Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 76
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eVÝ-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 15:00:55
...and your solution to this is...what Steve?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 17:27:10
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
Ban "assault rifles".

Ban "evil sounding bullets".

Ban this, ban that...

Make the gullible feel safe.

But the truth is that unless there is an outright ban on all firearms, except for those individuals in a special position to do the bidding of the state, tragic crimes like Columbine, VA Tech, Arora, New Town, will not be stopped. The severity of the crimes could possibly be mitigated, but there will still be gun crimes.

This begs the question, what is the true agenda of those pushing this latest wave of "ban this", and "ban that"?

I am sure that those pushing this all have the best of intentions, and their goal is to make things better, but at what cost?

We are either going to be a society that affirms mans natural rights, and demands our government not infringe on those natural rights, or we are not. There really are no half measures that will make everyone feel satisfied.

I know it is a mere cliche now, and the cynical amongst us will point out that it is over two hundred years old, and that things have changed, etc., etc., but to me this quote sums up the whole debate very nicely:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

Innocent people dying sucks. Innocent children dying sucks even more, but we can not allow ourselves to be caught up in hysteria and emotions.


Umm owning an assault rifle is not a "natural right", give me a break. Owning whatever the hell gun you feel like is not "an essential liberty" either.


The point isnt to try to stop every mass shooting (which is impossible), the point is making laws that make sense and are better for society in general.

Last Edited: Fri Dec 21, 2012 17:28:13
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5953
Score: 3931
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 18:30:24
By TedThomas [887131]
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
Ban "assault rifles".

Ban "evil sounding bullets".

Ban this, ban that...

Make the gullible feel safe.

But the truth is that unless there is an outright ban on all firearms, except for those individuals in a special position to do the bidding of the state, tragic crimes like Columbine, VA Tech, Arora, New Town, will not be stopped. The severity of the crimes could possibly be mitigated, but there will still be gun crimes.

This begs the question, what is the true agenda of those pushing this latest wave of "ban this", and "ban that"?

I am sure that those pushing this all have the best of intentions, and their goal is to make things better, but at what cost?

We are either going to be a society that affirms mans natural rights, and demands our government not infringe on those natural rights, or we are not. There really are no half measures that will make everyone feel satisfied.

I know it is a mere cliche now, and the cynical amongst us will point out that it is over two hundred years old, and that things have changed, etc., etc., but to me this quote sums up the whole debate very nicely:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

Innocent people dying sucks. Innocent children dying sucks even more, but we can not allow ourselves to be caught up in hysteria and emotions.


Umm owning an assault rifle is not a "natural right", give me a break. Owning whatever the hell gun you feel like is not "an essential liberty" either.


The point isnt to try to stop every mass shooting (which is impossible), the point is making laws that make sense and are better for society in general.


No, owning an assault riffle isn't a natural right per se, but being able to defend oneself is...

There is essentially a ban on assault weapons already, due to the fact that one can not possess fully automatic weapons (unless you jump through serious hoops, and you purchase older weapons), which means that most "assault weapons" are essentially just "for looks".

I can shoot my Ruger 10/22, which is just a squirrel riffle nearly as fast a Lanza could fire his Bushmaster .223. His riffles rounds did offere more of a wallop due to the much larger powder amounts, I agree, but he could have just as easily killed those kids with the handguns he had on him, or the shotgun he left in his vehicle. The VA Tech killer used only handguns I believe.

How about if we just get away from giving items scary names, and we figure out how to ban psychos from having guns?

How we do that is the question.

Last Edited: Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:08:47
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 19:41:02
Banning assault rifles really isn't the solution, although I personally don't see much of a reason why any civilian would need to own one. But look at Virginia Tech in 2007: 33 people killed with two semi-automatic handguns purchased legally. No assault rifles or banana clips here. Just one person with a strong history of mental illness being allowed to purchase guns online. That is the real problem, the ease in which people can buy guns, not necessarily the type of guns or how much ammunition one has. Although I think they said something just under 200 rounds were fired in Virginia Tech, that's still far short of the thousands of rounds of ammunition that get most of the media's and population's attention when someone owns them.

The solution to this problem is we need MUCH stricter regulations on who and how people can purchase guns. I think online purchases should be absolutely illegal, first off. Secondly, straw purchases need be to illegal for ALL guns. I also think there could be a longer waiting period between purchases, seeing as it takes months to get background checks (supposedly), months to get a passport, and hell it can even take weeks to get a new subscription to a damn magazine, yet it only takes 14-30 days to wait between purchases in certain states? Come on. People in the household with a gun need to have background checks on them as well, that all clear, as that may have prevented this latest school shooting. And I think it'd be very worth while to impose some mandatory classes (other than the few hour long class that exists now) to purchase guns that one must complete every year, along with updated background checks at least every year or two.

Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
jinius

ID: 1695794
Level: 17
Posts: 34
Score: -3
jinius [1695794]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 19:55:37
FACT: before guns, no-one was killed by guns.

people had to hide behind other excuses for killing people.



downloadfile.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5953
Score: 3931
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:00:00
By jinius [1695794]
FACT: before guns, no-one was killed by guns.

people had to hide behind other excuses for killing people.



Fact: Before guns, people were killed by other people.

Maybe we should ban people?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
jinius

ID: 1695794
Level: 17
Posts: 34
Score: -3
jinius [1695794]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:02:08
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
By jinius [1695794]
FACT: before guns, no-one was killed by guns.

people had to hide behind other excuses for killing people.



Fact: Before guns, people were killed by other people.

Maybe we should ban people?




now you're getting it...

downloadfile.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Barbossa

ID: 1563474
Level: 53
Posts: 5105
Score: 3842
JUXBarbossa [1563474]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:03:00
Whoever created this "little gun history" is just manipulating facts
Soviets - The Gulag Archipelago- lecture to understand a bit soviet mentality. Its not the fact that they were arm less but its just the matter of psychology. Constant fear etc. Plus you just cant fight the state (you can fight, but you wont win)
Germany - Nuremberg Laws (Nazis didnt treat them as humans so whats the deal with guns)
- Those two are the easiest to overthrow.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5953
Score: 3931
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:05:27
By bosox [278767]
Banning assault rifles really isn't the solution, although I personally don't see much of a reason why any civilian would need to own one. But look at Virginia Tech in 2007: 33 people killed with two semi-automatic handguns purchased legally. No assault rifles or banana clips here. Just one person with a strong history of mental illness being allowed to purchase guns online. That is the real problem, the ease in which people can buy guns, not necessarily the type of guns or how much ammunition one has. Although I think they said something just under 200 rounds were fired in Virginia Tech, that's still far short of the thousands of rounds of ammunition that get most of the media's and population's attention when someone owns them.

The solution to this problem is we need MUCH stricter regulations on who and how people can purchase guns. I think online purchases should be absolutely illegal, first off. Secondly, straw purchases need be to illegal for ALL guns. I also think there could be a longer waiting period between purchases, seeing as it takes months to get background checks (supposedly), months to get a passport, and hell it can even take weeks to get a new subscription to a damn magazine, yet it only takes 14-30 days to wait between purchases in certain states? Come on. People in the household with a gun need to have background checks on them as well, that all clear, as that may have prevented this latest school shooting. And I think it'd be very worth while to impose some mandatory classes (other than the few hour long class that exists now) to purchase guns that one must complete every year, along with updated background checks at least every year or two.


How would a background check on Adam Lanza, before his mother purchased a gun have prevented this crime?

Just curious.

There is no solution to this problem, other than an outright ban on all guns, and that will not solve the problem, because anybody hell bent on killing people will still find a way.

So, again, I ask the simple question:

Are we as a society ready to infringe on the natural rights of humans in an effort to make some people "feel" safer? Because that is all that will happen, some people will "feel" safer for a little while.

Last Edited: Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:09:50
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:24:42
Because all of these mass shooting cases, the firearms used in them were all legally purchased some way or another. It is not the illegally smuggled guns that are being used in these public mass shootings, so we must look at who and how people can buy guns. This means the system is failing. Now, obviously it wont stop all crime, but a more thorough background check shouldn't upset anyone. It's been reported that Lanza may or may not have had a mental illness, which may or may not have been disclosed to the government if there was a background check. But I can tell you this; it certainly wouldn't have made the situation worse if they ran a background check over all the occupants of the house of someone who purchases a firearm. Or perhaps they need to have multiple references unrelated to them about whether or not they should be allowed to have a gun. Hell, we need to give references to apply to McDonalds or take out an auto loan, so maybe we should require multiple references as well, and maybe someone would have said something about her son being possibly mentally unstable that would have prevented it.

Saying there is no solution to the problem is just accepting that every few years a couple dozen or so innocent students are just going to get shot up in class because there's nothing that we can do, which I think is very defeatist and counter productive. I am not suggesting to infringe upon the rights of civilians to own guns, but I don't see any reason why people would oppose stricter regulation on how that is done. Now maybe that means some people who have criminal records that aren't felonies can't own a gun, or that if you live with someone who has a criminal record you can't have a gun either, but why is that a loss for society?

But like I said, anyone hell bent on killing people don't always find ways. Because what are the honest chances that Lanza, had he no access to his mother's guns, would have looked to the black market for a weapon? It's often said that anyone can get a gun, but how many of these shooters actually go through illegal means to get the guns? So far, I have not seen one of these shootings where the suspect did this, because getting them legally is actually easier. Why not just buy a gun online and some ammunition from ebay? Why not go to Walmart and pickup a rifle? Why not just have someone you know make a straw purchase of used guns for you and why not just wait the 14 days in the comfort of your own house before you make another? If we make the requirements and regulations of legally owning a hand gun harder, I don't think there will be much of a dramatic increase in black market weapons, as the people who use the black market already do so, and i don't think very many law abiding citizens would suddenly turn to the black market to purchase a firearm if the waiting period increased a little and there was some more extensive background checks.

Last Edited: Fri Dec 21, 2012 20:25:34
Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 76
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eVÝ-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 21:02:41
Ban all weapons. Problem solved.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 21:22:26
By -El- [463504]
Ban all weapons. Problem solved.


not necessarily true. I got 2 state certified weapons attached to each shoulder. what what.
Edit. just trying to lighten the tension here, were all obviously gonna disagree on what a reasonable solution is. But hey whats new.

Last Edited: Fri Dec 21, 2012 21:29:01
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 76
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eVÝ-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 21:46:57
By BuckWyld [1009930]
By -El- [463504]
Ban all weapons. Problem solved.


not necessarily true. I got 2 state certified weapons attached to each shoulder. what what.
Edit. just trying to lighten the tension here, were all obviously gonna disagree on what a reasonable solution is. But hey whats new.


Oh I know bruh. You see what I wrote on FB? I doubt my mind will be changed.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
jinius

ID: 1695794
Level: 17
Posts: 34
Score: -3
jinius [1695794]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 22:25:00
By -El- [463504]
Ban all weapons. Problem solved.



Fair point, and one I totally agree with.

The only problem is the f**ktards we vote into power... the retardation of bureaucracy, legislation and implementation has nothing to do with punishment for crimes.

For example, in the UK, guns are banned, only farmers, gamekeepers and the police can legally hold firearms (probably more but for the sake of this argument I'll leave it at this).


3 years ago I had an 'altercation' with 5 Doormen... I was charged with 2 counts of Possession of an offensive Weapon, namely a Samurai Sword (it wasn't it was a straight bladed ninja sword, but the judge didnt seem that bothered, meh.), and a knife. I was also charged with Affray.

The 2 possession charges rate a 1-3 year sentence, each. The Affray charge a 3 year minimum charge...


I got 12 months for the lot, out in 6 months and when I got discharged... and this is my point about clueless bureaucracy, I was BANNED from touching a firearm for 5 years!!! I had to sign numerous forms. I touch a firework and I go back to jail for 5 years minimum....




My point; if a weapon is available, someone will use it. Doesn't matter if it's a gun, a sword or a fist. But if you vote for a person who advocates the possession of a weapon, you CANNOT then cry foul when a person kills another with said weapon.



downloadfile.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 23:23:57
By bosox [278767]
Banning assault rifles really isn't the solution, although I personally don't see much of a reason why any civilian would need to own one. But look at Virginia Tech in 2007: 33 people killed with two semi-automatic handguns purchased legally. No assault rifles or banana clips here. Just one person with a strong history of mental illness being allowed to purchase guns online. That is the real problem, the ease in which people can buy guns, not necessarily the type of guns or how much ammunition one has. Although I think they said something just under 200 rounds were fired in Virginia Tech, that's still far short of the thousands of rounds of ammunition that get most of the media's and population's attention when someone owns them.

The solution to this problem is we need MUCH stricter regulations on who and how people can purchase guns. I think online purchases should be absolutely illegal, first off. Secondly, straw purchases need be to illegal for ALL guns. I also think there could be a longer waiting period between purchases, seeing as it takes months to get background checks (supposedly), months to get a passport, and hell it can even take weeks to get a new subscription to a damn magazine, yet it only takes 14-30 days to wait between purchases in certain states? Come on. People in the household with a gun need to have background checks on them as well, that all clear, as that may have prevented this latest school shooting. And I think it'd be very worth while to impose some mandatory classes (other than the few hour long class that exists now) to purchase guns that one must complete every year, along with updated background checks at least every year or two.


Like I said, its not about stopping every mass murder because that is impossible. It is about making sensible laws that benefit society in general. There are many fairly simple things we can do (like nationally requiring background checks at gun shows) that might not stop mass murders, but make sense in keeping a handle on guns as a whole.

So what if banning assault rifles doesnt stop mass shootings? Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea that we just hand out weapons meant for military personnel to whoever has enough money to buy one because they want to "defend" themselves, whether they have training or not? Why not let anyone just buy RPGs then? You can make the same argument about defense against tyrannical government, so why not?

Personally I dont think you should be able to own a military weapon unless you have had military training (and probably regular psychiatric evaluation) or you have had many hours of training and store it at a gun range, but hey that's just me I guess.

We have tighter controls on cold medicine than we do on guns, it is kind of ridiculous.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Dec 21, 2012 23:58:47
By -El- [463504]
By BuckWyld [1009930]
By -El- [463504]
Ban all weapons. Problem solved.


not necessarily true. I got 2 state certified weapons attached to each shoulder. what what.
Edit. just trying to lighten the tension here, were all obviously gonna disagree on what a reasonable solution is. But hey whats new.


Oh I know bruh. You see what I wrote on FB? I doubt my mind will be changed.


i seen the part about putting an armed guard at schools, & i whole heartedly agree.
Like i said in the previous thread. Id much rather see our tax dollars being spent ensuring the safety of our children. Instead of seeing em ride around town looking for exp. licence plates.

I watched an episode on Netflix last nite, where psychologists & fbi profilers were diving into the psyche of these pathetic pussy's that want to go down in history as mass murderers. & without going into he whole hr. long episode. They brought up a very strong point, about the more media & press these incidents carry. it's influential on other loser's to try & trump it so they can mark there spot in history. Where as otherwise they would just go thru life like any other troubled soul sulking there wounds & looking for other ways to cope with there inadequencies. Some would still be violent sure, But not to the extreme's we've been accustomed to seeing over the last 10 to 15 yrs.

which is why i will personally do my part to know or give as lil a shit as possible about Adam Lanza, & focus my attention of this incident on those poor lil babies.

I dont have anything to add rite now for the Gun control conversation. But i am seeing some pretty strong points from both sides on the issue. So I'l just let y'all hash it out. Political forums aren't really my thing anyways bro. Was just tired of seeing everyone have a pissing contest in the threads trying to honor the memory of the children.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Ebony
ID: 1481869
Level: 28
Posts: 280
Score: 210
Ebony [1481869]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 03:30:59
Good, I think we've maybe come to the agreement many posts ago that the main issue is CULTURE and not really how tightly restricted the guns/ammo are.

I like how on Ted's first post he listed the statistics as "50% less deaths by firearms and 60% suicides by firearms". The big question is: overall, how many less deaths and suicides were there, huh? I'm sure the figures will not look very impressive because in the end, the method someone chooses to kill someone or themselves doesn't really matter.

Last Edited: Sat Dec 22, 2012 03:32:43
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
raypaul

ID: 865369
Level: 48
Posts: 3277
Score: 485
raypaul [865369]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 04:22:29
When we disarm goverments,then talk about disarming the people.

A person kills 27 people.Goverments kill many more.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Stain92

ID: 1040302
Level: 51
Posts: 701
Score: 526
Stain92 [1040302]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 04:40:41
By Ebony [1481869]
Good, I think we've maybe come to the agreement many posts ago that the main issue is CULTURE and not really how tightly restricted the guns/ammo are.

I like how on Ted's first post he listed the statistics as "50% less deaths by firearms and 60% suicides by firearms". The big question is: overall, how many less deaths and suicides were there, huh? I'm sure the figures will not look very impressive because in the end, the method someone chooses to kill someone or themselves doesn't really matter.


In 2011 there were at least 31940 deaths by firearm in the United states. 19766 were from suicide, 11,101 from homicide, 851 from accidental discharge, and 222 from undetermined intent. So by Teds figures that's 15970 less deaths by firearm overall, and 11860 less suicides by firearm.

Pretty impressive looking if you ask me.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Logical

ID: 658367
Level: 55
Posts: 438
Score: 192
BH2Logical [658367]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 04:53:07
People should at least first learn the difference between an assault rifle and assault weapon before debating gun control.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Ebony
ID: 1481869
Level: 28
Posts: 280
Score: 210
Ebony [1481869]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 07:57:12
By Stain92 [1040302]
By Ebony [1481869]
Good, I think we've maybe come to the agreement many posts ago that the main issue is CULTURE and not really how tightly restricted the guns/ammo are.

I like how on Ted's first post he listed the statistics as "50% less deaths by firearms and 60% suicides by firearms". The big question is: overall, how many less deaths and suicides were there, huh? I'm sure the figures will not look very impressive because in the end, the method someone chooses to kill someone or themselves doesn't really matter.


In 2011 there were at least 31940 deaths by firearm in the United states. 19766 were from suicide, 11,101 from homicide, 851 from accidental discharge, and 222 from undetermined intent. So by Teds figures that's 15970 less deaths by firearm overall, and 11860 less suicides by firearm.

Pretty impressive looking if you ask me.



No it isn't impressive because first of all, if you're going to commit suicide, simply not having a gun won't stop you. I'd say the amount of suicides "prevented" by gun control is negligible. Homicides, on the other hand... while I would bet some people couldn't muster up the nerve to do it without a gun, sometimes a person will want to kill another person so badly, having a gun or not won't matter. Plus instead of carrying around a gun to rob someone, a person might just use something like a switchblade.

Therefore, I'd have to credit the number of homicides prevented by gun control to be a far less percentage... and we aren't even accounting for more risks opening up for innocent, law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves anymore... and keep in mind, criminals are far more likely to acquire guns despite gun laws preventing them from doing so.

Last Edited: Sat Dec 22, 2012 07:58:10
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 22:14:25
By Ebony [1481869]
By Stain92 [1040302]
By Ebony [1481869]
Good, I think we've maybe come to the agreement many posts ago that the main issue is CULTURE and not really how tightly restricted the guns/ammo are.

I like how on Ted's first post he listed the statistics as "50% less deaths by firearms and 60% suicides by firearms". The big question is: overall, how many less deaths and suicides were there, huh? I'm sure the figures will not look very impressive because in the end, the method someone chooses to kill someone or themselves doesn't really matter.


In 2011 there were at least 31940 deaths by firearm in the United states. 19766 were from suicide, 11,101 from homicide, 851 from accidental discharge, and 222 from undetermined intent. So by Teds figures that's 15970 less deaths by firearm overall, and 11860 less suicides by firearm.

Pretty impressive looking if you ask me.



No it isn't impressive because first of all, if you're going to commit suicide, simply not having a gun won't stop you. I'd say the amount of suicides "prevented" by gun control is negligible. Homicides, on the other hand... while I would bet some people couldn't muster up the nerve to do it without a gun, sometimes a person will want to kill another person so badly, having a gun or not won't matter. Plus instead of carrying around a gun to rob someone, a person might just use something like a switchblade.

Therefore, I'd have to credit the number of homicides prevented by gun control to be a far less percentage... and we aren't even accounting for more risks opening up for innocent, law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves anymore... and keep in mind, criminals are far more likely to acquire guns despite gun laws preventing them from doing so.


You can "say" that suicides prevented by gun control are negligible all you want, but you would be wrong. Nothing you said is based on facts, its just made up bullshit on what you feel.

Want more proof? After gun-loving Israel made a policy that their soldier's guns had to be left on base and could not be taken home on the weekend, suicides on the weekend went down 40% with no increase in suicides during the week. (By the way, there was no corresponding increase in other methods of suicide in Australia either.)

Suicidal people are more likely to kill themselves of there is a gun around because it makes it easier and often it is an impulsive decision, that is a pretty well established fact. You can fight and argue that the numbers mean something else and make excuses all you want but you are and will continue to be, wrong.

By Ebony [1481869]
Good, I think we've maybe come to the agreement many posts ago that the main issue is CULTURE and not really how tightly restricted the guns/ammo are.


Nope. The agreement was that the culture is different in most part BECAUSE guns are tightly restricted (well that and there arent idiots walking around with guns because they think they need to shoot criminals), you might actually try reading next time.

Last Edited: Sat Dec 22, 2012 22:31:46
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 22:25:46
By BuckWyld [1009930]


i seen the part about putting an armed guard at schools, & i whole heartedly agree.
Like i said in the previous thread. Id much rather see our tax dollars being spent ensuring the safety of our children. Instead of seeing em ride around town looking for exp. licence plates.


Because having an armed security guard really helped a lot at Columbine...

I would rather see our tax dollars go to people getting a good education instead of cutting school funding and teacher's salaries even more than we already are so we can have useless security guards at every school in order to make the paranoid people feel safe.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 76
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eVÝ-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 22:44:59
By TedThomas [887131]
By BuckWyld [1009930]


i seen the part about putting an armed guard at schools, & i whole heartedly agree.
Like i said in the previous thread. Id much rather see our tax dollars being spent ensuring the safety of our children. Instead of seeing em ride around town looking for exp. licence plates.


Because having an armed security guard really helped a lot at Columbine...

I would rather see our tax dollars go to people getting a good education instead of cutting school funding and teacher's salaries even more than we already are so we can have useless security guards at every school in order to make the paranoid people feel safe.


Cops outside didn't do shit at Columbine either. Just waited it out like little bitches.

I freely admit I'm one of those paranoid folks that doesn't want some punk walking into a school & shooting his kids.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2012 22:59:50
By -El- [463504]
By TedThomas [887131]
By BuckWyld [1009930]


i seen the part about putting an armed guard at schools, & i whole heartedly agree.
Like i said in the previous thread. Id much rather see our tax dollars being spent ensuring the safety of our children. Instead of seeing em ride around town looking for exp. licence plates.


Because having an armed security guard really helped a lot at Columbine...

I would rather see our tax dollars go to people getting a good education instead of cutting school funding and teacher's salaries even more than we already are so we can have useless security guards at every school in order to make the paranoid people feel safe.


Cops outside didn't do shit at Columbine either. Just waited it out like little bitches.

I freely admit I'm one of those paranoid folks that doesn't want some punk walking into a school & shooting his kids.


I dont think anyone WANTS someone shooting up a school, but putting armed security guards at every elementary school in the US is a ridiculous and expensive solution that, as shown at Columbine, can be completely ineffective anyways. If someone really wanted to shoot up students in a school that had a guard, the pretty simple solution would be to shoot the guard first or wait till he goes to lunch then continue on with their plan. It is not going to deter a determined person from killing people if they really want to.

The Fort Hood shootings happened on a military base filled with guns and he still managed to kill 13 people and wound 29, not to mention the officer that arrived on scene got shot twice and did not stop the shooter at all...


Side note: After Columbine, police training around the country changed to where they no longer just sit outside the school and wait while the shooter walks around killing people (so-called "rapid-response" teams).

Last Edited: Sat Dec 22, 2012 23:18:35
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2012 00:11:23
You know, when I was in high school and we'd get bomb threats called in, evacuated, stand in the parking lot while full bomb squads, SWAT, police, fire and ambulance came to the school, and when we'd practice lock down drills being silent for 10 minutes at a time all on the floor in a corner of the room behind desks... I thought it was funny and we'd all try to sneak away from the teachers so we could leave school, or smoke cigarettes and not understand why the teachers were mad at us. I guess now I'm seeing things differently.

Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2012 02:13:41
By TedThomas [887131]
By -El- [463504]
By TedThomas [887131]
By BuckWyld [1009930]


i seen the part about putting an armed guard at schools, & i whole heartedly agree.
Like i said in the previous thread. Id much rather see our tax dollars being spent ensuring the safety of our children. Instead of seeing em ride around town looking for exp. licence plates.


Because having an armed security guard really helped a lot at Columbine...

I would rather see our tax dollars go to people getting a good education instead of cutting school funding and teacher's salaries even more than we already are so we can have useless security guards at every school in order to make the paranoid people feel safe.


Cops outside didn't do shit at Columbine either. Just waited it out like little bitches.

I freely admit I'm one of those paranoid folks that doesn't want some punk walking into a school & shooting his kids.


I dont think anyone WANTS someone shooting up a school, but putting armed security guards at every elementary school in the US is a ridiculous and expensive solution that, as shown at Columbine, can be completely ineffective anyways. If someone really wanted to shoot up students in a school that had a guard, the pretty simple solution would be to shoot the guard first or wait till he goes to lunch then continue on with their plan. It is not going to deter a determined person from killing people if they really want to.

The Fort Hood shootings happened on a military base filled with guns and he still managed to kill 13 people and wound 29, not to mention the officer that arrived on scene got shot twice and did not stop the shooter at all...


Side note: After Columbine, police training around the country changed to where they no longer just sit outside the school and wait while the shooter walks around killing people (so-called "rapid-response" teams).


what would you suggest then Ted? we can ban firearms all day long,that still doesn't mean a determined individual won't be able to get access to em. tbh at this point there's allready to many in circulation to ever do away with em all. If armed security or police aren't qualified to ensure the safety of our children, then who is? I understand your concern with the cost involved, But if i keeps a mad gunman from killing my child, it's an expense im willing to pay for.

im also fully aware that the police cant always save the day. but it sure as hell beats no solution at all. Or we could just have local parents going full out vigilante.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2012 03:49:48
I would suggest not wasting billions of dollars for something for what all we know could never happen again at an elementary school even if we didnt do anything and doesnt necessarily prevent it happening anyways, that is what I would suggest.

Funny how you are willing to pay up the ass for a practically non-existant problem, yet you arent willing to pay to have enough teachers so they actually learn something. Fear and paranoia are quite a common theme with you.

Again, gun regulation doesnt not equal banning all guns. What is your problem with the English language.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2012 04:30:14
So do nothing about the "practically non-existant problem"? This "practically non-existant problem" is the biggest issue propelling all of this talk about gun regulations and, in the case of idiots, complete gun bans.

Love your thought process though. "It's not that common that schools get shot up so let's do nothing about the schools. But even though it doesn't happen often and I'll complain about the cost, we should still stick it to gun owners and have our government spend countless months of hours (on the clock mind you) debating what we should do to gun owners because of uncommon shooting spree's instead of stupid things like worrying about the economy and crap like that I also like to complain about when it's convenient." Did I get that right?

So you think something that has shocked the nation isn't important and we shouldn't do anything about future prevention of another incident WHERE it happens, yet attack the objects used in the "practically non-existant" problem?

By TedThomas [887131]
Sorry, just because you dont think gun regulations wont stop everything doesnt mean we just sit back and do nothing about obvious flaws in the system that even 70% of NRA members support fixing. That is the philosophy of idiots.



Comparatively Ted, what kind of philosophy is that?

Me- "It's not gonna change much, so why go on the attack"
Ted- "yada yada, philosophy of idiots"

Everyone- "We need to protect our schools and kids, so lets do something"
Ted- "It's not that big a deal, lets do nothing."


Really?


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sun Dec 23, 2012 06:53:17
By TedThomas [887131]
I would suggest not wasting billions of dollars for something for what all we know could never happen again at an elementary school even if we didnt do anything and doesnt necessarily prevent it happening anyways, that is what I would suggest.

Funny how you are willing to pay up the ass for a practically non-existant problem, yet you arent willing to pay to have enough teachers so they actually learn something. Fear and paranoia are quite a common theme with you.

Again, gun regulation doesnt not equal banning all guns. What is your problem with the English language.

Wont happen again Columbine, Virginia Tech.
has anyone ever told you , you come off as really self absorbed? So just because something doesn't effect you directly, your solution is to do nothing about it?

Considering the U.S. spends billions every year on ridiculously stupid shit all the time, Ensuring the safety of our children is hardly a waste. Unless of course you don't have any, so it wouldn't appeal to you, & your just looking to bitch about a tax increase.

& when the feck did i ever say i wasn't willing to pay to have enough teachers in schools? Please elaborate since you obviously know more about my opinions than i do lol.

Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last