• Piers Morgan Delivers One Final Blow To Gun Violence In Last Show
    209 replies, posted
I find it hilarious how lefty Facepunch is but then it comes to guns and it's like reading off the forums of the NRA.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44397786]This is a myth. The gun wasn't left in the trunk. I haven't actually heard this said anywhere else but Facepunch, so I'm not sure how it got started. It's speculated that the theater shooter's gun jammed because of the 100 round drum magazine he used.[/QUOTE] A picture of a Saiga with a black body and crane(?) stock was captured and peopled assumed it was the AR-15.
I'm alright with guns as long as they're regulated. Background checks and the like are perfectly fine, but many southerners believe that their guns will be taken away purely because of a bit of stricter legislation. I live in Massachusetts, Sandy Hook is still a fresh memory even though it was in Connecticut. Most of New England wants to push stricter gun laws. During the Boston Bombings those two Chechen dudes shot a couple of police officers, too. My dad owns a vault full of shotguns, all licensed, and he's got his head screwed on straight. I don't want to see any more kids get hurt.
Schools need security guards. That would be cool. All armed with some sort of Handgun.
[QUOTE=Falkok15;44401365]Schools need security guards. That would be cool. All armed with some sort of Handgun.[/QUOTE] My school had two resource officers and we were by no means a rich county.
[QUOTE=Falkok15;44401365]Schools need security guards. That would be cool. All armed with some sort of Handgun.[/QUOTE] The fact you consider putting armed guards into a school as a solution to the problem really does show how far gone the US is with this kind of shit. I'm actually starting to think you're a society built on nothing but paranoia and fear. Because holy shit, that's literally the only reason I can think you'd feel the need to carry firearms on your person at all times.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44397374][QUOTE=Elecbullet;44397237][B]Fuck[/B] [B]You[/B][/QUOTE] What were they killed with? I'm confused.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=locojaws;44397849][QUOTE=Elecbullet;44397237][B]Fuck[/B] [B]You[/B][/QUOTE] do u get all worked up every time someone misuses a term for guns??[/QUOTE] Please let me explain, I don't think anyone else explained terrifically well. I am not a gun nut. My experience with guns is limited to a few rounds fired from a friend's AK47 while we were both high in rural woods of Alabama. I wouldn't care extremely strongly if the popular opinion came to be for a gun ban, and if guns were banned as a result. What I [I]don't[/I] like is deception, and Piers is being deceptive, [B]"Assault rifles"[/B] are extremely heavily regulated, practically banned in the US. [B]"Assault weapons",[/B] a meaningless term, are less regulated - and these are the ones in question here. An "assault weapon" was used by both shooters. There is currently a push for their ban, wh ich primarily [I]rides off of the constructed similarity to the term "assault rifle".[/I] So no, I don't get all worked up every time. I'm not one of those fools who will scream at you if you use "clip" instead of "magazine" - hell I'd laugh at them. But while I disapprove of the use of the term "assault weapon", I have to so much more strongly disapprove of anyone [I]influential[/I] who futhers the public deception by using "assault rifle" instead.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401515]The fact you consider putting armed guards into a school as a solution to the problem really does show how far gone the US is with this kind of shit. I'm actually starting to think you're a society built on nothing but paranoia and fear. Because holy shit, that's literally the only reason I can think you'd feel the need to carry firearms on your person at all times.[/QUOTE] How sheltered are you, because where there are home invasions in my neighborhood like.. every two months, and i'm not even in the bad part of town.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401515]The fact you consider putting armed guards into a school as a solution to the problem really does show how far gone the US is with this kind of shit. I'm actually starting to think you're a society built on nothing but paranoia and fear. Because holy shit, that's literally the only reason I can think you'd feel the need to carry firearms on your person at all times.[/QUOTE] A large portion of guards at schools, at least in my town, are much less to protect the school but moreso to make sure that kids aren't beating the [I]fuck[/I] out of each other because of gang related bullshit.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44401596]A large portion of guards at schools, at least in my town, are much less to protect the school but moreso to make sure that kids aren't beating the [I]fuck[/I] out of each other because of gang related bullshit.[/QUOTE] This. My highschool actually had two cops at it at all times.
[QUOTE=Foosili;44401584]How sheltered are you, because where there are home invasions in my neighborhood like.. every two months, and i'm not even in the bad part of town.[/QUOTE] I do love how everyone on the pro-gun side automatically goes "oh look at this SHELTERED dumbass hahaha!!!!" when people question their motives. So there are break-ins in your area? Awesome. Does that justify you having a gun on your person at all times open/concealed carry? I mean, you're totally going to stop that home invasion whilst you're at the 7/11 browsing the soft porn magazines. Does having a gun actually stop people wanting to break into your house? They don't know you have the gun after all, and advertising the fact you have guns makes you a great target in reality as stolen legal firearms are the biggest contributor to illegal firearms. If someone really wants to rob you silly, they're gonna do it whether you have a gun or not, if anything you having one for "self defence" is going to encourage them to use a firearm themselves, and they will probably get the drop on you if they don't wake you up. Lot of good your gun did there. [editline]30th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44401596]A large portion of guards at schools, at least in my town, are much less to protect the school but moreso to make sure that kids aren't beating the [I]fuck[/I] out of each other because of gang related bullshit.[/QUOTE] Right, having people on hand for that kind of shit makes sense if you've got severe issues with gang culture. But what does arming the guard actually provide here? Because they sure as fuck aren't going to be shooting kids beating the shit out of each other.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401625]I do love how everyone on the pro-gun side automatically goes "oh look at this SHELTERED dumbass hahaha!!!!" when people question their motives.[/QUOTE] It makes about as much sense as determining that nobody needs to be able to defend themselves because things are okay in your 4 square blocks of the world.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401625]I do love how everyone on the pro-gun side automatically goes "oh look at this SHELTERED dumbass hahaha!!!!" when people question their motives. So there are break-ins in your area? Awesome. Does that justify you having a gun on your person at all times open/concealed carry? I mean, you're totally going to stop that home invasion whilst you're at the 7/11 browsing the soft porn magazines. Does having a gun actually stop people wanting to break into your house? They don't know you have the gun after all, and advertising the fact you have guns makes you a great target in reality as stolen legal firearms are the biggest contributor to illegal firearms. If someone really wants to rob you silly, they're gonna do it whether you have a gun or not, if anything you having one for "self defence" is going to encourage them to use a firearm themselves, and they will probably get the drop on you if they don't wake you up. Lot of good your gun did there.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point completely, I live in a low-income and high crime area. Violence isn't limited to break-ins. I was using it as an example.
Piers Morgan is a jerk
[QUOTE=James*;44399679]How many would have died if they had guns? [/QUOTE] If they had guns they probably wouldn't that great at being [I]an authoritarian state[/I].
[QUOTE=Foosili;44401660]You're missing the point completely, I live in a low-income and high crime area. Violence isn't limited to break-ins. I was using it as an example.[/QUOTE] Cool, but, like. What does this have to do with my point about the armed school guards? How does arming your society in the name of "defence" actually solve the problem? If the civilians are armed, do you not think criminals are more inclined to arm themselves? Criminals are going to do their thing guns or not, the only way to actually lower your crime rate would be to fix the societal effects that lead people to crime. But no, clearly "muh guns" is a much bigger concern for a lot of America. I don't give a toss if it's "constitutionally protected", the prohibition of alcohol was "constitutional" and that was still revoked when they realised "wait, maybe that was a dumb idea".
I'm not a gun nut myself, but for those who might be confused about the defense of the 2nd amendment, I'm going to try my best to explain it: The 2nd amendment has very simple language- and at the end it clearly states "shall not be infringed". A lot of people like to say we need the 2nd amendment because we have people who like to hunt, or use weapons for sports. We also have the self defense and defense of government tyranny arguments. Bear in mind all of these arguments are legitimate. But the defense of the 2nd amendment (at least for me) isn't really about the second amendment at all. It goes back to what Joey said. If we give an inch, a mile can be taken quite easily. You see, if the government can decide to scrap something that clearly states "Shall not be infringed," what is to stop them from eventually taking away due process? Freedom of speech? And eventually the entire bill of rights? Removing or overly regulating one is their foot in the door to remove or over regulate all of our rights- possibly to the point where they no longer exist. That isn't guaranteed to happen, but why take the chance? It may seem silly to people in other countries. I'm not trying to judge them or tell them how to live their lives, but in America (at least for a large number of us) we're not nut jobs on the hard right who think the government is coming to get us (okay, well some are), we simply don't trust our government with power simply because it has been known to abuse the people. Look at as recently of times as the 20th century and you will find many examples.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;44401839] But the defense of the 2nd amendment (at least for me) isn't really about the second amendment at all. It goes back to what Joey said. If we give an inch, a mile can be taken quite easily.[/QUOTE] But you have to give up something. We have freedom of speech but defamation laws, etc.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401742]How does arming your society in the name of "defence" actually solve the problem? If the civilians are armed, do you not think criminals are more inclined to arm themselves? Criminals are going to do their thing guns or not, the only way to actually lower your crime rate would be to fix the societal effects that lead people to crime.[/QUOTE] Even when ignoring the preventative affect on crime that a gun-owning population has, guns are an equalizer when it comes to crimes like that. In your Ideal no-gun world, criminals would still arm themselves with whatever they could to give themselves the edge, so when they break in on grandma and they're wielding a baseball bat, what chance does she have? Guns are an equalizer, anyone can defend themselves when armed with a gun, but the people who typically commit violent crime (Typically stronger youths) would have a huge advantage over victims who don't have the strength or reflexes to stop a stronger, often younger, attacker.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44401867]But you have to give up something. We have freedom of speech but defamation laws, etc.[/QUOTE] That is true. However, firearms are already heavily regulated in their sale and operation by federal and state governments. For example we cannot own most explosives, nuclear weapons, ect. (The term "arm" is ambiguous.) Fully automatic weapons are rare, expensive, and extremely difficult to keep in private hands. Modifying a weapon in most instances is against federal law and will land you immediately in federal prison. And rightfully so. I'm not in any way advocating that we should be able to own nuclear weapons, ect.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;44400773]Hunting and target practice are hobbies though. Everytime I try to argue with a gun nut, the reply is basically "but....it's fun to shoot stuff." Don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns, but it's just unnecessary to have semi auto rifles, and other "tactical" weapons unless you are some kind of professional.[/QUOTE] Given that the point of our second amendment is to place weapons capable of killing humans, soldiers even, into the hands of the people, I'd have to say that your argument has little standing. Self defense and hunting were givens at the time of the constitution. Regular police forces were quite rare. As were markets.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;44401894]That is true. However, firearms are already heavily regulated in their sale and operation by federal and state governments.[/QUOTE] I really see no problem with the government tracking who has fire arms and who doesn't. At what point is too far should be the debate but instead its always about the extremes. [QUOTE=UziXxX;44401894]And rightfully so. I'm not in any way advocating that we should be able to own nuclear weapons, ect.[/QUOTE] I've seen people argue this. Anarcho-Capitalists are hilarious.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;44401871]Even when ignoring the preventative affect on crime that a gun-owning population has, guns are an equalizer when it comes to crimes like that. In your Ideal no-gun world, criminals would still arm themselves with whatever they could to give themselves the edge, so when they break in on grandma and they're wielding a baseball bat, what chance does she have? Guns are an equalizer, anyone can defend themselves when armed with a gun, but the people who typically commit violent crime (Typically stronger youths) would have a huge advantage over victims who don't have the strength or reflexes to stop a stronger, often younger, attacker.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that arming everyone has never been shown to have a positive correlative effect on the crime rate. But sure, if you can get me some stats that prove that (no, the NRA are not a source) I'll happily accept that. If criminals will arm themselves anyway, why is it a lot of the petty crimes (theft, mugging, etc.) in countries with harsher gun restrictions don't actually see this then? A criminal is capable of risk assessment, if they understand that bringing a gun to their simple little hold up will increase their prison sentence by a significant amount should they be caught, they won't take that risk.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401948]Pretty sure that arming everyone has never been shown to have a positive correlative effect on the crime rate. But sure, if you can get me some stats that prove that (no, the NRA are not a source) I'll happily accept that. If criminals will arm themselves anyway, why is it a lot of the petty crimes (theft, mugging, etc.) in countries with harsher gun restrictions don't actually see this then? A criminal is capable of risk assessment, if [B]they understand that bringing a gun to their simple little hold up will increase their prison sentence by a significant amount should they be caught, they won't take that risk[/B].[/QUOTE] Go back and read page three and get back to me, I don't feel like reiterating all my points I made with James*. Bolded is why you're sheltered.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44397706]You're either an American or a communist.[/QUOTE] To be fair we commies want no regulation also. Y'know, arm the working class and all that.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44401864]Uh.. what? A firearm is literally the only reason i'm still alive today. During hurricane katrina some cracked out meth head tried to kick down our door, my dad shot him 3 times in the chest with an SKS, killing him and saving us. I'd say there's plenty of legitimate reasons to own a firearm, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.[/QUOTE] This is quite a bit different from open/concealed carry. Which is my major issue with US gun laws. But, y'know, that totally wouldn't have happened if other societal factors hadn't pushed said person to hard drugs in such a manner. Again, guns are only a temporary "solution" to crime at most. A society that is built on the paranoia that someone is going to kick you door down at any given point sure as shit doesn't sound healthy.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44401979]But, y'know, that totally wouldn't have happened if other societal factors hadn't pushed said person to hard drugs in such a manner. Again, guns are only a temporary "solution" to crime at most. A society that is built on the paranoia that someone is going to kick you door down at any given point sure as shit doesn't sound healthy.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't even go as far as to say that firearms are even a temporary solution. It is undeniable that there is a criminal element in our society. Unfortunately the solution is not at all simple. We should work toward solving it, but in the mean time, we all should be able to be able to defend ourselves against the criminal element. (I know you're not advocating that we shouldn't be able to, I'm just saying.)
[QUOTE=Foosili;44401972]Go back and read page three and get back to me, I don't feel like reiterating all my points I made with James*. Bolded is why you're sheltered.[/QUOTE] You keep saying I'm sheltered, but like, you haven't actually proven I am. Fairly sure if those looters really actually wanted to take shit they'd have grabbed guns themselves and tried, but no, they made the assessment that "maybe this isn't worth it". They were only looters after all, spur of the moment criminals. Which makes up a significant portion of crime. Sure guns deterred there, again, through nothing but fear. Which really isn't a healthy thing.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44401978']To be fair we commies want no regulation also. Y'know, arm the working class and all that.[/QUOTE] Arm the workers until "they" take power.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44402008]There's nothing wrong with CC. If you OC you're an idiot and you're trying to make a point that no-one cares about. A society built around the idea that someone could indeed kick down your door isn't paranoid. It's realistic. [B]There are fucked up people in the world who would love nothing more than to kick down your door and slit your throat in your sleep. Having a firearm to defend yourself against that is nothing more than accepting the reality, and taking a preventative measure. [/B] I as a whole, can't do a thing about societal factors driving people to crime and drugs. I as a whole, can, however, prevent someone who's affected by those societal factors from threatening myself or my families well being. I'd love to live in a world where not even the police own a firearm, and the only place firearms exist is on ranges for recreational use, i'd love to live in a world where there isn't a military. But the fact of the matter is, is that's naive, and at the end of the day, until it happens, Civilians can, and should be able to own firearms to defend themselves and others.[/QUOTE] Sounds pretty paranoid to me. You can acknowledge that there are fucked up people in the world (there are) and not feel the need to have guns for defence if you recognise that the chances of you actually being a victim of such an attack are pretty insignificant in almost all developed countries. As for solving the societal issues, you can help by actually getting involved in government, voting people in who will actually try and fix the issues. Who understand that safety nets for the poorest are actually really useful, and that your prison system breeds crime. It's obviously not directly helping, but it's providing motion to the solution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.