• Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
    916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515214]What happened to "We have 0 problems at all"[/QUOTE] Last i checked my school wasnt riddled with bulletholes so yeah i'll stick by my statement.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515204]guns don't cause violence, nobody's saying that they just increase the death toll. which sucks. guns suck, dude.[/QUOTE] They also decrease the death toll in some cases. Those stories don't explode as much though. Shooters have been gunned down plenty of times, and banning guns would've prevented that. At the end of the day you're arguing to start a political war on something that isn't the actual issue. Edit: And since they are used for other legal things it'd only hurt law abiders.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515226]Last i checked my school wasnt riddled with bulletholes so yeah i'll stick by my statement.[/QUOTE] your world is not the whole world
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515214]What happened to "We have 0 problems at all"[/QUOTE] Here i'll humor you for a sec. Last school shooting in PA where someone was killed according to this list was in 2006. Over 10 years ago. Before that, 2003, 13 years, then 1998, 1996, 1993, 1989, 1971, etc. Most of those being one person, the highest in 2006 with 6 killed, so likely individuals targeting other individuals, and also not mass shootings. Pennsylvania is also incredibly lax with its gun restrictions. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saturn V;50515245]your world is not the whole world[/QUOTE] I never said it was? What the hell, i even admitted i was making a personal anecdote, im not claiming anything to the contrary in regards to that. In any event, lets turn that on its head. The whole world is not MY world.
[QUOTE=dustyjo;50515209]WND is the craziest of all the crazy right-wing "news" sites. Absolutely nothing on there should be accepted as remotely accurate.[/QUOTE] I was shown it with a link to infowars and tried to find a better one, WND was the one I didn't know about. Surely though bar them lying about Haney there's some truth to this. They claim to be repeating what the guy told them. I'll look out for an impartial source though.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515155]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] Yes, we should get rid of crossbows because of their long history in the modern day and age as a weapon of aggression Why ban something that literally isn't being used for why you're banning it
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515226]Last i checked my school wasnt riddled with bulletholes so yeah i'll stick by my statement.[/QUOTE] So you are being obtuse on purose now, wow. [quote][B]I live in rural Pennsylvania[/B] in which many people i know hunt and have guns. [B]We have 0 problems at all[/B], i cant remember the last time a shooting happened here, in fact. [/quote]
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515235]They also decrease the death toll in some cases. Those stories don't explode as much though. Shooters have been gunned down plenty of times, and banning guns would've prevented that. At the end of the day you're arguing to start a political war on something that isn't the actual issue.[/QUOTE] And in the case that guns were banned, it'd be astronomically less likely that the shooter would have access to the gun in the first place, preventing the attack at all or forcing them to use significantly less effective methods of attacking people. It's not like that weird kid who wants to shoot up a school can pop to a local gang black market without getting his ass turned away or beat the fuck down. Back alley sellers aren't exactly great people after all. But with legal access, shit, all they need is a clear criminal record or a family member with a gun already. More organised criminals are going to have access to these things, but we can at least try to lessen the ease of access. Your CCW isn't going to save all the lives all the time, life isn't a movie and thinking that the right to carry is definitely 100% going to kill the bad guys is kinda silly. People fuck up, situations can escalate. And in the case of the most recent shooting, it would have ended significantly worse due to the environment anyway.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515287]So you are being obtuse on purose now, wow.[/QUOTE] What? Do i have to post it a third time? Why arent you reading?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515253]Here i'll humor you for a sec. Last school shooting in PA according to this list was in 2006. Over 10 years ago. Before that, 2003, 13 years, then 1998, 1996, 1993, 1989, 1971, etc. Most of those being one person, the highest in 2006 with 6 killed, so likely individuals targeting other individuals, and also not mass shootings. Pennsylvania is also incredibly lax with its gun restrictions. [/QUOTE] Erm. No. Recheck the list? Are you now saying that it isn't as bad because there are not [I]that[/I] many people hurt? Are you not noticing how insane this sounds?
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515311]Erm. No. Recheck the list? Are you now saying that it isn't as bad because there are not [I]that[/I] many people hurt? Are you not noticing how insane this sounds?[/QUOTE] Im having a difficult time understanding your incredibly vague and nebulous argument. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] I forgot to mention "where someone was killed" fuck.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515306]What? Do i have to post it a third time? Why arent you reading?[/QUOTE] No you don't have to I get that you'll stay by "we have 0 problems at all" in the thread about the worst mass shotting in the history of the US where you said your state is fine and even said " i'll stick by my statement." when confronted with how even if taking school shootings alone your state clearly is not. 164 days with 133 mass shoootings in the US and you are making posts about how at least in your rural village things are fine. Dude.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515334]No you don't have to I get that you'll stay by "we have 0 problems at all" in the thread about the worst mass shotting in the history of the US where you said your state is fine and even said " i'll stick by my statement." when confronted with how even if taking school shootings alone your state clearly is not.[/QUOTE] I already made clear what i meant by that, dammit, now stop bringing it up. And the last time someone was killed in a school shooting here was 2006 so fuck it, thanks for backing me up anyway. [QUOTE=Killuah;50515334]164 days with 133 mass shoootings in the US and you are making posts about at least in your rural village things are fine. Dude.[/QUOTE] Define mass shooting. Because many sources define it as low as 2 people being hurt.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515347] Because many sources define it as low as 2 people being hurt.[/QUOTE] Low????? This is the FBI definition of a single event with 4 or more hurt btw. If it was 2 the number would be way higher
If we're gonna appeal to emotion Killuah why don't we talk about how your country enacted strict gun control with the Weimar Republic just before committing one of the most famous mass murderings in history? They even took away from "unreliables" and kept "ordinaries" in the same way that it's being suggested only hunters and government/police should have them
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515367]If we're gonna appeal to emotion Killuah why don't we talk about how your country enacted strict gun control with the Weimar Republic just before committing one of the most famous mass murderings in history?[/QUOTE] Are you trolling or something? Is this a serious post?
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515363]Low?????[/QUOTE] Why yes, in fact, the number "2", which is the first number after number "1", and is as such related to multiple things instead of a singular entity, within the context of the word "mass", not in relation to matter but rather counting, is low. Number "2" is in fact one of the lowest possible plurals of things you can have. Im happy to educate you on the subject, sir. [QUOTE=Killuah;50515363]This is the FBI definition of a single event with 4 or more hurt btw. If it was 2 the number would be way higher[/QUOTE] Alright. Now, next step, how many of those are gang related. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50515380]Are you trolling or something? Is this a serious post?[/QUOTE] That seems to be your go to response today.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50515204]guns don't cause violence, nobody's saying that they just increase the death toll. which sucks. guns suck, dude.[/QUOTE] Guns don't suck. Pretty fun to target shoot actually. Another fun family activity. Sounds like you are just salty because you can't have a gun. If guns don't cause the violence why ban them? This moron was following a fucked up belief that doesn't belong in western society and decided to act on it. The ideology is the issue not the gun. Moderates don't mean shit when they still choose to leave the words in the book that give people these beliefs. Also if you want to go off death toll lets ban airplanes and buildings with an occupancy of more than 10 people.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515334]No you don't have to I get that you'll stay by "we have 0 problems at all" in the thread about the worst mass shotting in the history of the US where you said your state is fine and even said " i'll stick by my statement." when confronted with how even if taking school shootings alone your state clearly is not. 164 days with 133 mass shoootings in the US and you are making posts about how at least in your rural village things are fine. Dude.[/QUOTE] Most of those "mass shootings" are gang on gang violence. Which should have no bearing on taking guns away from citizens who abide by the law. Those account for the majority of the 40% that are left over when you consider that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, if I remember right. Again, taking away my guns or making it harder for me to buy them because someone else may shoot themselves with one is dumb, and not worth trampling on the constitution for. Plainly, I don't think what gangs do with their guns and people who shoot themselves in the head are valid reasons to take the rights away from the vast majority of people who use them for sport, recreation, or for defense.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;50515395]Guns don't suck. Pretty fun to target shoot actually. Another fun family activity. Sounds like you are just salty because you can't have a gun. If guns don't cause the violence why ban them? This moron was following a fucked up belief that doesn't belong in western society and decided to act on it. The ideology is the issue not the gun. Moderates don't mean shit when they still choose to leave the words in the book that give people these beliefs. Also if you want to go off death toll lets ban airplanes and buildings with an occupancy of more than 10 people.[/QUOTE] Yah know I'm all for gun ownership but I think rabid gun owners really miss the point sometimes. They neglect to realize that while guns don't kill people they make it super fucking easy and very efficient to do so.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515367]If we're gonna appeal to emotion Killuah why don't we talk about how your country enacted strict gun control with the Weimar Republic just before committing one of the most famous mass murderings in history? They even took away from "unreliables" and kept "ordinaries" in the same way that it's being suggested only hunters and government/police should have them[/QUOTE] Well shiiiitttt. It's almost as if the government in power affects the outcome of a gun restriction law and not the actual restriction itself. Because we've had basically everything banned for around two decades now and we still haven't topped the 6 million yet. And it's not like the government of WWII Germany forced itself into power, dumb fucks actually voted those guys in. (along with the general facist dealio of abusing your opponents, but fucking morons still supported them despite this) Awful governments do not arise from gun bans. They arise from fucking retards in the population voting them in in the first place or coups that would rely on fucking idiots in the population taking part in in some measure to bolster their numbers.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50515409]Yah know I'm all for gun ownership but I think rabid gun owners really miss the point sometimes. They neglect to realize that while guns don't kill people they make it super fucking easy and very efficient to do so.[/QUOTE] Yeah but they're not the reason for those killings.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515419]Yeah but they're not the reason for those killings.[/QUOTE] They're not the reason for the killings but don't you think it made it much easier to inflict huge amounts of damage and facilitated the ease of accomplishing it? Imagine if he had a bolt actions rifle, would it have been as easy to kill so many peiple?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50515415]Well shiiiitttt. It's almost as if the government in power affects the outcome of a gun restriction law and not the actual restriction itself. Because we've had basically everything banned for around two decades now and we still haven't topped the 6 million yet. And it's not like the government of WWII Germany forced itself into power, dumb fucks actually voted those guys in. (along with the general facist dealio of abusing your opponents, but fucking morons still supported them despite this) Awful governments do not arise from gun bans. They arise from fucking retards in the population voting them in in the first place or coups that would rely on fucking idiots in the population taking part in in some measure to bolster their numbers.[/QUOTE] "Dumbfucks voted those guys in" Yeah that was a point I made a couple pages back. When government is allowed the weapons but not the people, what's to stop the people with these sorts of agendas from climbing the political system and taking advantage of the scenario? [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50515428]They're not the reason for the killings but don't you think it made it much easier to inflict huge amounts of damage and facilitated the ease of accomplishing it?[/QUOTE] What's the point of that distinction? You're still gonna see these crimes and motives happen.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515430]"Dumbfucks voted those guys in" Yeah that was a point I made a couple pages back. When government is allowed the weapons but not the people, what's to stop the people with these sorts of agendas from climbing the political system and taking advantage of the scenario?[/QUOTE] It's uhhh...usually "the people" who vote awful governments in though. Like, seriously. Look at the US right now. Trump is a fucking awful candidate who has been decried by economists, political analysts and all kinds of people. But he has massive public support. Not having guns would likely not change this because it's an largely ignorant public that are supporting him. Hitler's rise to power was supported by a reasonable number of native Germans due to things like the Treaty of Versailles annoying the fuck out of them, and the economic hell that the country was going through. The people having guns wouldn't have changed this when it was [I]the people who would have guns[/I] supporting them. And a civilian uprising in a remotely developed country would get put the fuck down pretty quickly if that country is being ruled by fascist assholes who don't particularly care for the people rebelling. Especially one trying to keep up appearances that they are liked.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515430]"Dumbfucks voted those guys in" Yeah that was a point I made a couple pages back. When government is allowed the weapons but not the people, what's to stop the people with these sorts of agendas from climbing the political system and taking advantage of the scenario? [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] What's the point of that distinction? You're still gonna see these crimes and motives happen.[/QUOTE] I don't know if you've ever fired a weapon before but it's much easier and faster for me to put rounds down range with a weapon like an AR15 rather than a hunting rifle. Meaning I could be a faster and more lethal killing machine.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50515415]Well shiiiitttt. It's almost as if the government in power affects the outcome of a gun restriction law and not the actual restriction itself. Because we've had basically everything banned for around two decades now and we still haven't topped the 6 million yet. And it's not like the government of WWII Germany forced itself into power, dumb fucks actually voted those guys in. (along with the general facist dealio of abusing your opponents, but fucking morons still supported them despite this) Awful governments do not arise from gun bans. They arise from fucking retards in the population voting them in in the first place or coups that would rely on fucking idiots in the population taking part in in some measure to bolster their numbers.[/QUOTE] It makes it easier for said groups to do unjust things to the populace when that populace is disarmed, however. I think it's pretty hard to argue against that. That is what the guns are a check against. It is an incredibly unlikely event, but the idea that it could happen is worth having the guns and whatever negatives they bring around. And I think that reason alone is more important than [B]maybe[/B] preventing the 30,000 deaths a year (of which almost half of which are criminals shooting criminals or people shooting themselves, which I honestly care very little about when used as a reason to take them away from the common folks) die due to gun violence each year. And that is just from the angle of using them to prevent tyranny. It's a very hard sell to convince me and the millions of other gun owners that saving (if everything goes exactly as planned and it somehow stops all gun crime) 30k people a year is worth trampling on millions of peoples rights, seizing god knows how much property, rewriting the 2nd amendment, and removing a check against gov't power. Very thankfully, the majority of the country seems to agree.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50515458]I don't know if you've ever fired a weapon before but it's much easier and faster for me to put rounds down range with a weapon like an AR15 rather than a hunting rifle. Meaning I could be a faster and more lethal killing machine.[/QUOTE] We aren't discussing an AR15, weapons in general. Apparently even a crossbow isn't safe enough. Edit: [QUOTE=Killuah;50515380]Are you trolling or something? Is this a serious post?[/QUOTE] Should I get out a bingo card or something? From this position I've seen "Current year", insults, and now pretty much literally "are you kidding me?? Is that a joke?" Maybe if people on your end could write as well as OvB on his stance you'd convince somebody too. I think I was pretty nuetral prior to that.
Claiming 'suicides' isn't a get out of jail free card, by the way. Guns make suicide attempts in the US vastly more lethal than in other countries with lower gun ownership, and as such take lives as well.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50515504]Claiming 'suicides' isn't a get out of jail free card, by the way. Guns make suicide attempts in the US vastly more lethal than in other countries with lower gun ownership, and as such take lives as well.[/QUOTE] So does walking off of a building. How is pointing out that a very very large portion of those deaths which are often used incorrectly to be correlated to violence on other persons are actually self inflicted a get out of jail free card? Banning guns wont stop people from killing themselves either, so whats your point?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.