• Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
    916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50515106]You want to hunt? Sick. Why do you need access to pistols, a majority of civilian rifles, etc? You're hunting, concealability of a firearm is a non-issue. The only things that matter are calibre, accuracy and the fucking thing not falling apart. This isn't a great argument for personal ownership, hunting can work as a business venture or a sport. Those don't exactly overlap with "because i want it lol". Bare in mind I'm not against ownership for business or sport, even we have exemptions for that. Along with some other weapons that are just impossibly unwieldy to try and use for "defence" purposes.[/QUOTE] Why do you need a gun for a business venture? Any more than defending your home or self when criminals act up?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515098]Alright. What about bows? Crossbows? Compound bows? Slings? Other modernized and effective in their own right projectile based weaponry. Ban those too?[/QUOTE] why do you keep comparing other less dangerous and harder to use things with guns? do you keep forgetting just how lethal they are even in their most base form? arrows can't shoot as far, as fast or as many arrows as bullets. even a low caliber handgun would out-murder a crossbow
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50515106]You want to hunt? Sick. Why do you need access to pistols, a majority of civilian rifles, etc? You're hunting, concealability of a firearm is a non-issue. The only things that matter are calibre, accuracy and the fucking thing not falling apart. This isn't a great argument for personal ownership, hunting can work as a business venture or a sport. Those don't exactly overlap with "because i want it lol". Bare in mind I'm not against ownership for business or sport, even we have exemptions for that. Along with some other weapons that are just impossibly unwieldy to try and use for "defence" purposes.[/QUOTE] Rusty is advocating for the complete eradication of all weapons.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515109]Why'd you snip it? Nail guns are just low powered pistols that shoot nails.[/QUOTE] You snipped your projectile comment and it was adding to that
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515115]2 months ago [url]http://abc7chicago.com/news/church-member-charged-in-fatal-shooting-after-victim-wouldnt-give-up-seat/1313747/[/url][/QUOTE] I uh... Dont live in Montgomeryville?
[QUOTE=Quiet;50515126]Rusty is advocating for the complete eradication of all weapons.[/QUOTE] eventually, and i'd settle for most, not all.
And 10 years ago [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nickel_Mines_School_shooting[/url]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515030]same. in my entire country. because i was 5[/QUOTE] Which goes back to my point where the crime situation in the US is different than in other western countries. We have a huge problem with gang violence and other organized crime. I don't have statistics but I'm willing to bet it's higher than other western countries. These aren't caused by guns. The guns are the easiest tool to use due to their accessibility and ease of use. You can remove the gun but these people are still going to kill each other. Likely in less drastic numbers, sure. But the crime will still exist. [QUOTE=Rusty100;50514907]exactly. what i'm hearing is "we're already fucked, there's nothing we can do"[/QUOTE] That's not at all the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to state that if we don't treat the cause, nothing will change. Banning guns doesn't do anything to actually help the underlying cause of gun violence. It's a process that would take decades at best on its own, meanwhile criminal entities amass arsenals and nothing changes. America's problem is our extreme wealth inequality, poverty, war on drugs, and other elements that cause our unique landscape. Not the fact you can go to Walmart and buy a gun. That said, I wouldn't be against better checks on gun purchases or even requiring people get a CCL (requires a fingerprint, photo ID, background check, etc) before being able to buy guns at all. Though I can see how that might be considered against the constitution.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515131]I uh... Dont live in Montgomeryville?[/QUOTE] You said Pennsylvania It's literally the second "word" in the article [quote]MONTGOMERYVILLE, [B]Pa.[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515119]why do you keep comparing other less dangerous and harder to use things with guns? do you keep forgetting just how lethal they are even in their most base form? arrows can't shoot as far, as fast or as many arrows as bullets. even a low caliber handgun would out-murder a crossbow[/QUOTE] I dont know man, crossbows seem pretty fucking dangerous.
[QUOTE=OvB;50515136]Which goes back to my point where the crime situation in the US is different than in other western countries. We have a huge problem with gang violence and other organized crime. I don't have statistics but I'm willing to bet it's higher than other western countries. These aren't caused by guns. The guns are the easiest tool to use due to their accessibility and ease of use. You can remove the gun but these people are still going to kill each other. Likely in less drastic numbers, sure. But the crime will still exist. [/QUOTE] yeah exactly. that's a pretty good start! surely less people dying is a positive step
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515137]You said Pennsylvania[/QUOTE] Yes i know. I was not however talking about the state at large. Useless as it may be to some of you i was making a personal anecdote.
Oh and 3 months ago [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/03/10/reports-4-dead-pa-mass-shooting/81569602/[/url]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515119]why do you keep comparing other less dangerous and harder to use things with guns? do you keep forgetting just how lethal they are even in their most base form? arrows can't shoot as far, as fast or as many arrows as bullets. even a low caliber handgun would out-murder a crossbow[/QUOTE] So you're suggesting we just turn back the clock on technology to not just 240 years ago but to 500 years ago? Literally "that's ok because it's too old to be effective"? What happened to your current year argument? Those were end all be all weapons in those days.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515139]I dont know man, crossbows seem pretty fucking dangerous.[/QUOTE] yeah, totally. arrow-shooting-weapons should probably stop at at a bow and arrow (which is what i meant to say sorry). but still, even a crossbow isn't as efficient as any firearm. and if it is, my bad. probably get rid of those too
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515155]probably get rid of those too[/QUOTE] Lordy i didnt actually expect you to seriously suggest that.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515149]So you're suggesting we just turn back the clock on technology to not just 240 years ago but to 500 years ago? Literally "that's ok because it's too old to be effective"? What happened to your current year argument? Those were end all be all weapons in those days.[/QUOTE] We're suggesting that you take a look at the gun violence statistics and make the connection.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515149]So you're suggesting we just turn back the clock on technology to not just 240 years ago but to 500 years ago? Literally "that's ok because it's too old to be effective"? What happened to your current year argument? Those were end all be all weapons in those days.[/QUOTE] turning back the clock? are you saying there's no such thing as creating something too lethal to give to the general public? there's plenty of things that exist that you aren't allowed to have. and guns should be added to that.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515118]Why do you need a gun for a business venture? Any more than defending your home or self when criminals act up?[/QUOTE] If you hunt for business purposes. I even said it in the post guy. Come on, step it up, grab a coffee or something if you're having trouble paying attention. There's also shooting clubs, of which we have a number. The club tends or own or look after weapons owned by shooters there (if they do not have the approved provisions to store it at home), another business venture that may need to own firearms. Or security personnel (though I think private firms only get permission for this in extremely rare cases like the Olympic games or some shit). These all rely on the business actually keeping track of who has what and when they had it. Everything is accounted for and if it goes missing, someone is liable. This has zero overlap with personal ownership for "defence" purposes. Zero relation in fact.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515165]We're suggesting that you take a look at the gun violence statistics and make the connection.[/QUOTE] That... Most are from suicides?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515134]eventually, and i'd settle for most, not all.[/QUOTE] Honestly we'd never get rid of all, some people are going to need them for their jobs. Farmers here generally keep a few shotguns for pest control. But the chances of a petty criminal going out to a farm just to get their hands on some jank ass shotgun is less likely than them stealing it from a family member who bought it "because i want it lol". Farms are pretty remote.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515163]Lordy i didnt actually expect you to seriously suggest that.[/QUOTE] not super well versed on crossbows, but i also don't see why you'd need one. but i feel like they'd come under the same category as a hunting rifle, so in that situation, fair enough, i guess. i mean i'm not sure why you'd need to hunt in a first world country where we breed animals to eat now.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515175]That... Most are from suicides?[/QUOTE] Are you trolling or something? Lets look at school shootings in your state [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States[/url] 2016 2014 2014 2013 2006 2003 ....
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515165]We're suggesting that you take a look at the gun violence statistics and make the connection.[/QUOTE] Why don't [i]you[/i] look at the "statistics" and find the real cause of the gun violence? It's not "cuz I had one".
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515195]Why don't [i]you[/i] look at the "statistics" and find the real cause of the gun violence? It's not "cuz I had one".[/QUOTE] That there is an absurd gun culture in the US? It's not that hard? Pretty much the rest of the civilized world has far far less shootings than the US?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515195]Why don't [i]you[/i] look at the "statistics" and find the real cause of the gun violence? It's not "cuz I had one".[/QUOTE] guns don't cause violence, nobody's saying that they just increase the death toll. which sucks. guns suck, dude.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515190]Are you trolling or something? Lets look at school shootings in your state [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States[/url] 2016 2014 2014 2013 2006 2003 ....[/QUOTE] Incidentally schools are gun free zones.
i can understand the argument for say that there should be a freedom to own a gun for matters of self-protection, hunting, or for the simple fact you aren't really hurting anyone by owning one what seems utterly bizarre and alien to me is the fact there are people who believe that it's necessary to the very existence of freedom in the united states, and that a well-armed citizenry helps to keep a government in check. the historical evidence of rebellions by commoners (not matter how well-armed) doesn't end up prettily. literally as soon as the war of independence was won, you had people protesting the tyrannical government (and losing) despite having guns tyranny is somehow made out to be this monolithic force for evil when its actually a complex mix of different things. when you have a country as diverse and large as the united states you simply aren't going to get a great big revolution where all of the gun-owners suddenly rise up in rebellion and overthrow the government when they realise its time to end tyranny. it's going to more resemble a bloody and divisive ten-way civil war more than the romantic ideal of a revolution. multiple groups will rise with different complaints and demands and goals. and (god forbid), there'll likely be militias fighting each other - each claiming that the other are the real tyrants. there's also worth mentioning that the tyrannical government (whoever is in charge) might actually twist the 2nd amendment into a tool of tyranny in itself. a militia could end up very well fighting in the interests of the government
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50514395]There's also this [url]http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/[/url] Never heard of WND though. Philip Haney is the information supplier, according to the article. Only other sites I can find parroting about it are infowars and brietbart but I'll be on the look out for a source I know that people trust to comment, but the gist that's being passed around is:[/QUOTE] WND is the craziest of all the crazy right-wing "news" sites. Absolutely nothing on there should be accepted as remotely accurate.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515205]Incidentally schools are gun free zones.[/QUOTE] What happened to "We have 0 problems at all"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.