[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546034]You paranoid lunatic how do you know venomous snakes, wild boars and coyotes will want to attack you??[/QUOTE]
I know this might be a stretch for you, but sometimes people live where wild animals do. Sometimes those wild animals are quite dangerous. I live next to the second biggest city in the US and we still see Coyotes from time to time, we've also lost house pets to them. Hell we still have Cougars in the area. I would not want to take on a Cougar or a Coyote with a knife, and since these animals have acclimated to human presence they are far less likely to flee.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48548956]I know this might be a stretch for you, but sometimes people live where wild animals do. Sometimes those wild animals are quite dangerous. I live next to the second biggest city in the US and we still see Coyotes from time to time, we've also lost house pets to them. Hell we still have Cougars in the area. I would not want to take on a Cougar or a Coyote with a knife, and since these animals have acclimated to human presence they are far less likely to flee.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you just call the police to deal with them? Or better yet move to a city like a civilized person?
(I was mocking Canary and the other shitposters, I'm pro-gun af)
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48548965]Why don't you just call the police to deal with them? Or better yet move to a city like a civilized person?
(I was mocking Canary and the other shitposters, I'm pro-gun af)[/QUOTE]
Oh, didn't notice :v:.
Anyways trying to remove guns is simply a stopgap solution to violence. If someone has the desire to kill someone then they'll find a way to do it with or without firearms. Can't find a gunl? Well ANFO is pretty easy to make and probably ten times more dangerous. Should we ban diesel fuel and fertilizer?
The only way to tackle gun violence is to disregard the gun and try to solve the violence.
[editline]26th August 2015[/editline]
Banning guns to stop violence is like banning government to stop tyrants.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;48548586]did they legitimately just not notice him, or were they just ignoring him just to keep it professional or something
like he pointed the gun at her for a few seconds without doing anything[/QUOTE]
He was a close friend, so walking up would not have been weird, and they were not looking at a 65 degree angle
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ld2ER2t.jpeg[/img]
and so it begins
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48549030][img]http://i.imgur.com/ld2ER2t.jpeg[/img]
and so it begins[/QUOTE]
That's totally worth responding to, hold on let me go write some paragraphs.
[QUOTE=Lamar;48546647]I looked into this and this doesn't appear to have anything to do with Gawker media. I was ready to send emails to Gawker's advertisers if this was the case.[/QUOTE]
Weird, looked exactly the same as Gawker's layout.
It's scary to think some people actually think the shooting was justified. Very. Very. Scary
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48549115]It's scary to think some people actually think the shooting was justified. Very. Very. Scary[/QUOTE]
if you suspect someone of racism, their right to live ends, obviously
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48549030][img]http://i.imgur.com/ld2ER2t.jpeg[/img]
and so it begins[/QUOTE]
This makes me want to hit something.
Hate caused murder, revenge murder happened because said revenge murderer liked Columbine and VA Tech. Now, people of the same race as the killer are justifying his actions, and calling white people crackers. But if we call them out for all their own societal issues, oh God that's like the worst thing ever.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48549130]if you suspect someone of racism, their right to live ends, obviously[/QUOTE]
It's the only logical answer.
We really need the mass debate section back. I've read all of these pages 99% of everything in this thread and it's all garbage. It's nothing but drivel. At least in the mass debate section there was a standard to not be a shit-flinging retard and actually have SOME competence in forming a decent argument. But no -- all I've seen is pathetic garbage. This is on-par with 4chan arguments, wherein the main objective is to achieve fleeting moments of superiority by nit-picking and avoiding the central point altogether while under the guise of anonymity.
I'm really fucking disappointed.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;48549413]We really need the mass debate section back. I've read all of these pages 99% of everything in this thread and it's all garbage. It's nothing but drivel. At least in the mass debate section there was a standard to not be a shit-flinging retard and actually have SOME competence in forming a decent argument. But no -- all I've seen is pathetic garbage. This is on-par with 4chan arguments, wherein the main objective is to achieve fleeting moments of superiority by nit-picking and avoiding the central point altogether while under the guise of anonymity.
I'm really fucking disappointed.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.
in regards to the wild animal argument: you should be able to get a license for a shotgun or bolt action rifle like in the UK, but living in a city guns should be much more heavily restricted than they are now. Handguns especially
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48549500]but living in a city guns should be much more heavily restricted than they are now. Handguns especially[/QUOTE]
And what do you propose we do? Biggest missing piece of this is mental health records being hidden from the FFL process.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48549030][img]http://i.imgur.com/ld2ER2t.jpeg[/img]
and so it begins[/QUOTE]
There is a sizable population of people under the anti-racism banner that just straight up hate white people (frequently they specify white men).
These people really need to be shit on by society. Being hateful towards white people should be treated the same as being hateful towards any other group.
[url]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-critics-notebook-virginia-shooting-20150827-53-column.html[/url]
[quote]
If we watch the Virginia TV shooting is the suspected shooter 'winning'?
[/quote]
[quote]
To watch or not to watch.
[/quote]
What is this, a blockbuster movie?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48549574][url]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-critics-notebook-virginia-shooting-20150827-53-column.html[/url]
What is this, a blockbuster movie?[/QUOTE]
This is our generation. The world is here for your entertainment, and if it's not entertaining, it's wrong and your rights are being violated.
[QUOTE=Sonador;48549625]This is our generation. The world is here for your entertainment, and if it's not entertaining, it's wrong and your rights are being violated.[/QUOTE]
It's fucking disgusting. They are turning two people's murders into a film.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48549534]And what do you propose we do? Biggest missing piece of this is mental health records being hidden from the FFL process.[/QUOTE]
I mean restrict the sale of handguns to those with licenses for them. If you're a law abiding citizen, you should be able to prove it with a criminal/mental health background check and registration of the gun. Furthermore, they ought to close the loopholes of buying guns from private sellers. You shouldn't be able to sell a gun to just some random Joe without de-registering the gun, getting the necessary documentation and background checks, and waiting 30 days. It should be 100% illegal to sell a gun without a license to sell guns.
Then, guns should be restricted to what can be used for self defense or hunting. A 9mm glock? sure. a .50 cal desert eagle? maybe not. AR-15? No.
Then, perhaps a restriction on the ammunition of guns. x bullets per week/month, with a tax on the bullets as well to make bullets more expensive and therefore you wouldn't be able to buy as many of them at a time.
I think after a decade or so of this, we might be able to move towards a more european or east-asian system of removing guns from our country almost entirely, making the only guns legal in the US those used for hunting in more rural areas.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48549651]I mean restrict the sale of handguns to those with licenses for them. If you're a law abiding citizen, you should be able to prove it with a criminal/mental health background check and registration of the gun. Furthermore, they ought to close the loopholes of buying guns from private sellers. You shouldn't be able to sell a gun to just some random Joe without de-registering the gun, getting the necessary documentation and background checks, and waiting 30 days. It should be 100% illegal to sell a gun without a license to sell guns.
Then, guns should be restricted to what can be used for self defense or hunting. A 9mm glock? sure. a .50 cal desert eagle? maybe not. AR-15? No.
Then, perhaps a restriction on the ammunition of guns. x bullets per week/month, with a tax on the bullets as well to make bullets more expensive and therefore you wouldn't be able to buy as many of them at a time.
I think after a decade or so of this, we might be able to move towards a more european or east-asian system of removing guns from our country almost entirely, making the only guns legal in the US those used for hunting in more rural areas.[/QUOTE]
Criminal background checks happen. Mental health records are asked for via FFL.
FFL paperwork is required for gun sales no matter if private or in a store.
[quote]Then, guns should be restricted to what can be used for self defense or hunting. A 9mm glock? sure. a .50 cal desert eagle? maybe not. AR-15? No.
[/quote]What? Stop picking and choosing the "scary" guns. You sound like a very clueless CNN. Banning certain gun types does nothing. Maryland (where I live) is a clear example of that failure.
X bullets per week. Dear Lord that's hilarious.
Ban guns entirely? Yeah okay. Let's remove 300 million guns. Oh, but wait. Criminals have guns too and they don't follow laws and their guns account for millions of guns that the US can't take because they're not accounted for.
Your "plan" sounds like bullshit spewing from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about firearms. Go take a class in common sense and statistics before you go trying to change laws.
The US' permeation of guns is too far to just pass a law and expect to fix. It's going to be a hybrid solution with implications for the long term as well as the short.
Regulations on sale should focus on the long term - it's the emissions standard of firearm law. Regulate who can buy what and how, and aim it to gradually become the standard. Mental health checks, full information collection, the works. I'm not talking a biopsy and polygraph, I'm talking a basic evaluation of your mental health and criminal history. Violent tendency and violent crime of any kind should be automatic disqualifies for starters.
Short term, gun crime law needs to be totally rewritten. You commit any kind of a crime against the property or person with a gun, that's it. You lose your guns for life and go to jail for a very, very long time. No exceptions. Guns were designed and built to kill things, and when you demonstrate an inability to use guns lawfully, you demonstrate that you're intending to use lethal force in a crime, whether or not said force is executed. Don't like it? Don't get a gun.
I'd also like to see more education about firearms as part of basic education. It's up to you whether or not you'll ever own one, but with how prevalent they are, you should at least know how they work and what they do.
That's just one observer's opinion, mind.
They can't seriously be printing this, can they?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48549651]I mean restrict the sale of handguns to those with licenses for them. If you're a law abiding citizen, you should be able to prove it with a criminal/mental health background check and registration of the gun. Furthermore, they ought to close the loopholes of buying guns from private sellers. You shouldn't be able to sell a gun to just some random Joe without de-registering the gun, getting the necessary documentation and background checks, and waiting 30 days. It should be 100% illegal to sell a gun without a license to sell guns.
Then, guns should be restricted to what can be used for self defense or hunting. A 9mm glock? sure. a .50 cal desert eagle? maybe not. AR-15? No.
Then, perhaps a restriction on the ammunition of guns. x bullets per week/month, with a tax on the bullets as well to make bullets more expensive and therefore you wouldn't be able to buy as many of them at a time.
I think after a decade or so of this, we might be able to move towards a more european or east-asian system of removing guns from our country almost entirely, making the only guns legal in the US those used for hunting in more rural areas.[/QUOTE]
Criminal background checks are standard more or less everywhere, expecting private sales to do them is unrealistic, and unnecessary when restricting private sales doesn't do much considering violent crime fairly rarely leads back to a gun bought in a legal private sale.
Banning desert eagles and AR15s and imposing arbitrary ammo limits to curb gun crime.
Could you make it anymore clear that you googled "ebul movie guns" and decided those were what were causing the problems.
Jesus, the number of people who have used a fucking desert eagle for crime probably sits inside of a dozen, guy. I doubt that would fix anything.
Ammo restrictions are incredibly pointless, all it would do would make it a pain in the ass for people to stock up on ammo, considering you probably consider any number in the triple digits to be " a lot of ammo"
It really comforts me to know that people with ideas like this will face incredibly fierce opposition in any state worth living in.
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Seems way too early, and thus disrespectful. They released JFK's headshot footage, but only after quite a long time. I guess you gotta be a president to not have your snuff film instantly plastered on headlines.
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t][/QUOTE]
What the fuck
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;48549727]Seems way too early, and thus disrespectful. They released JFK's headshot footage, but only after quite a long time. I guess you gotta be a president to not have your snuff film instantly plastered on headlines.[/QUOTE]
Common human decency doesn't sell.
There's no law specifically outlawing me from putting this on convenience store shelf in the world, so therefore I must do it because I'll get money.
Oh, and stop violating my rights, freedom of the press is protected!!!!
i am so fucking tired of being alive on this planet
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t][/QUOTE]
If people really want to stop mass shooting and gun violence. They need to stop shit like this that gives attention to these mass shooters.
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48549463]Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.[/QUOTE]
Please. Don't give me that trash. When there is a possibility of ensuring quality discussion, then there is truly no excuse. That was The Mass Debate section. If you fucked up, you were called out on it and if you did it again, you would most likely get banned. SH is way too lax to have good arguments. Only when people truly go off the deep end do they get banned, but at that point it's too late.
[QUOTE=SirDavid255;48547318]So this actually was the shooter. Wow.
Bryce, or Vester Lee Flanagan
Not sure if I'm late, [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gM28Z_x1o"]video of him pulling[/URL] out the firearm and whispering "bitch" [B]NSFW obviously[/B]
[URL="http://bigbadmonkey.com/suspect-bryce-william-uploads-video-of-himself-shooting-wdbj-reporters-what-a-psycho-watch-the-videos-here/"]Full video[/URL]
If people want this removed I'll do so, but it's easy to find online.[/QUOTE]
I shouldn't have watched that.
I can't even begin to describe how i feel
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.