Lol'd at all the anti gun guys in this thread getting themselves banned 1 by 1 over time
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38914733]Lol'd at all the anti gun guys in this thread getting themselves banned 1 by 1 over time[/QUOTE]
NO. STAHP
BANISHMENT IS NOTHING TO LAUGH AT.
Well, Biden's in charge of the ban, so we already know it's going no where--I'm surprised he hasn't tripped over his own dick. Let's see why this ban won't work shall we? Let's take the ten year long 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban (or FAWB). That ban did not, and I repeat DID NOT halt the sale of "assault weapons". Rather, these "assault weapons" were modified around the ban to look more sporty than scary, and therefore be sold legally in stores.
I own an Egyptian AK-47. My dad's friend gave it to me because he fell on hard times and doesn't have the use for it anymore. The weapon was purchased LEGALLY in 1997 during the FAWB. Why? Because it had a thumbhole stock (that's long gone by now, I hated it). Adam Lanza used an AR-15--that "assault weapon" has a rifle stock option available to it that gives it the sporty look and allow it to be legal.
This ban will do nothing to prevent crime, all it will do is create more hoops for law-abiding citizens. The FAWB also did JACK SHIT to prevent crime. Remember the 1997 North Hollywood shootout? The FAWB didn't stop that, not to mention Larry Phillips had a fully automatic AKM, WHICH ISN'T EVEN LEGAL WITHOUT PROPER LICENSING and the LAPD was getting fucking slaughtered. That alone is proof that you can't throw laws around to prevent things. Look at drugs, they're illegal and now we have drug cartels to deal with. This ban will be as effective as a grain of sand.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38913244]What has this got to do with the AWB? Is there a point to this bitching? I thought we already established that you were uninformed when it comes to gun politics and straw man all the time.[/QUOTE]
Well reading the topic beforehand is a good way to help you understand what the ongoing debate is.
The other points you mentioned are nothing short of ironic.
A little late to the party here, but perhaps the Government should create some sort of law that prevents news outlets from running 24/7 broadcasts of these events. Obviously they could still cover the story, but good ol' Morgan said it right; the media is the problem, not the guns.
Also:
- Lanza tried to buy a rifle legally and was denied, he obtained his weapons illegally instead.
- Lanza did not use any rifles, he used pistols that would still be legal under the AWB.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38879476]Stop production of bullets, reward people handsomely for turning in bullets, eventually guns become harmless. Unless you hit someone with them.
People cant really be so single-minded that "Ban all guns" is the only solution? MANY people have said that it is impossible, at least in the US. So just get rid of what makes guns dangerous in the first place.
Well its apparent people only want something to fight about, when a good idea is presented its automatically dumbed down. This problem will never be fixed, and these things will still happen, all because people are stubborn and can't accept anything outside of what they believe. As far as I'm concerned those children's blood is on YOUR hands.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's a great fucking idea! Leave us completely defenseless against criminals who can and will get guns regardless of what something on a piece of god damn paper says. I question the logic of many people on this forum.
[QUOTE=k4rl;38915354]Yeah that's a great fucking idea! Leave us completely defenseless against criminals who can and will get guns regardless of what something on a piece of god damn paper says. I question the logic of many people on this forum.[/QUOTE]
People get murdered regardless of what a piece of paper says.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38915484]People get murdered regardless of what a piece of paper says.[/QUOTE]
that is completely against the entire "guns are bad" argument
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38915075]Also:
- Lanza tried to buy a rifle legally and was denied, he obtained his weapons illegally instead.
- Lanza did not use any rifles, he used pistols that would still be legal under the AWB.[/QUOTE]
Wait so did he or not, Cause i've heard back and forth he used a rifle.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38915555]Wait so did he or not, Cause i've heard back and forth he used a rifle.[/QUOTE]
he had a rifle but left it in his car
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38915761]he had a rifle but left it in his car[/QUOTE]
how do we know for sure though? The media has been confusing it for days. Fuck them.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38915779]how do we know for sure though? The media has been confusing it for days. Fuck them.[/QUOTE]
semi-automatic rifles are scarier than pistols, that's the only reason the media has been saying he used it. he brought it, but never used it
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38915852]semi-automatic rifles are scarier than pistols, that's the only reason the media has been saying he used it. he brought it, but never used it[/QUOTE]
This^^^
In addition, I think handguns are more of a problem in these mass shootings than rifles because rifles are harder to reload (in states like CA, you have to use a bullet button as well), and also, you can carry multiple handguns on your person, plus one in each hand (assuming you have the beef for that)
I don't know why anti gun activists are so hellbent on banning rifles when its handguns that are the real "problem".
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38915852]semi-automatic rifles are scarier than pistols, that's the only reason the media has been saying he used it. he brought it, but never used it[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many people actually know what "semi-automatic" means. I asked a friend of mine after he spouted something about it, in a nice way at least (As I always do to anti-gun guys, because nobody [I]that[/I] gun nerd), if he knew what semi-automatic meant and he didn't. I'd go so far as to say pistols are more dangerous than most civilian rifles, outside of a few rare situations in which the shooter is firing past 50 meters. You can't conceal a rifle very well.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38915761]he had a rifle but left it in his car[/QUOTE]
I've heard multiple media sources say he did have it on him. If he didn't use it then why the hell are we even talking assault weapon ban
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38915938]I've heard multiple media sources say he did have it on him. If he didn't use it then why the hell are we even talking assault weapon ban[/QUOTE]
BECAUSE
THE MEDIA IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE SITUATION TO PROMOTE THEIR ANTI-GUN AGENDA
DON'T YOU SEE? ;-;
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38915938]I've heard multiple media sources say he did have it on him. If he didn't use it then why the hell are we even talking assault weapon ban[/QUOTE]
check out initial reports, before they realized it was blowing up to be a huge thing they actually reported the truth
Then why the fuck are we even talking about assault rifles, He didn't even use it. I'm pretty sure the medical examiner and police can say for sure, why haven't they.
nooooo I won't be able to enjoy ButtsexV3's posts or animated avatar for 24 hours
mod can go starpluck himself
on topic, why would he bring the rifle and then just not bring it with him in the school? Was it part of an escape plan? Reserve firepower for the cops? what?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38916095]
on topic, why would he bring the rifle and then just not bring it with him in the school? Was it part of an escape plan? Reserve firepower for the cops? what?[/QUOTE]
The theory was that he would hold out the cops with the rifle, but the first responders got there to quickly for him so he just offed himself.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;38916026]Then why the fuck are we even talking about assault rifles, He didn't even use it. I'm pretty sure the medical examiner and police can say for sure, why haven't they.[/QUOTE]
Because it's useful for getting public support to pass legislation that might've been otherwise unpopular had such a tragedy never occurred.
These kinds of things happen all the time; a tragedy caused by a glaring public issue no one wants to admit exists occurs, the public immediately glosses over the underlying cause while heroizing the victims and demonizing the perpetrators, and immediately throws out legislation equivalent to a shot of Valium meant to sloppily punish the "minor details" of the case.
Gun control isn't the issue here. I'll admit that gun control is something the US needs to work on, but it's not the problem. The problem is mental health, but [I]no one [/I]wants to talk about it because it gets people uncomfortable.
[url]http://www.naturalnews.com/038352_school_shooting_lone_gunman_media_cover-up.html#ixzz2F3TLtRxu[/url] just going to leave this here
:tinfoil:
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38918322][url]http://www.naturalnews.com/038352_school_shooting_lone_gunman_media_cover-up.html#ixzz2F3TLtRxu[/url] just going to leave this here
:tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
dafuq?
...you sure its not as a result to operation Skyfall?
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
LOL
ZOMGROFLMFAOASMDUMA
I JUST FOUND THIS:
[video=youtube;7zQ83fhKQ0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zQ83fhKQ0M&feature=player_embedded[/video]
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38918322][url]http://www.naturalnews.com/038352_school_shooting_lone_gunman_media_cover-up.html#ixzz2F3TLtRxu[/url] just going to leave this here
:tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
Conspiracy website, the article mentions mind control and implies JFK conspiracies.
From what I've read on multiple news sites now is that infact he did go into the school with the rifle and two pistols and left one gun in the car. The thing is they never mention what he left in the car nor go into specifics about what rounds were fired into the kids.
Because Law enforcement and Medical Examiners are fiddling around it's causing major issues all over the country. Seriously that school had cameras, All of them do. They could come out and say "Yes he did or no he didn't walk in with the rifle". They could easily have looked at the shell casings left over in the school of what rounds were fired.
So far i can't find anywhere that says what was used or what the police/medical examiner has found besides "THE KIDS GOT SHOT 3-11 TIMES A PEICE"
Maybe I'm just this way cause I was born and raised here, but I'm thankful to live in a country where it's a lot more difficult to acquire a gun. People say "Oh criminals will just obtain them illegally!" but the amount of shootings is still a fuckload less. Would prefer one innocent person get shot cause a criminal went to the effort to get a gun than a million people get shot just so there's maybe a chance someone can say "I had a gun too and I shot the criminal back!" (Obviously not real figures before someone bitches)
[QUOTE=k4rl;38915354]Yeah that's a great fucking idea! Leave us completely defenseless against criminals who can and will get guns regardless of what something on a piece of god damn paper says. I question the logic of many people on this forum.[/QUOTE]
Hey. Just thought I could come through and point something out. Countries with massive restrictions of firearms, like, oh say, the UK, where I live, have no problems with firearms being used constantly. Sure, criminals can still get their hands on things like pistols, but it isn't massively easy, and you'd only really see guys who really mean business with them. Your average mugger and trespasser won't tend to carry anything more than a knife. If your gun laws are implemented well, and existings guns are cleaned up properly, the laws can work. Don't assume that just because you can't get your guns, every criminal is going to suddenly have one. That isn't how it works.
Obviously this won't be as easy in the US due to your massive gun culture, and the fact you have a large population of paranoid, conspiracy theorising, gun toting nuts who think the government is out to get them 24/7. Getting all the weapons out of the US isn't a feasable task.
The argument "But how will I defend myself" is flawed anyway. You only need a gun to defend yourself because they are easy enough to get your hands on. Plus it's better to give up and not get your dumb ass shot than attempt to figh back just because you have a gun. Possessions are replaceable. You life? Not as much. Guns as a hobby is fine though.
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
Wow the keyboard on this phone is shit.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;38922495]Hey. Just thought I could come through and point something out. Countries with massive restrictions of firearms, like, oh say, the UK, where I live, have no problems with firearms being used constantly. Sure, criminals can still get their hands on things like pistols, but it isn't massively easy, and you'd only really see guys who really mean business with them. Your average mugger and trespasser won't tend to carry anything more than a knife. If your gun laws are implemented well, and existings guns are cleaned up properly, the laws can work. Don't assume that just because you can't get your guns, every criminal is going to suddenly have one. That isn't how it works.
Obviously this won't be as easy in the US due to your massive gun culture, and the fact you have a large population of paranoid, conspiracy theorising, gun toting nuts who think the government is out to get them 24/7. Getting all the weapons out of the US isn't a feasable task.
The argument "But how will I defend myself" is flawed anyway. You only need a gun to defend yourself because they are easy enough to get your hands on. Plus it's better to give up and not get your dumb ass shot than attempt to figh back just because you have a gun. Possessions are replaceable. You life? Not as much. Guns as a hobby is fine though.
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
Wow the keyboard on this phone is shit.[/QUOTE]
This. That and imo guns give you a lot more confidence, since you can stand far away (Same with any ranged weapon granted but guns seem to be most common) If a potential criminal couldn't get their hands on a gun chances are they wouldn't do lots of certain crimes cause with something like a knife they'd not be confident/experienced enough etc. Eg. this school shooting, chances are lots of people wouldn't go into situations like that with simply a knife or the likes
That's completely beside the point. If people feel more safe with a weapon knowing they can defend themselves, who the fuck are you to tell them "You can't, it's not safe." If banning guns is the solution to all violence in the world then people wouldn't be using them in places where they've been outlawed. BUT THEY ARE. You're reaction is basically "But it happens less though, that means we're all safer." It's not really safer for the victims of these gun crimes who have literally no way of defending themselves, is it? And then again, when faced with reality, your reaction is "Who cares about the few people who these things happen to. It's all for the greater good."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.