying to defend wasn't fictious, it was factual. If you want I can even link you to liberal news papers speaking of it if you wish? I read the Daily News every day for sports, and guess what...huge article last week called "Biden to target Video Games and NRA" kind of self explanatory there.

Your post:

@Vaeternus said:

No, I haven't been cursing. Proof? I haven't cursed anyone out so I don't know what you're talking about. Do you even know what cursing is and no my accusations are true and believe me I've made sure the mods are aware of those certain people. Funny, you complain when people disagree with Obama and those who voted for him yet I didn't hear you complaining when people bash the right or you know all those "Fox sucks" or "Why I don't like Obama" threads..hmmm

Page 5, in the same post:

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Definition of Profanity:

No Caption Provided

I'm not going to keep pointing this out because of your complete refusal to even acknowledge what you've written. YouTube was mentioned / quoted because of the rampant amount of incorrect assumptions you make with full confidence despite what actually happens - I brought an instance where you were again incorrect; just because it also illuminates how MKF30 thinks or writes without any restraint isn't my fault.

Quote where in the report where the Vice President mentions video games in a negative light to the President. Quote individuals who actually attended the meeting when the Vice President took a clear anti-video game stance. Quote it, I'm not going to keep indulging fictitious claims made by you. A title to an article is NOT evidence.

His report, the people that actually attended the meeting - all said the opposite. The President? He pushed research into violent video games and media.

@Vaeternus said:

Not really, I've already debunked your "anti-gun" claims and provided why Biden is a hypocrite owning a shot gun(which you conveniently ignored already) yet he's blaming NRA and violent games for the problem...thus he's a hypocrite. You sir would be my enemy or in this case more of an obsessive one being as how you thought my initial post was to "bait" you? When that was hardly the case, paranoid much? I guess a guy can't have an opinion on a topic without you thinking someone is out to get you? lol if I'm so repetitive then you're a broken record by now, that's why everyone on this page alone disagrees with you let's see here.

I would have to see what you mean by "debunk" - and I would love to see where in Biden's report he is looking to take aggressive measures in regards to shot-gun control. Otherwise these claims of him being a hypocrite is just more hot hair without merit.

Despite my post saying to the contrary already that the "bait" was for anyone, do go on.

@Vaeternus said:

People I agree with in this topic and clearly share the same views

People who you're arguing with, oh interesting...same people lol besides myself of course.

You're shoving words down people's mouths again.

@Vaeternus said:

lol Commando? Really dude? Movie=fiction.

Color me shocked.

@Vaeternus said:

Curious, do you have issues when people use guns, or kill say if Wolverine slashes someone with his blades in Marvel Comics or when Galactus destroys a world? No complaints there because you're a marvel fan...hmmm no hypocrisy there lol yet you'll now target movies?

You've completely missed the point and gone ahead to say something idiotic again. Especially given what I've said about Wolverine in debates.

@Vaeternus said:

So, you realize another example of you contradicting yourself is that you sport a Dead Space 3 photo right? Not just a violent game but I'm pretty sure he uses guns, weapons in that game...so if you REALLY felt as strongly as you do, you would not play games like that.

  • You took the command trailer completely out of context and your running around telling me how I apparently feel. You're wrong, so wrong - even in regards to the game.
  • He uses primarily mining tools to dismember alien space zombies (the variation in the third title being religious zealots also are out to kill him); all with an engineering degree.

@Vaeternus said:

I call it based on the facts, what about cops? Military? lol curious what exactly do you want these people who protect YOU btw from dangerous criminals to use? Rocks? Knives? Their fists? Slingshots? Bows? Because I'm so sure those would suffice going up against a nutty guy with a gun...totally...

You've reached the point where your post isn't reflecting at all what I said, what I am saying or what I will be saying. Good job.

@Vaeternus said:

Lastly, again me saying "lib" isn't an insult, it's merely a short abbreviation for liberal because it saves time...if you take offense to that, that's your problem. I've seen tons of people on here use "con" short for conservative or neo cons or right winger, yet you say nothing...so again clearly you're biased with that stuff.

Given you're not even responding to what I said, try again. I have no issues with abbreviations, its the context of what you're writing.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#219  Edited By isaac_clarke

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: You never really answered my first question so let me make it clearer.

Why should it be illegal to own semi-automatic weapons.

Already answered, please refer to my posts on page 10.

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#220  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: You never really answered my first question so let me make it clearer.

Why should it be illegal to own semi-automatic weapons.

Already answered, please refer to my posts on page 10.

No you didn't and your still not. Your just stating that you don't like guns so nobody should be allowed to own them.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#221  Edited By Vaeternus

@Isaac_Clarke,

Biden's report again was to target NRA and violent games because he believes "they're a cause" of these criminal acts, period but hey dude believe what you want like I said I already supplied articles previously which you're choosing to ignore backing my claims.

Here, I'll even post GiantBomb.com(CV affiliate) story on it and most GiantBombers not too pleased with Biden...go figure. But hey don't get me wrong while Biden is typically a dope, I also fault the NRA here for their hypocrisy...blaming games yet making a game for IOS pad...targeting little kids. But still the whole notion of "let's blame someone" is old and wrong already...

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/vice-president-joe-biden-meets-with-gaming-industry/4515/

Sorry, but that's not profanity in the sense of "insulting someone" which you said I did in this topic. Who have I insulted? Again, nobody...unless you refer to Biden, Rosie which are celebrities or politicians who I've merely called out on their own dumb hypocrisy. BTW, that's cute how you're bringing up me using the term "b$tch" but everyone knows that's not how I was using it, you're putting words in my mouth on how YOU see fit...

The reality is, I was merely using that term to show she complains or cries WAY too much yet is a hypocrite....

Definition of the actual word "bitch"

bitch

/biCH/

Noun

A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.

Verb

informal. Express displeasure; grumble: "the guys were all bitching about commuting time".

In the sense I was using it was a verb offering displeasure or annoyance. Not profanity...you THINKING it's profanity doesn't make it so, I'm aware as is everyone else here I'm sure what "profanity" is...but again I asked you "who did I curse out here in this topic or flame"? and you've yet to answer because I haven't...again. Don't know how many times I must say it, you're seriously grasping at straws here.

I need not to shove anything in anyone's mouths, the evidence speaks for itself in this topic. Example, both and have both asked you various times "what an assault weapon is" and why "it should be illegal to own guns/semi-automatics"? Yet you offer no valid answer, you do the same thing you do with my questioning you about me "cursing someone here out" and you just fabricate stuff or dodge the question entirely.

Just admit it, you can't answer because there is no answer.

I color you in a class of your own, that's all I'll say to use commando as a crutch for your argument on why you feel guns should be banned...again, you having an Dead Space picture proves you contradict yourself. So, you're against movies such as Commando with guns yet is fiction, yet you play a game and are clearly a fan of the series that is not just violent but uses guns...in Dead Space(which has guns in it and is fiction also...)

Observe...clearly the game has guns. Yes?

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

So, really If I'm sooo wrong then how do you explain these, what are those things Isaac is using in the game? Do tell :) otherwise it is you who are wrong, very wrong because last time I checked pretty sure those are guns he's using...or at least a gun of some type be it fictional or realistic. I'm not taking anything out of context, I've merely taken your initial point about "guns" and being in Commando and tosses them right back at you with your own point but using a video game(same difference) but I really don't trust you to see my point here...

@isaac_clarke said:

Despite my post saying to the contrary already that the "bait" was for anyone, do go on.

You've completely missed the point and gone ahead to say something idiotic again. Especially given what I've said about Wolverine in debates.

Ahh, sure right..."bait" reference was for anyone that's why you quoted me initially with such right, yet nobody else? hmmm

See, now THIS if anything is a prime example of you flaming/insulting me where as what I said earlier about "Rosie O' Donnelle is B#$*ching about guns yet has guards by her side that carry guns...two entirely different things. One was me annoyed with one's hypocrisy, where as you are clearly getting upset thus feel the need to insult me...calling me an idiot for correcting you. But hey enlighten me, what have you said about Wolverine since I asked. BTW, it's not idiotic it's a valid point which clearly you don't want to answer or can't answer...

So, let me get this straight by me correcting your posts or asking you why can't guns be used for good or positives reasons means I'm reflecting? Ok...yeah not seeing it.

Good, then I see no reason why you'd take offense to me saying "lib or liberal" to begin with.

Avatar image for minigunman123
minigunman123

3262

Forum Posts

558

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#222  Edited By minigunman123

@isaac_clarke said:

@MasterJohn: I figured after I posted that people would poke at the chink of the Fully Automatic mention, but I didn't expect the exalted MasterJohn to grace me with a response.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

So that random guy on the street not being able to buy an AK-47 encourages victimization? Glad people from the 1700's are being channeled to devise what regulations should be placed on firearms now.

AK-47? I thought we were talking about assault weapons?

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Which one protects me from shadowy assailants and which one do I use to go hunting?

Quit dodging the question.

My mistake, I thought we were discussing how the opinions of long dead white men are hardly worth a mention in regards to modern firearm legislation.

Start asking relevant questions.

@minigunman123 said:

Fully automatic weapons are allowed where in the USA, exactly?

Highly regulated, not illegal. At least I haven't heard anything to the contrary in the last few months. Also to point out, I said the meaning behind "this demand" for people to have easy access to such firearms is elusive to me.

@minigunman123 said:

What do you consider "war weapons" that are causing so much harm in the USA? Pistols are the major cause of gun related crimes, especially homicides. What exactly are you trying to even do? "Ban assault weapons! They're responsible for like, a small fraction of gun related deaths!... And stuff.... But they make a lot of noise and sh*t, that makes them really really bad!!!!"

"Made of quotes ftw" - I don't see what the challenge is for posters here to actually quote something, adding "of" won't kill an argument. "Weapons of War" - and honestly I feel like I'm just going to end up repeating myself when I say something that has no realistic function outside killing a lot of people and doing it very fast. You know, stuff originally designed for military use and are now available to your average civilian.

This whole twisting of any argument calling for regulation / a ban on these weapons being, 'but small cheap guns are doing most of the killing!' is ridiculous. Columbine, Virginia tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek - all familiar names I suppose - semi-automatics or large capacity ammunition magazines common throughout all.

Just because you don't give a damn these things are weapons made for killing and want to have fun playing with them doesn't warrant them being circulation. It's beyond childish.

@minigunman123 said:

As well, I happen to think the rights of the entire country are more important than any single citizen's life. Why not ban kitchen knives, since they are also weapons of war? They have combat knives on soldiers! Forget recreational activities with knives. OMG BAN KITCHEN KNIVES!

Yes the rights of all Americans are your concern - defending the right for everyone to be able to buy guns; the right to people feeling safe while getting a cup of coffee, dropping their kids off at school knowing they will be safe or even going out to watch a movie - meh, who cares? Its more important that we all get to play with M4 Carbines.

Soldiers are sporting kitchen utensils to fight in wars? Bad arguments keep getting worse.

@minigunman123 said:

What about string? It's used to choke people, recreational activities aside. OMG BAN STRING!

I forgot about the last time someone walked into a crowded movie theater and strangled over a dozen people to death. Remind me when that was again?

@minigunman123 said:

Guns are legal with many limitations already, and it is because of the fact they're legal, non-cowards can protect themselves. Guns are legal for self defense and protection from criminals, and yes, the government; people can lead an uprising of the government, because if the people do, the government won't exactly have a lot of infrastructure left to make war on the people, and the people can actually win. There's this thing called strategy... It's how wars are fought, if we have to have another civil war. It was written in a time where they, the founding fathers, most likely thought they wouldn't have a civil war any time soon, they get free from the British, they're relatively unified, life is good, but then we had a civil war anyway. Who's to say we wouldn't have another in 20 years?

Civilian justice, cue commando trailer. In my book, If you aren't sporting a rocket launcher for self defense your a coward. I'd love to see the people revolt against the government with their guns believing they have a prayer against Uncle Sam. The government has a bad habit of crushing that kind of opposition under the heel of their boot.

@minigunman123 said:

What about, more likely, a cop goes on a rampage and starts shooting people? What if a cop simply doesn't obey the law or does something criminal, and endangers or directly and intentionally threatens lives? What about ex-military personnel? What about gun smugglers and organized crime? These are all real threats, while a civil war seems very unlikely but still possible.

So I should start being afraid of veterans and civil servants going on a shooting rampages, hoping for a brave law abiding gun owner to stop them? Preferably with their semi-automatic?

@minigunman123 said:

If you take guns away from the law abiding citizens and keep them in what you apparently think are perfect, shining examples of people, who need guns (as opposed to the dreaded citizen that pays for those cops and military personnel), then when those people do something even a little bit dangerous, we have no defense. We can't defend ourselves. We are at the mercy of our government, law enforcement, organized criminals, whatever - if there is ever any kind of threat, people can't defend themselves.

So instead of depending on police officers to uphold the law and in general protect the civilian population I should be putting my faith on this guy:

Loading Video...

Brilliant, sounds like the prelude to a bad joke. I do enjoy the idea that the average civilian with a gun is suddenly going to best a trained officer or member of the armed forces. It's fool proof.

@minigunman123 said:

I speak as if you are threatening to ban all guns. That is because banning assault weapons is just the first step to banning more and more guns, because assault weapons are not even the real issue. Pistols are the biggest issue. Assault weapon gun control is just PR for tools who think AR's are the greatest scourge since Stalin. When assault weapons are banned, people will still be killed. Then what? All rifles! Then what, after people are still killed? Pistols! Then what? Enforced curfew! Then what? Nazi Germany.

Banning all firearms isn't a realistic goal in my book. The same way it was when H.W. Bush did it?

Generally a rule of thumb in arguments, the moment you start talking about the Nazi's its not looking good for you.

@minigunman123 said:

No. No more restrictions on guns. There have always been shootings, they're just getting more press this year it seems, and there's still way more, proportionately, violent crime in the UK than the USA (not that you brought this up, but others have), so there is no reason to restrict the best defense we have against violent offense. A better tactic is to start classes for citizens to better use and be more effective and comfortable with guns, and teach them proper techniques on shooting, drawing, loading and reloading, storage, and self defense with guns. Killers obviously know how to use guns. We need to teach sane civilians how to use them and be comfortable with them too. That is how you fix the problem.

Plus, it wouldn't hurt if American citizens grew a backbone.

*Puffs his pipe*

To quote David Foster "Blind certainty - a close mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up."

Feel free to believe what you want.

I am laughing out loud at you, though.

I have proven many of the arguments in your reply wrong, in the same post you are quoting, and yet you don't even seem to read them. As well, many times on this site I have posted actual statistics of crime and gun use, and guess what? Pistols have always been at the top for gun-related injuries/deaths. The fact that the media is focusing on the mass murders as opposed to the many, much more common, muggings and single murders, does not make them more statistically dangerous, or the statistically majority of the crime in the world. You are a fool who does not know how to think for himself, when you think that media = the only truth out there.

Have fun in ignorance.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#223  Edited By isaac_clarke

@minigunman123 said:

Feel free to believe what you want.

And vice versa, I'm all for that.

I am laughing out loud at you, though.

Well at least you're getting more out of this discussion / arguments then I am. The people arguing with me are mostly tossing fantasy my way.

I have proven many of the arguments in your reply wrong, in the same post you are quoting, and yet you don't even seem to read them. As well, many times on this site I have posted actual statistics of crime and gun use, and guess what? Pistols have always been at the top for gun-related injuries/deaths. The fact that the media is focusing on the mass murders as opposed to the many, much more common, muggings and single murders, does not make them more statistically dangerous, or the statistically majority of the crime in the world. You are a fool who does not know how to think for himself, when you think that media = the only truth out there.

Proven wrong? You're trying to justify semi-automatic use more or less because its fun, using fictional scenarios where the civil servants or members of the military are out to get me and how I should rely on my kind neighbor with a semi-automatic to save the day - this isn't compelling argument. Arguing semi-automatics don't kill nearly as much people as 'pistols' kinda ignores the point they do kill people - serving no other function outside killing multiple people. However I realize you don't care about that, namely why no matter how much I repeat you're going to ignore it.

I'm all for hearing good reasons that convince me of their worth to the common citizen, but thus far I haven't read any response here that is convincing - and honestly you're the most honest person here when you said it's fun and you believe the solution to gun violence is arming all your fellow citizens. Its not alien argument to me, but it isn't quite realistic - and that is namely what I'm looking for.

What media? And why am I under the assumption that is the only truth? Truth itself is a rather illusive creature in our society, there are a lot of 'truths' to look through.

I completely agree with the sentiment of being a fool, all people are. We are born knowing nothing and leave the world, relativity speaking, much the same way. I don't pretend to know everything and I'm not going to pretend I do, believing otherwise is a delusion. We're all self-centered and stubborn.

Have fun in ignorance.

Well that is certainly the main appeal of ignorance; Either way feel free to ignore my response. It doesn't seem like the discussion will change all too much outside scoring points for the respected parties on both sides of the discussion. To speak honestly, any insults being tossed my way tend to be misses (a bit more wit wouldn't hurt, though you're giving it a good shot) - however I'm probably going to have an easier time given I'm a veteran in these kind of discussions where I make my opponents look unfavorably by comparison.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

No you didn't and your still not. Your just stating that you don't like guns so nobody should be allowed to own them.

Then you didn't read what I posted. That's fine, most people arguing with me here don't.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#224  Edited By isaac_clarke

@Vaeternus said:

@Isaac_Clarke,

Biden's report again was to target NRA and violent games because he believes "they're a cause" of these criminal acts, period but hey dude believe what you want like I said I already supplied articles previously which you're choosing to ignore backing my claims.

Here, I'll even post GiantBomb.com(CV affiliate) story on it and most GiantBombers not too pleased with Biden...go figure. But hey don't get me wrong while Biden is typically a dope, I also fault the NRA here for their hypocrisy...blaming games yet making a game for IOS pad...targeting little kids. But still the whole notion of "let's blame someone" is old and wrong already...

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/vice-president-joe-biden-meets-with-gaming-industry/4515/

You're telling me what you believe he believes with a made up quote. You're again ignoring what I asked for - evidenced in regards to this witch hunt you claim Biden is on for video games (people from the meeting itself, the report itself or the actual executive orders) - instead you provide me a link to a Gaint Bomb article, that deals with the fact he met them.

Most Giantbombers? Have you even read the comments? Out of the 16 pages you have roughly 8-10 posts that mention him in a negative light, most of which not having at all to deal with what the article is discussing. Then you have a number of users posting in his defense, which again most are off topic in regards to the article. There was one post that mentioned the Obama administration in a negative light, a number of posts in regards to the perception of guns in the states and some seeing this meeting as a non issue.

Out of 320 comments, the NRA was getting much more negative flack than Biden (2x or 3x more) was (from the article itself and comments) and the discussion more or less evolved into a gun control debate. To say most Users were sporting a negative light on Biden suggests you read a few comments and ignored the latter 300 of them.

@Vaeternus said:

Sorry, but that's not profanity in the sense of "insulting someone" which you said I did in this topic. Who have I insulted? Again, nobody...unless you refer to Biden, Rosie which are celebrities or politicians who I've merely called out on their own dumb hypocrisy. BTW, that's cute how you're bringing up me using the term "b$tch" but everyone knows that's not how I was using it, you're putting words in my mouth on how YOU see fit...

The reality is, I was merely using that term to show she complains or cries WAY too much yet is a hypocrite....

Definition of the actual word "bitch"

bitch

/biCH/

Noun

A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.

Verb

informal. Express displeasure; grumble: "the guys were all bitching about commuting time".

In the sense I was using it was a verb offering displeasure or annoyance. Not profanity...you THINKING it's profanity doesn't make it so, I'm aware as is everyone else here I'm sure what "profanity" is...but again I asked you "who did I curse out here in this topic or flame"? and you've yet to answer because I haven't...again. Don't know how many times I must say it, you're seriously grasping at straws here.

I need not to shove anything in anyone's mouths, the evidence speaks for itself in this topic. Example, both and have both asked you various times "what an assault weapon is" and why "it should be illegal to own guns/semi-automatics"? Yet you offer no valid answer, you do the same thing you do with my questioning you about me "cursing someone here out" and you just fabricate stuff or dodge the question entirely.

Just admit it, you can't answer because there is no answer.

I've already posted the definition of Profanity:

Gallery image 1Gallery image 2

I'm not going to keep arguing whether or not you used profanity when you did. Rule of thumb, if you can't say it in-front of mothers with children without getting a dirty look, its vulgar. I've posted at least two variations of what I personally view as an assault weapon, the latter being firearms originally designed formilitary use or more simply things that serve no other function outside killing a lot of people and doing it very quickly. Seems simplistic enough, could care less about people trolling asking the same questions despite already having answers. Regardless what I think an assault weapon is redundant given I'm not the one issuing any bans, feel free to look at the definitions by the politicians that will - try not to make too much stuff up in the process.

I'm not repeating myself after this point. Feel free to repeat how I didn't define assault weapon over and over like the lot of them.

@Vaeternus said:

I color you in a class of your own, that's all I'll say to use commando as a crutch for your argument on why you feel guns should be banned...again, you having an Dead Space picture proves you contradict yourself. So, you're against movies such as Commando with guns yet is fiction, yet you play a game and are clearly a fan of the series that is not just violent but uses guns...in Dead Space(which has guns in it and is fiction also...)

I posted the command trailer to parody of what you would consider as an example of guns in the hands of civilians helping people. Since then you decided to take it completely out of context and work another ridiculous argument around it. Bravo.

Observe...clearly the game has guns. Yes?
So, really If I'm sooo wrong then how do you explain these, what are those things Isaac is using in the game? Do tell :) otherwise it is you who are wrong, very wrong because last time I checked pretty sure those are guns he's using...or at least a gun of some type be it fictional or realistic. I'm not taking anything out of context, I've merely taken your initial point about "guns" and being in Commando and tosses them right back at you with your own point but using a video game(same difference) but I really don't trust you to see my point here...

The original Dead Space has one gun, the Pulse Rifle. The rest are mining equipment. Dead Space Extraction the protagonists are sporting two guns, the same Pulse Rifle and P-SEC Pistol, the latter being mining equipment again. Dead Space 2 again provides only one actual gun, the pulse rifle; the Plasma Cutter in this title is a medical laser strapped onto a flash light by Isaac while in an insane asylum (the only other potential gun that comes to mind is a makeshift sniper rifle, but I don't believe it is an actual gun either). None of these are available for civilian use as far as I've seen to boot.

Please don't pretend you know anything about Dead Space, its fairly insulting to see you pretending to. The main protagonist is an engineer, who uses mining equipment primarily to kill un-dead space zombies that guns are largely are shown ineffective against. Beat the game on hardcore you can use a foam finger.

The issue here is a complete disconnect of what I've said and have been saying as you nonchalantly take something out of context to work an argument around it.

@isaac_clarke said:

Despite my post saying to the contrary already that the "bait" was for anyone, do go on.

You've completely missed the point and gone ahead to say something idiotic again. Especially given what I've said about Wolverine in debates.

Ahh, sure right..."bait" reference was for anyone that's why you quoted me initially with such right, yet nobody else? hmmm
See, now THIS if anything is a prime example of you flaming/insulting me where as what I said earlier about "Rosie O' Donnelle is B#$*ching about guns yet has guards by her side that carry guns...two entirely different things. One was me annoyed with one's hypocrisy, where as you are clearly getting upset thus feel the need to insult me...calling me an idiot for correcting you. But hey enlighten me, what have you said about Wolverine since I asked. BTW, it's not idiotic it's a valid point which clearly you don't want to answer or can't answer...
So, let me get this straight by me correcting your posts or asking you why can't guns be used for good or positives reasons means I'm reflecting? Ok...yeah not seeing it.
Good, then I see no reason why you'd take offense to me saying "lib or liberal" to begin with.

It isn't an insult if you're indeed posting something stupid and calling it an argument. Nothing past the mention of Commando is reflective of what I wrote, it is a false argument where you took something completely out of context and tried to poke at a game I enjoy, walking in without any knowledge on what you're talking about. That itself is an insult.
-
Again I don't see the use of "lib" or "liberal" as an insult, its the hate rant that follows. Stop ignoring that I keep saying this and stop taking things out of context to make arguments up.

Avatar image for falconpuuunch
FalconPuuunch

947

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#225  Edited By FalconPuuunch

I'm conflicted when it comes to gun bans in the US because I feel like we should have the feedoms that our forefathers fought for. However, I believe that we as a society can grow out of anything if need be.

With that said I don't think we are ready for gun bans. We can sit here and point fingers and blame things over and over again, but the fact of the matter is people in general want guns.

Avatar image for innervenom123
InnerVenom123

29886

Forum Posts

1786

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#226  Edited By InnerVenom123

Laughing so hard at the idiot above who seriously claims Isaac Clarke uses guns.

Play the f**king game. It's futuristic mining equipment.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#227  Edited By isaac_clarke

@InnerVenom123 said:

Laughing so hard at the idiot above who seriously claims Isaac Clarke uses guns.

Play the f**king game. It's futuristic mining equipment.

I just want to point out how I completely support civilians having access to Plasma Cutters in the event of a Necromorph outbreak. It may not be covered in the Earth Gov 2nd amendment that all men have the right to mining equipment / medical laser+Flash-Lights, but it should be.

Edited: Cut out picture to reduce page size.

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#228  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

No you didn't and your still not. Your just stating that you don't like guns so nobody should be allowed to own them.

Then you didn't read what I posted. That's fine, most people arguing with me here don't.

Okay. Let me try this one more time.

What is the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon?

And why should an assault weapon be any more illegal than your grandfather hunting rifle?

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#229  Edited By Vaeternus

It's a still a gun in DS, LOL @ the tool who thinks it's not a gun regardless of futuristic or not...obviously this guy never played a violent game...sad. So apparently the other weapons outside of "plasma cutters" which is still a weapon btw, plasma guns, automatic weapons, mines, grenades etc, ever heard of them? hmm Pretty sure it exists in games(and even in real life there's something called lasers which do harm in case some people are unaware but would be the only thing comparable realistically to a plasma cutter...) and the P-SEC-PISTOL for the genius who disagrees is a gun, look it up...a firearm. Do I really have to post every weapon, gun in the game to prove you wrong? lol

Loading Video...

Hmm, that gun alone "motorized Pulse RIFLE....

There's more, but I think I proved my point.

@ Isaac Clarke, wow just insistent on bumping this topic days later huh? lol I guess that's enough time to make up a counterpoint if not answer it...

Actually, no I didn't make up anything. It's a fact that Biden said he went after video games and NRA I already provided links for you but feel free to believe what you want. I love the denial at this point.. Did you read the entire topic? Majority were mocking Biden and/or the NRA, and for the record both are idiots for blaming violent games. There is no, worse or better. Anyone who blames games for reckless, random crimes is a moron flat out I don't care if they're a politician or gun group or soccer mom.

Yes, you provided the definition of profanity not the term "bitch" there's a huge difference and again the way I used it as a verb wasn't profanity. Again, technically the word "bitch" is NOT a curse word it's a female dog. I used it as verb to substitute the word "complain" besides, why don't you complain about your drone friends who just come in here to call me idiot without commenting on the actual topic itself? hmm? lol I love how you pick and choose things...Did you know there are PG13 movies that uses the word "bitch" in a non-profanity way right? But hey believe what you want. You're right, I won't be arguing about it either because I didn't use it the way you say. You merely misread or misunderstood how I used it. Again, verb.

Now, you want an ACTUAL example of profanity...here, your little friend is a great example ;)

@InnerVenom123 said:

Laughing so hard at the idiot above who seriously claims Isaac Clarke uses guns.

Play the f**king game. It's futuristic mining equipment.

Both not only breaking the rules of the forum but also has no argument ^. Funny, I didn't see you pointing out him using the "F" word but you have issues with me using the term "Bi%ch" ? hmmm

Right...right so me pointing out your hypocrisy is me "taking something out of context" meanwhile you bash the movie "Commando" in an attempt for why you hate guns yet sport a "Dead Space" photo in a game that uses guns? Bravo, you contradict yourself...Actually, I know lot Dead Space and gaming far more then you given your past posts concerning other video games...I was around during original Atari, NES times were you? Doubtful...and I know a good friend who loves DS and admits he uses guns at times, so you sir are wrong. I do find it amusing though that you're trying to justify "Dead Space" but attack Commando...guess what? I'm Pretty sure you can't just get a rocker launcher or C4, ballistic knives at your local shop either...so your "a civilian can't just get a plasma gun" argument fails....you can't get a rocker launcher at a shop either last time I checked.

Again, there is no hate. Hate to you=someone else like me for example with a mere difference in opinion or political views. It's not my fault you get butthurt over nothing. And I didn't take anything out of context, again you were the one who chose to post a mid 1980's film yet you clearly play violent games with guns, regardless of futuristic or fiction because guess what? COMMANDO IS ALSO FICTION!! HELLO!

Avatar image for innervenom123
InnerVenom123

29886

Forum Posts

1786

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#230  Edited By InnerVenom123
It's a still a gun in DS, LOL @ the tool who thinks it's not a gun regardless of futuristic or not...obviously this guy never played a violent game...sad.

"U NEVER PLAY VIOLENT GAME B4 LOL"

The plasma cutter is mining equipment.

That won't change no matter how many times you say it isn't.

Avatar image for innervenom123
InnerVenom123

29886

Forum Posts

1786

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#231  Edited By InnerVenom123

@Vaeternus said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

Laughing so hard at the idiot above who seriously claims Isaac Clarke uses guns.

Play the f**king game. It's futuristic mining equipment.

Both not only breaking the rules of the forum but also has no argument ^. Funny, I didn't see you pointing out him using the "F" word but you have issues with me using the term "Bi%ch" ? hmmm

Oh, and saying f**k doesn't count if you censor it.

Same with b*tch.

Uncensored is another issue entirely.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#232  Edited By Vaeternus

@InnerVenom123 said:

HAHAHAHA, oh how wrong you are. Uh yes I have and DO, I'm known on here for MK alone(which is way more violent then Dead Space is) clearly you're beyond ignorant lol. And chances are I'm older then you, and played every violent game ever made being as how I've played games since Atari.

BTW, next time try to speak English next time not "text" People tend to take you less seriously for doing so. Just saying ;)

Oh and it does count, because you didn't have to use that word to begin with. And surpasses the word B$%h" easily...the differences is that word means a female dog, your word was created for pure profanity.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28473

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#233  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

So that random guy on the street not being able to buy an AK-47 encourages victimization? Glad people from the 1700's are being channeled to devise what regulations should be placed on firearms now.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@isaac_clarke: Assault weapons are which? Semi or full?

Which one protects me from shadowy assailants and which one do I use to go hunting?

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Avatar image for god_spawn
God_Spawn

44816

Forum Posts

32697

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 10

#234  Edited By God_Spawn  Moderator

@Vaeternus: @InnerVenom123: Both of you guys need to chill out. If you can't respond without resorting to insults, then don't do it all.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#235  Edited By Vaeternus

Ok, I won't insult anyone. I just don't understand why others have to do so for merely disagreeing with them....

I also don't get why the same "user" keeps bumping this topic every week when it dies...arguing with everyone who proves him wrong countless times..

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Good point. Apart of the problem is also the fact that some folks feel there's a category for "assault weapons" but like Noose, MasterJohn and few others mentioned what exactly is "an assault" weapon? Know what I mean?

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#236  Edited By isaac_clarke

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Human nature may have not changed over the last 300 years, but guns have and there are certainly a lot more of them in the states. Regardless I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms (despite arguments to the contrary), just the ones that honestly shouldn't leave the firing range.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

Okay. Let me try this one more time.

What is the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon?

And why should an assault weapon be any more illegal than your grandfather hunting rifle?

You're asking an entirely different question now despite already getting an answer to the previous question over half a dozen times, yet for whatever reason you can't acknowledge it. What did the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, ban in 1994? We're talking a term used to describe semi-automatic weapons - for whatever reason that seems to be quite a hurdle.

I call it that thing people keep doing mass shootings with. Is Grandpa's hunting rifle designed to kill other people in a war zone?

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#237  Edited By RazzaTazz

@god_spawn said:

@Vaeternus: @InnerVenom123: Both of you guys need to chill out. If you can't respond without resorting to insults, then don't do it all.

I would like to repeat my colleague's wise words. Discussions don't need insults.

Avatar image for isaac_clarke
isaac_clarke

5998

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#238  Edited By isaac_clarke

@Vaeternus said:

It's a still a gun in DS, LOL @ the tool who thinks it's not a gun regardless of futuristic or not...obviously this guy never played a violent game...sad. So apparently the other weapons outside of "plasma cutters" which is still a weapon btw, plasma guns, automatic weapons, mines, grenades etc, ever heard of them? hmm Pretty sure it exists in games(and even in real life there's something called lasers which do harm in case some people are unaware but would be the only thing comparable realistically to a plasma cutter...) and the P-SEC-PISTOL for the genius who disagrees is a gun, look it up...a firearm. Do I really have to post every weapon, gun in the game to prove you wrong? lol

The Plasma Cutter is not a gun. The first iteration is a mining tool to help extract various desirable materials from a planet crack, the other is a medical laser rigged to a flash light. Largely most of the weapons in Dead Space are mining tools, mainly because of how ineffective a gun is in Dead Space against Necromorphs.

I like that troll comment that argues two Dead Space fans have yet to play a violent video game. Guess we can't all be pros and play the super duper violent Mortal Kombat that my seven year old cousin was playing with on the N64. One day we can be Pro's like her.

You could post every gun in the Dead Space Universe, the total number has been four shown throughout the games and films. The rest is mining equipment that is largely far more effective than most of said guns on Necromorphs, mainly because they're designed to blow apart large portions of a planet to get the desired materials. All of these again are not available to civilians, which wouldn't using a plasma cutter as a gun.

The Ishimura was a mining ship, not a gun shop in Arizona.

Hmm, that gun alone "motorized Pulse RIFLE....
There's more, but I think I proved my point.

There are two more, one shown in the film being used by Earth Gov soldiers and the other being a mediocre rifle.

@ Isaac Clarke, wow just insistent on bumping this topic days later huh? lol I guess that's enough time to make up a counterpoint if not answer it...

Better things to do with my time than argue with predominantly someone who is trolling my favorite survival horror franchise.

Actually, no I didn't make up anything. It's a fact that Biden said he went after video games and NRA I already provided links for you but feel free to believe what you want. I love the denial at this point.. Did you read the entire topic? Majority were mocking Biden and/or the NRA, and for the record both are idiots for blaming violent games. There is no, worse or better. Anyone who blames games for reckless, random crimes is a moron flat out I don't care if they're a politician or gun group or soccer mom.

You provided a link to a giant bomb article that acknowledged there was a meeting. You then told me that most users commenting on that article were not pleased with Biden; You lied. Telling me the majority is hating on Biden, when you have barely half a page of criticism that has nothing to do with the meeting through 16 pages isn't truthful. I'll say it in nice big headers:

You're a liar.

The report to the President didn't have any negative recommendations to video games, the people who actually attended the meeting didn't storm out announcing how Biden was out to get video games (quotes from people who attended the meeting that prove you wrong have already been posted) and President's executive order was to do research, not even limiting that research to games.

So all in all, where was this Biden witch hunt on video games outside your claims?

Now provide evidence for your hot hair. Not article titles, not a completely false generalization of the comments people posted (which again isn't evidence to begin with) - actual quotes from the Vice President, his report and what came about that report to prove your point. Otherwise quiet down while the adults are talking.

Yes, you provided the definition of profanity not the term "bitch" there's a huge difference and again the way I used it as a verb wasn't profanity. Again, technically the word "bitch" is NOT a curse word it's a female dog. I used it as verb to substitute the word "complain" besides, why don't you complain about your drone friends who just come in here to call me idiot without commenting on the actual topic itself? hmm? lol I love how you pick and choose things...Did you know there are PG13 movies that uses the word "bitch" in a non-profanity way right? But hey believe what you want. You're right, I won't be arguing about it either because I didn't use it the way you say. You merely misread or misunderstood how I used it. Again, verb.
Now, you want an ACTUAL example of profanity...here, your little friend is a great example ;)

Okay then, feel free to drop the word B!@#$ over and over in casual conversation in-front of children and explain to them how its a female dog, of course while the mothers are present - explaining how it means female dog in french and see how impressed they will be with you. Come on champ, go for it. Happily ignore how the word is viewed in our society to tell me how you aren't cursing.

Do you know what PG-13 stands for? Also look up what warnings are generally associated with PG-13 to parents in regards to children that are attending.

Both not only breaking the rules of the forum but also has no argument ^. Funny, I didn't see you pointing out him using the "F" word but you have issues with me using the term "Bi%ch" ? hmmm

Except you didn't give any mind to actually editing the profanity. But play victim, as you always do poor little MKF30 - those mean comicvine mods banned you for trolling and banned your other account for trolling. Sad sad, life never seems to be fair. I think it's that Obama guy's fault or that random guy who may or not be a liberal.

Right...right so me pointing out your hypocrisy is me "taking something out of context" meanwhile you bash the movie "Commando" in an attempt for why you hate guns yet sport a "Dead Space" photo in a game that uses guns? Bravo, you contradict yourself...Actually, I know lot Dead Space and gaming far more then you given your past posts concerning other video games...I was around during original Atari, NES times were you? Doubtful...and I know a good friend who loves DS and admits he uses guns at times, so you sir are wrong. I do find it amusing though that you're trying to justify "Dead Space" but attack Commando...guess what? I'm Pretty sure you can't just get a rocker launcher or C4, ballistic knives at your local shop either...so your "a civilian can't just get a plasma gun" argument fails....you can't get a rocker launcher at a shop either last time I checked.

I bashed the movie Commando? Feel free to quote where I "bashed" the movie Commando. Me using the trailer to poke fun at your bad arguments or people calling for civilian gun heroes isn't bashing Arnold Schwarzenegger or any of his films I've been having a blast with for 20 years, least of all Commando.

You know I somewhat doubt you're gaming library consists of much outside shelves and shelves of Mortal Kombat games you never even became particular good at.

Me on the other hand, I'm pretty proud of my gaming library and the diversity I've experienced over dozen or so consoles. The irony is the mountain of games most people are never going to see and are unlikely to get through whatever their efforts

Again, there is no hate. Hate to you=someone else like me for example with a mere difference in opinion or political views. It's not my fault you get butthurt over nothing. And I didn't take anything out of context, again you were the one who chose to post a mid 1980's film yet you clearly play violent games with guns, regardless of futuristic or fiction because guess what? COMMANDO IS ALSO FICTION!! HELLO!

Nope, its hate speech. Best evidence is to simply replace "Lib" or "Liberal" in your posts with any other identifying feature of a group of people. Spoilers, it can sound pretty bad.

You keep saying you don't take things out of context in these arguments, yet you do. Weird huh?

@Vaeternus said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

HAHAHAHA, oh how wrong you are. Uh yes I have and DO, I'm known on here for MK alone(which is way more violent then Dead Space is) clearly you're beyond ignorant lol. And chances are I'm older then you, and played every violent game ever made being as how I've played games since Atari.

BTW, next time try to speak English next time not "text" People tend to take you less seriously for doing so. Just saying ;)

Oh and it does count, because you didn't have to use that word to begin with. And surpasses the word B$%h" easily...the differences is that word means a female dog, your word was created for pure profanity.

Yes way more violent then the game you've never played. The irony of MKF30 calling anyone ignorant when most of what he says is debunked and outright wrong whenever anyone debates him. Seriously, you're more or less this forum's punching bag.

@Vaeternus said:

Ok, I won't insult anyone. I just don't understand why others have to do so for merely disagreeing with them....

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Good point. Apart of the problem is also the fact that some folks feel there's a category for "assault weapons" but like Noose, MasterJohn and few others mentioned what exactly is "an assault" weapon? Know what I mean?

If you are that confused as to what it means, do a little bit of research. There is something titled the Federal Assault Weapons ban to start with from 1994. There are also a great deal of politicians described what their perception of an assault weapon is and why they are pushing towards legislation to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of just anyone.

If you don't want to be insulted, try not trolling.

Avatar image for vaeternus
Vaeternus

9558

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#239  Edited By Vaeternus

@Isaac_ Clarke, Ok I'm going to address each one of your points individually and make some corrections to how off you are about me once or twice more then I'm just going to ignore you...what exactly have I lied about concerning my links, especially when I've backed up my points with links that say the same thing? Obviously one or two things I noticed are your problem A. you have reading comprehension issues and/or selective reading or B. You're just getting so lost in your one man vs. the world rebuttal(as this topic proves) that you can't see past your own perspective. For one, claiming I or anyone else here aren't adults when chances are we are in all likely hood(and I wager even older then you with some users) and being as how you're the only one arguing with everyone here clearly shows nobody agrees with you...yet yeah, I'm the one who's "making up stuff" right....

I'm well aware of what an assault weapon is, realistically which can be a lot of things. Unlike you that has a "chart of what is and what isn't in his head" and you can't even answer it after multiple people asked you, so you do research please. I don't put certain guns on a "assault weapon" pedestal like you do..

Wrong. Nope, if anything you're the one lying about me with ridiculous comments like "I'm a punching bag" heh, sure... and you're apparently very misguided...I didn't lie, I said majority in general prior to me posting that topic were tired of Biden's nonsense as well as the NRA and that topic is no different. You're just seeing what you want to see as usual. It is not me trolling, if anything that would be you as to why everyone here is arguing with you, not me...and you bumping the topic every weekend just to post novels repeating yourself addressing the same people.

Wrong again, seriously your bad assumption and presumptuous attitude towards my knowledge and experience of games is rather tiresome, so do yourself a favor and don't speak of it because I assure you have no idea what you're talking about.

For one, no just because MK is my "favorite" series doesn't mean I just play MK. That has to be the most ignorant perspective if I've ever heard on here concerning gaming. I happen to not only own or owned Atari, NES, SNES, Sega, GC, PS1, PS2, Xbox 1, 360 and Wii but also handhelds from GB to Dsi(soon to get a 3DS) but I was around during all of them.... so I assure you, that alone proves you're wrong. I don't buy or play "every game" but then nobody does, we all have preferences and that shows in the "top 10 favorite gaming threads" Obviously you failed to read my top 10 list as only 2 of the 10 games are MK...but I do find it incredibly amusing that you of all people are accusing others of being "biased". Chances are you're a Sony player or Xbox and just play "M" rated games thinking they rep everything gaming or were simply born in another era of gaming far after my era.

I can name you games right now that I'm willing to bet you never even heard of much less know what console they're on so trust me, you don't want to challenge me to a "gaming contest" and as far as pros in MK are concerned or any game, that's irrelevant. Just because I know the story inside and out and have been to few local tourneys doesn't mean I only play MK, if anything it shows that I know things about how pro gaming works being as how I've played and competed with actual MLG MK players online as well as been to few local tourneys and know a pro DOA player personally...so again, never assume because well..you know the rest. I've written guides, helped people out and have had my friends list full on day one because of it or just being very social. I mean hell, according to you if I'm so hated then why do I have as many if not more actually now, followers then you do on here? That's not even counting my original name...hmm. Punching bag? ha you wish...

Wrong again concerning the "if you don't want to be insulted, don't troll." Incorrect, more like How about managing to have an adult conversation in a mature matter without insulting due to disagreement. And the previous two mods just said the same thing, so don't try to put your own spin on it. Rules are rules. Period. Posts regarding just insults serve no purpose other then pure trolling.

Wow, you keep insisting on "Plasma Rifle, Plasma this, Plasma that" even though I've proved you wrong by posting links showing OTHER GUNS that aren't plasma related...good job, you have selective reading. Point is you're ignoring the concept and concentrating on one Gun/weapon in DS...where your stance on guns using movies like Commando but trying to defending a known violent video game (which is banned by the way in some countries like MK, GTA, Manhunt few others etc) is ok...please...you couldn't be anymore biased right now. A gun is a gun. You can't have it both ways guy. There is nobody playing the victim, just me giving you the facts of what a violent game is and your own hypocrisy concerning "gun mentality" yet you're using fictional movies like Commando a movie over 20 years old no less as a bad example of an argument you're trying to use.

Wrong again, PG-13 doesn't require a parent being there if you're 13 years or older.... hence the "13" being in the rating system. It is merely recommended..if you're around that age or little older but not required for their parent to be there, how do I know this? Simple, my best friend's Fiancee is a movie manager at a movie theatre. Rated R however DOES require not just I.D. if you look young, but a parent if you're under 18...some states this varies slightly but overall same rules apply.

Again, even though I could have chosen another word it wasn't meant in the way you're saying. You're putting words in my mouth as if to say "I have a potty mouth" then when your friend uses the "F" word which surpasses the "B" word, you say nothing...again don't be a hypocrite. Tell it to your friend, not me. I rarely if ever curse on here and even use words like that. Plus, notice you're the only person in here complaining about me using the "B" word in that aspect....so nobody cares obviously or you're simply not mature enough to handle the word. Also, you have to be I believe 13 minimum to be on here. That is not a child, that is a young adolescent a teenager...but tell you what, just to please you and so that I don't offend you, I'll use complain or nag ;)

Nope, it's not hate speech. Sorry but me disagreeing with your political philosophy doesn't =hate speech. I know people like you think every little thing is considered "hate speech" for having a different perspective but the truth is it's really not. It's you being overly sensitive...

Really? Because how does me having more experience in gaming then you and proving you wrong equal me being "this forums" punching bag? No, if anything you've been this threads punching bag and you just refuse to fall off your mighty "anti-gun" flawed chain....no matter how many people here prove you wrong with indisputable facts..

hey dude, just want to say I agree with your posts and feel you bring up solid points.

Avatar image for atphantom
AtPhantom

14434

Forum Posts

25163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#240  Edited By AtPhantom

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Thing is, increased regulation will allow for far greater efficiency in dealing with illegal gun ownership as well, if by no other means, then at least by allowing the ATF to actually grow balls and be able to do stuff rather than just sit impotently and occasionally remind people how guns are dangerous. One only needs to look at countries which have effective gun control to see that the old claim that guns laws don't matter to criminals is completely wrong.

Take the UK for example. Yeah, you can get a gun there if you want it hard enough. Most criminals don't want it that hard though, and as a result the relative murder rate by firearms there is more than four times smaller than in the US. That's a big goddamn difference.

Avatar image for deepdown
deepdown

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#241  Edited By deepdown

@AtPhantom said:

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Thing is, increased regulation will allow for far greater efficiency in dealing with illegal gun ownership as well, if by no other means, then at least by allowing the ATF to actually grow balls and be able to do stuff rather than just sit impotently and occasionally remind people how guns are dangerous. One only needs to look at countries which have effective gun control to see that the old claim that guns laws don't matter to criminals is completely wrong.

Take the UK for example. Yeah, you can get a gun there if you want it hard enough. Most criminals don't want it that hard though, and as a result the relative murder rate by firearms there is more than four times smaller than in the US. That's a big goddamn difference.

They also have a violent crime rate more than 4 times higher than the US. All gun control does is prevent honest people from defending themselves.

Avatar image for atphantom
AtPhantom

14434

Forum Posts

25163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#242  Edited By AtPhantom

@deepdown said:

They also have a violent crime rate more than 4 times higher than the US. All gun control does is prevent honest people from defending themselves.

That's because the US and UK use different definitions for "violent crime". UK statistics include things like common assault (lowest level of assault, no injuries), harassment and other things that US statistics do not. IIRC those things account for something like 60% of crimes in the UK.

Besides, even if it is higher, the point is that those victims live to tell their tale about it. Which is what this whole thing is about. People. Aren't. Dying.

Avatar image for thenooseisloose
TheNooseIsLoose

1920

Forum Posts

2154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#243  Edited By TheNooseIsLoose

@isaac_clarke said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

Okay. Let me try this one more time.

What is the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon?

And why should an assault weapon be any more illegal than your grandfather hunting rifle?

You're asking an entirely different question now despite already getting an answer to the previous question over half a dozen times, yet for whatever reason you can't acknowledge it. What did the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, ban in 1994? We're talking a term used to describe semi-automatic weapons - for whatever reason that seems to be quite a hurdle.

I call it that thing people keep doing mass shootings with. Is Grandpa's hunting rifle designed to kill other people in a war zone?

Depends what model rifle he is using but most likely yes. Maybe the most popular hunting rifle of all time, the Remington 700, is also one of the world most popular sniper rifles. The AR-15 on the other hand was never used in the military. It was marketed at civilian hunters and target shooters.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28473

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#244  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@AtPhantom said:

@Lunacyde said:

The notion hasn't really changed since the 1700s. Human nature has not changed. What is said in that quote is still true in a general way. YES, we should have more extensive background checks and the like, especially at gun shows. However most criminals will get their hands on weapons whether you sell it to them legally or not. They are criminals, they don't care about the law by definition. They will steal a gun, buy one on the black market, or borrow one from a friend, etc. The sad actions of a few need not mean the many law abiding citizen's who use guns in a responsible manner should lose their rights. "Those who would sacrifice a measure of liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither". - Benjamin Franklin.

I am not talking about rocket launchers or machine guns, I am simply talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

Thing is, increased regulation will allow for far greater efficiency in dealing with illegal gun ownership as well, if by no other means, then at least by allowing the ATF to actually grow balls and be able to do stuff rather than just sit impotently and occasionally remind people how guns are dangerous. One only needs to look at countries which have effective gun control to see that the old claim that guns laws don't matter to criminals is completely wrong.

Take the UK for example. Yeah, you can get a gun there if you want it hard enough. Most criminals don't want it that hard though, and as a result the relative murder rate by firearms there is more than four times smaller than in the US. That's a big goddamn difference.

I do agree with this. First and foremost we need to actually give the ATF the power to enforce gun laws. The ATF hasn't had a full time director in over 6 years. They don't have enough agents to deal with the amount of enforcement needed, and they haven't been given the authority to really make any sort of impact in the way they should. I am all for prosecuting and taking out those who illegally obtain firearms. I fully agree with background checks and other methods of closing off the sale and movement of illegal guns. These things should not harm the rights of law abiding citizens to have reasonable arms for hunting, defense, recreation, etc. I would be very happy if we instated programs and laws similar to that of Switzerland, where we educate people in the use and maintainence of guns and keep them out of the hands of criminals.

The UK is a whole different animal though. Although gun violence is virtually nonexistant other forms of violent crime are similar and some crimes such as burglary have actually been higher, just to give a well rounded look at it.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28473

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#245  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@isaac_clarke: Human nature may have not changed over the last 300 years, but guns have and there are certainly a lot more of them in the states. Regardless I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms (despite arguments to the contrary), just the ones that honestly shouldn't leave the firing range.

Well there were also a lot less people around back then. If you looked at the % of Americans who owned a gun back then though it was pretty high and certainly comparable to modern times.

Certainly it is true that with the advancement of technology these weapons have become more destructive, and easier to use. I agree there needs to be some limits on the ownership of guns of personal use, specifically those of an "assault" nature. Perhaps even more importantly we need to be able to enforce our gun laws. People do not seem to realize that the Supreme Court did not even rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to private gun ownership until 2008.

Avatar image for living_monstrosity
Living_Monstrosity

508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for theanalyser
Theanalyser

1389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A lot has happened since 4 years, all I can say is that states need to adapt to a more open policy where both sides can have a discussion about the best way to move forward in order to reduce gun violence, I don't agree with the notion of completely restricting gun usage, this policy has been shown to fail as guns are widely available on the black market, it wouldn't be that hard for criminals to obtain them, on the other hand if we allow certain types of guns to be widely avaliable that people do not necersarily need in self defence, then anyone who obtains them who wishes to do harm will probably have no issue doing so. There are failures on the side of the mental health system, and the criminal justice system, taking all of these factors into consideration, it's hard to come to a determination of what the next course of action should be.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Loading Video...

Wow...

This is hilarious.

Avatar image for jsdoctor
JSDoctor

1727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As someone who lives in a country where guns are banned and there is very little gun violence, the ease of purchasing and owning guns in the USA seems absolutely absurd to me. Then again, I say this as someone who isn't an American, so maybe I don't see the issue the same way others do.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.