[QUOTE=JDK721;21965573]Your point? Read the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE]
that's a pretty religious way of seeing a text written by ordinary men decades ago
the amendments were amendments and they too can be amended
[QUOTE=radioactive;21965552]But a person can take one of these guns and shoot up a school.[/QUOTE]
But a person could take a car and run it into a school
But a person could take a knife and kill kids in a school (ala china)
But a person could illegally obtain a gun and still shoot up a school while law abiding citizens get fucked.
Let's just ban everything sounds reasonable
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966251]But a person could illegally obtain a gun and still shoot up a school while law abiding citizens get fucked.[/QUOTE]
How does removing guns cause law abiding citizens to get fucked in any meaning of the word?
Hey guys you can also kill someone with a golfclub/baseball bat we should just start banning sports 2
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966224]that's a pretty religious way of seeing a text written by ordinary men decades ago
the amendments were amendments and they too can be amended[/QUOTE]
So him saying "Read the law" is a religious way of seeing text written decades ago? Law is law, decades ago or not.
And the ones who made that law understood that the only way to somewhat control guns going into the right hands is to have it legal and out of the black market. Just look at the war on drugs, clearly banning drugs will solve all drug related problems right? Nope.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966279]How does removing guns cause law abiding citizens to get fucked in any meaning of the word?[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that you could effectively get rid of 250 million firearms in the USA?
Do you realize we have 300 million citizens
and 250 million guns.
Not going to happen.
[quote=prismatexv8;21964759]
palin, a potential 2012 presidential candidate,
[/quote]
ahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966285]Hey guys you can also kill someone with a golfclub/baseball bat we should just start banning sports 2[/QUOTE]
I believe the difference that you're ignoring is that weapons are designed to kill people and thus with them it's especially easy to do so even by untrained people
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966307]I believe the difference that you're ignoring is that weapons are designed to kill people and thus with them it's especially easy to do so even by untrained people[/QUOTE]
"You have to be a trained professional to kill someone with a golf club"
-ThePuska, 2010.
Also, tell me: What was the club's original purpose? A golfclub could easily serve the same purpose as a club a fucking caveman would use. Probably more effective though.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966285]Hey guys you can also kill someone with a golfclub/baseball bat we should just start banning sports 2[/QUOTE]
They should ban sports but keep guns.
Guns are the barrier between democracy and despotism...
KILL HER
/lolocaps
He would.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966224]that's a pretty religious way of seeing a text written by ordinary men decades ago
the amendments were amendments and they too can be amended[/QUOTE]
The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It doesn't fucking matter how long ago it was.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966307]I believe the difference that you're ignoring is that weapons are designed to kill people and thus with them it's especially easy to do so even by untrained people[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it is easy for good people to protect their family as well, even if they are untrained. My question to you is how the hell would banning guns keep it out of the hands of criminals? Criminals would not get it legally anyway as they have to get a license and go through a ton of background checks to get it. Banning guns would just remove that legal option, and remove the legit gun owners, while the criminals keep their guns.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966300]Are you implying that you could effectively get rid of 250 million firearms in the USA?
Do you realize we have 300 million citizens
and 250 million guns.
Not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
I'm not implying anything, I'm asking how law-abiding citizens could possibly get fucked by a law that forbids guns. If they abide the law, they abide the law. After they've abided the law, they no longer have guns. No law-abiding citizens fucked.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966337]"You have to be a trained professional to kill someone with a golf club"
-ThePuska, 2010.
Also, tell me: What was the club's original purpose? A golfclub could easily serve the same purpose as a club a fucking caveman would use. Probably more effective though.[/QUOTE]
I believe one of your arguments also was that it would be impossible to remove all the guns. Apply it to clubs, sports and everything.
Hey guys how do you have to be less trained to effectively use a firearm than using a golfclub or some other item that can be used to kill people? Contrary to popular belief (I know I'm on a forum full of kids who get 99% of their information on firearms from video games) firearms are actually quite fucking hard to aim. If the user doesn't know what he's doing he'll also probably take a century to change a mag/figure out his safety is on/actually land a shot that will inflict lethal damage.
If Palin said it, it's most likely false.
Ban guns; win knife crime.
Also can't ban guns in the United States, it's against the constitution.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;21966297]So him saying "Read the law" is a religious way of seeing text written decades ago? Law is law, decades ago or not.
And the ones who made that law understood that the only way to somewhat control guns going into the right hands is to have it legal and out of the black market. Just look at the war on drugs, clearly banning drugs will solve all drug related problems right? Nope.[/QUOTE]
Law can be changed, which wouldn't be true for religious texts. Telling someone to read a list of some holy commands in response to a suggested change in law is obviously a religious way of seeing this list.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966511]I'm not implying anything, I'm asking how law-abiding citizens could possibly get fucked by a law that forbids guns. If they abide the law, they abide the law. After they've abided the law, they no longer have guns. No law-abiding citizens fucked.
I believe one of your arguments also was that it would be impossible to remove all the guns. Apply it to clubs, sports and everything.[/QUOTE]
I'm not actually suggesting we ban all sports equipment :downs:.
Law abiding citizens get fucked because if the big bad guvment came to take my guns I know I'd stash one or two in an underground lockbox. I'm sure a lot of people would do the same and that's where you get the huge illegal gun blackmarket inside of the US. Criminals will find ways to obtain guns, law abiding citizens won't have them.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966572]I'm not actually suggesting we ban all sports equipment :downs:.[/QUOTE]
Then why compare banning guns to banning sports equipment
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966572]Law abiding citizens get fucked because if the big bad guvment came to take my guns I know I'd stash one or two in an underground lockbox. I'm sure a lot of people would do the same and that's where you get the huge illegal gun blackmarket inside of the US. Criminals will find ways to obtain guns, law abiding citizens won't have them.[/QUOTE]
A citizen who breaks the law is not a law-abiding citizen
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966607]Then why compare banning guns to banning sports equipment
A citizen who breaks the law is not a law-abiding citizen[/QUOTE]
You are either the most dense element in the universe or just trolling.
Yes, you are very correct. A criminal is a criminal. A criminal can have a gun. A law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun. A criminal can use said gun against defenseless law-abiding citizen.
Seeing what I'm saying yet?
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966568]Law can be changed, which wouldn't be true for religious texts. Telling someone to read a list of some holy commands in response to a suggested change in law is obviously a religious way of seeing this list.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the constitution has been amended quite a few times in it's history. It has been changed quite a bit in the last 80 years, and for that matter, most religious texts have been as well, but that's not the point. The point is how would banning guns solve gun crime?
[QUOTE=Heroms;21965205]You don't need to have them be available to every person in the country.[/QUOTE]
American cities are dangerous places.
If you take away guns from innocent, normal people, then the criminals will have guns, and the people won't.
Look at the UK for example, guns are banned there, but every so often you hear about houses being raided with armories that rival a small country's military.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966519]Hey guys how do you have to be less trained to effectively use a firearm than using a golfclub or some other item that can be used to kill people? Contrary to popular belief (I know I'm on a forum full of kids who get 99% of their information on firearms from video games) firearms are actually quite fucking hard to aim. If the user doesn't know what he's doing he'll also probably take a century to change a mag/figure out his safety is on/actually land a shot that will inflict lethal damage.[/QUOTE]
Imagine a situation in a public place. One person has a gun, and he's going to shoot someone. What would the rest of the people do?
They'd run.
Imagine the same situation except that you replace the gun with a blunt weapon. Now what would the crowd do?
Some of them might run.
It's less of a threat when you don't have as potent a weapon
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966657]Imagine a situation in a public place. One person has a gun, and he's going to shoot someone. What would the rest of the people do?
They'd run.
Imagine the same situation except that you replace the gun with a blunt weapon. Now what would the crowd do?
Some of them might run.
It's less of a threat when you don't have as potent a weapon[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the bystander effect?
It's not like someone would go batman on some guy wielding a golfclub.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966657]Imagine a situation in a public place. One person has a gun, and he's going to shoot someone. What would the rest of the people do?
They'd run.
Imagine the same situation except that you replace the gun with a blunt weapon. Now what would the crowd do?
Some of them might run.
It's less of a threat when you don't have as potent a weapon[/QUOTE]
Now imagine if someone in that public space for whatever reason also had a gun, and pointed it at said criminal. Now imagine if everyone had guns in a horrible stupid society, that criminal would be a tad outnumbered and no one would run right? Guns, like everything, have goods and bads, but banning them would solve nothing but keep them in the hands of criminals.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21966685]Ever heard of the bystander effect?
It's not like someone would go batman on some guy wielding a golfclub.[/QUOTE]
The bystander effect is not an accurate description of general human behaviour in a situation like that, it's a phenomenon that's been noticed to happen sometimes
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21966736]The bystander effect is not an accurate description of general human behaviour in a situation like that, it's a phenomenon that's been noticed to happen sometimes[/QUOTE]
Okay.
So tell me again, how is it logistically possible to get rid of 250 million firearms in the US?
Ontop of that, I don't think you're thinking of the effects banning guns would make.
Crazy redneck militias bombing govt. institutions.
Because of this they would have to get homeland security in on it and homeland security would have to shoot the militias who are US citizens. So many fucking people would die over nothing and the ban would most likely only make gun crimes a lot worse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.