Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>> Gun control question
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Chit

ID: 1380260
Level: 48
Posts: 29261
Score: 5267
HunkChit [1380260]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 18:15:09
By LimeTree [1321200]
By Stain92 [1040302]
By LimeTree [1321200]
By Stain92 [1040302]
I'd have thought you'd be the greatest advocate for the control of guns LimeTree, especially if they're American guns.


I didn't say shit about my position on gun control, I'm just saying that the fact that this conversation only comes up after some american kids have been shot in a school makes you all either ridiculously ignorant motherf**kers or simply disgusting excuses for human beings.


So you complain that we don't try to stop people dying, then when we try to advocate means to prevent death, the deaths we want prevented are the wrong ones?



Well duh. I don't see anyone here asking to stop the wars, the drone strikes, the economic imperialism or even a mention of all the people the police murder. As such you don't actually care about people dying, you care about some people dying.


What makes you think you think we as Americans can protect others from harm, if we can't protect ourselves from school shootings such as Newtown?

pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif
pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif
Chit.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
ProfUnicorn

ID: 1597463
Level: 15
Posts: 114
Score: 60
LSProfUnicorn [1597463]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 18:24:47
By Cathead [1581564]
Why is there a right to bear arms but no right to have free medicine?


^this

"Americans are a nation of warriors without a personal war
they idolize soldiers as hero's because they need hero's"

you say you'll kill shitheads who try to take your guns but the only outcome from you pointing a gun at a government official will be your death and possibly being labeled a terrorist





Money is nothing-Power is something-Respect is everything
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
IN_COLD_BLOOD

ID: 1613784
Level: 36
Posts: 940
Score: 517
JFAIN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 21:23:51
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg

16igwy.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LSD

ID: 883567
Level: 54
Posts: 13138
Score: 6969
LSD [883567]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 21:28:19
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


u hav completley changet my veiws on guns n they are not dangerus

20uz85h.jpg
userbar714645cj5.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
HarshLife

ID: 443611
Level: 47
Posts: 898
Score: 789
NOVAHarshLife [443611]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 21:48:46
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


UK doesnt have a complete gun ban. Thats fictional, it has tight gun restrictions.. but not as tight as luxembourg.

Luxumbourg is 2nd to bottom on your list with a violent crime per 100,000 that is lower than that of Arkinsas, Oakland and Cleveland.
And assumedly more, but I got bored of looking through stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2012/data-tables/table-4/view

Edit: Added some USA stats.

Last Edited: Thu Jan 17, 2013 21:58:27
tornantiscam.jpg

No but seriously.. Say No to legalised scamming, Its just logical.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Silent-Rage

ID: 193964
Level: 63
Posts: 4822
Score: 1658
Silent-Rage [193964]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 21:54:50
By HarshLife [443611]
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


UK doesnt have a complete gun ban. Thats fictional, it has tight gun restrictions.. but not as tight as luxembourg.

Luxumbourg is 2nd to bottom on your list.


Luxembourg has a population of about 17. That's a hell of a lot of crimes for 17 people to commit.

I'm assuming these figures are based on convictions for violent crime. Maybe it's just that more people are convicted in UK courts than in the other countries.

522193a8-86fd-8b8a-193964.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
IN_COLD_BLOOD

ID: 1613784
Level: 36
Posts: 940
Score: 517
JFAIN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 22:22:32
By HarshLife [443611]
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


UK doesnt have a complete gun ban. Thats fictional, it has tight gun restrictions.. but not as tight as luxembourg.

Luxumbourg is 2nd to bottom on your list with a violent crime per 100,000 that is lower than that of Arkinsas, Oakland and Cleveland.
And assumedly more, but I got bored of looking through stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2012/data-tables/table-4/view

Edit: Added some USA stats.



so you're telling me citizens can own guns but british police aren't allowed to carry guns? that's f**king smart. smh.


16igwy.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LSD

ID: 883567
Level: 54
Posts: 13138
Score: 6969
LSD [883567]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 22:34:25
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
By HarshLife [443611]
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


UK doesnt have a complete gun ban. Thats fictional, it has tight gun restrictions.. but not as tight as luxembourg.

Luxumbourg is 2nd to bottom on your list with a violent crime per 100,000 that is lower than that of Arkinsas, Oakland and Cleveland.
And assumedly more, but I got bored of looking through stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2012/data-tables/table-4/view

Edit: Added some USA stats.



so you're telling me citizens can own guns but british police aren't allowed to carry guns? that's f**king smart. smh.


So you're telling me you're an idiot? (kidding, this is an established fact)
Farmers and hunters own guns. It's not often a farmer is robbed and a shooting spree takes place with all 2 rounds of buckshot said shooter will have at his disposal.

Also, please don't use "smh" again. It doubles the rate of retardation-experience gain.

20uz85h.jpg
userbar714645cj5.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Stain92

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

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 22:35:11
We have armed police units, but the average officer on the street won't be carrying a firearm.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Silent-Rage

ID: 193964
Level: 63
Posts: 4822
Score: 1658
Silent-Rage [193964]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 22:38:22
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
By HarshLife [443611]
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


UK doesnt have a complete gun ban. Thats fictional, it has tight gun restrictions.. but not as tight as luxembourg.

Luxumbourg is 2nd to bottom on your list with a violent crime per 100,000 that is lower than that of Arkinsas, Oakland and Cleveland.
And assumedly more, but I got bored of looking through stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2012/data-tables/table-4/view

Edit: Added some USA stats.



so you're telling me citizens can own guns but british police aren't allowed to carry guns? that's f**king smart. smh.


If you want to own a gun in the UK, you need a f**king good reason. The majority of firearms in the UK are shotguns owned by farmers. Carry a shotgun around in public and you're going to have to explain yourself to the police whether you have a license or not.

If you want anything that you could conceal, or anything with a large magazine, or anything semi/fully automatic, you need what's known as a Section 5 license, and they aren't easy to obtain...trust me, I know.

Not all police carry firearms, but the ones who do are highly trained and are sent to deal with any problems that require firearms to be available. Give your average policeman a gun with minimal training and he'll draw it, possibly use it, with little justification. Surely you've seen the videos of American police drawing their guns for driving offenses?


522193a8-86fd-8b8a-193964.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
HarshLife

ID: 443611
Level: 47
Posts: 898
Score: 789
NOVAHarshLife [443611]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 23:02:51
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
so you're telling me citizens can own guns but british police aren't allowed to carry guns? that's f**king smart. smh.


Im telling you theres not a blanket ban.
In addition, gun crime is not = zero. There are guns, just not legal ones.

Famous cases:
Mark Duggan - Shot by armed police for posession of an illegal gun.
Tony Martin - Imprisoned for killing a burglar and maiming another with an illegally posessed shotgun
Raoul Moat - Went on a shooting spree and ultimately shot himself.


Im also telling you that some of your top 10 have lower violet crimes per 100,000 than a significant number of places in the USA.

tornantiscam.jpg

No but seriously.. Say No to legalised scamming, Its just logical.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Bueno_Excelente

ID: 34014
Level: 60
Posts: 16142
Score: 10420
HunkBueno_Excelente [34014]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 23:42:04

By Silent-Rage [193964]
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg


I'm assuming these figures are based on convictions for violent crime.


You COULD assume that. God knows that's what the person who came up with the chart wants you to do.

But, as was pointed out the last time this graphic was vomited up, these particular numbers were compiled by the Conservative Party & supplied to the Daily Mail in the run-up to the 2010 election. The reason why the UK figures appear so high is that England lumps crimes like burglary, domestic violence, and all sexual offences into their "violent crime" statistic, while the other countries cherry-picked for the list don't. The domestic violence statistic alone pads the numbers by something like 25%.

The chart is a gaff, intentionally rigged to take advantage of the differences in the way that England complies crime statistics.


Last Edited: Thu Jan 17, 2013 23:47:09
23515340-34014.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
HarshLife

ID: 443611
Level: 47
Posts: 898
Score: 789
NOVAHarshLife [443611]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 00:00:00
By Bueno_Excelente [34014]
supplied to the Daily Mail in the run-up to the 2010 election.


Im disgusted with myself for joining in any discussion that was published via the daily mail.

I've let myself down, and I've let all of you down who might have wasted time reading my comments.

Apologies to all.
sadface.gif


tornantiscam.jpg

No but seriously.. Say No to legalised scamming, Its just logical.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Swag

ID: 929733
Level: 80
Posts: 7166
Score: 3753
eVųSwag [929733]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 01:48:55
I dont think the answer to stopping violence is going to come from Washington. Its a societal and cultural issue on top of a huge problem with treating mental illnesses. In my opinion, most of the people who commit these atrocities are more evil than ill, but i guess that would make them ill in most aspects.

Its almost impossible to get a mentally ill person admitted and get them treatment without it taking forever, and having to jump through too many hoops. There are hearings and blah blah, by then if the person is that bad, they are going off the deep end before they get treatment. Its a sad thing, but its the truth.

High cap mags and "assault weapons" are nowhere near being the issue. Most gun related crimes are comitted with pistols, and they wont even try to infringe on those.

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.

Background checks and such are needed and it wouldnt affect me if they were made more strict, but the ATF is already overloaded and under staffed as it is. Its rediculous how many background checks are sent in vs how many peoole they have to do the background checks. This is another issue of many.

So many issues to tackle, but its going to be hard to stop evil people committing evil crimes. Thats just my 2 cents.

anon_zpse5237b97.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 02:00:14
By Swag [929733]
Its a societal and cultural issue


This is the case for the vast majority of crime in America, and is the reason our crime and homicide rates put us in the company of war-torn South American countries. I blame the education system for half of this problem, and then blame the other half of the population that decides to drop out of the free public education system and would rather sell drugs and buy guns from the street. With as many homicides that take place in the US, they virtually all take place in very specific neighborhoods of major US cities. Chicago, for example, has the stigma of having 500+ murders in their city in 2012, but there are not 500 murders distributed evenly across all the streets and the millions of people that live there. Some areas of the city reported 0 murders, while others have crime rates well below the national average, but it's the two or three neighborhoods south and east of downtown that have murder rates that would make the Honduras government concerned.

Also, no one ever wants to talk about this, but it's the "black-on-black" crime and gang related crime. It's the inner city "minority" youth of the country that are committing most of these murders with the countless illegal firearms in the country, but no one wants to address it. I think it's because "same race" crime doesn't make headlines, and it's as simple as that. If a group of "white" guys get into an argument and two of them end up shot and one ends up stabbed, it's no big deal and life goes on. Same if there are rival gangs of "black" guys get into a fight in a city alley and end up getting some of themselves killed. It's when there is a sensational story involving either different races and/or young kids when it makes headlines, and those are when reactionary measures are taken that don't actually prevent the majority of crime in the country.

Instead, I think we need to focus money on education, because it's pathetic how few people graduate from even HIGH SCHOOL. But, at the same time, it's a cultural thing. People bitch about the cost of upper education in America, and while it is expensive... yet 75% of kids graduate high school and that is FREE to attend in all states, cities and towns. And, just blindly looking at stats and not getting argumentative, the groups of "blacks" and "latinos" have some of the lowest high school graduation rates, at or just below 60%, and that same group also happens to have some of the highest crime rates. It's no secret; wherever high school rates and education systems are lowest and poorly funded, you generally see high crime, and the crimes being committed are by people who probably don't have a high school diploma.

It goes both ways, government overlooking education as well as the general population deciding education is not important enough. Until those two problems are solved, expect to continue seeing murder rates of 60 per 100,000 in the case of New Orleans.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 02:28:44
Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
GrkManga49

ID: 10856
Level: 60
Posts: 22221
Score: 7942
LOTRGrkManga49 [10856]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 02:38:27
Anyone else notice that Google hid sites that contain information on how to build extended clips? Or am I the only one trying to prove that banning high capacity clip sales is stupid because it's not hard to make your own.

By bosox [278767]
By Swag [929733]
Its a societal and cultural issue


With as many homicides that take place in the US, they virtually all take place in very specific neighborhoods of major US cities. Chicago, for example, has the stigma of having 500+ murders in their city in 2012, but there are not 500 murders distributed evenly across all the streets and the millions of people that live there. Some areas of the city reported 0 murders, while others have crime rates well below the national average, but it's the two or three neighborhoods south and east of downtown that have murder rates that would make the Honduras government concerned.

Also, no one ever wants to talk about this, but it's the "black-on-black" crime and gang related crime. It's the inner city "minority" youth of the country that are committing most of these murders with the countless illegal firearms in the country, but no one wants to address it. I think it's because "same race" crime doesn't make headlines, and it's as simple as that. If a group of "white" guys get into an argument and two of them end up shot and one ends up stabbed, it's no big deal and life goes on. Same if there are rival gangs of "black" guys get into a fight in a city alley and end up getting some of themselves killed. It's when there is a sensational story involving either different races and/or young kids when it makes headlines, and those are when reactionary measures are taken that don't actually prevent the majority of crime in the country.


It's true, there are rarely any murders on in the Northwest suburbs. They still exist but are very rare. Most crime does happen in those neighborhoods you mentioned but sometimes they leak out into calm neighborhoods too. Other times it's gang members firing at each other but they do it in day time and in public places. You get those stray bullets that hit civilians also. There have also been cases lately of gang members getting confused about who's driving a car (thinking it's another gang member) and would run to the windows with guns held out and see if it's them. Sometimes they get the person confused and open fire. Other times they see it's not them and run off, but sometimes the driver panics because he notices them and floors it and gets shot at also. It can get pretty crazy in those neighborhoods if you're not careful.

At least the China town gangs are smart enough to avoid public confrontations.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 02:49:40
ddp6yw.jpgddp6yw.jpgddp6yw.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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 03:50:58
By Swag [929733]

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


Why is that comical exactly? When millions of people possibly wants to assassinate you and pretty much know where you are 24/7, I personally give you permission to have highly trained guards with assault weapons follow you around. And no, I didnt say you can have an assault weapon. I said the highly trained personnel can have them.

The idea that you think you need to be able to have the same protection as probably the most well known person on the planet or that you think that is an actual logical argument is what is actually comical.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 03:53:39
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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 05:09:20
Grk you live in Chicago and I didn't even meet up with you when I was there last spring? I am disappoint

Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Swag

ID: 929733
Level: 80
Posts: 7166
Score: 3753
eVųSwag [929733]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:00:05
By TedThomas [887131]
By Swag [929733]

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


Why is that comical exactly? When millions of people possibly wants to assassinate you and pretty much know where you are 24/7, I personally give you permission to have highly trained guards with assault weapons follow you around. And no, I didnt say you can have an assault weapon. I said the highly trained personnel can have them.

The idea that you think you need to be able to have the same protection as probably the most well known person on the planet or that you think that is an actual logical argument is what is actually comical.




Anyone who has one of these "Assault weapons" will think their wife and kids are just as important to them to protect as anyone else's wife and kids. I would much rather protect mine than his, and i guarantee he feels the same way as would anyone else.

These "Assault weapons" are nothing close to military guns other than looks. Military have selective fire systems and state of the art sight systems. These "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and are no different that a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle. They just get picked on when some mentally ill person goes and shoots up a school.

The guy who shot all the people in the theater in Colorado, he had an "Assault weapon" that jammed and killed almost every single person with a shotgun.

Edit: I didnt make my post to argue with anyone. I am just pointing out that anything that is aavailable for one persons protection should be available for anyone else. All lives are equally important and no one should have to worry about having weapons to protect themselves, but unfortunately this is the society that we live in and its no ones fault but our own.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:21:30
anon_zpse5237b97.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CaptainObvious

ID: 1019122
Level: 62
Posts: 4476
Score: 2737
HTCaptainObvious [1019122]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 14:52:47
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
interesting statistics... UK has a complete gun ban

100113graph.jpg



Aha! another of those "your crime rate is worse than ours" posts.

well, your info is flawed in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin, but here's a start for you.

6307612_700b.jpg



29f9f444a01ba18fbc5265680dd62ba5.600x.gi

My Company is hiring anyone! 10k/day --->clicky http://www.torn.com/joblist.php?step=corpinfo&ID=53228
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Spurtung

ID: 96875
Level: 84
Posts: 6905
Score: 5184
PTSpurtung [96875]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 16:27:56
By Swag [929733]
I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


I see you've been spoon fed with the latest 'hypocrisy'.
well, just have a watch:

www.upworthy.com/nra-ad-stuns-conservative-pundits-into-speechlessness-followed-by-really-articul

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 16:56:46
sigoutrotcspurtungfo6.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Spurtung

ID: 96875
Level: 84
Posts: 6905
Score: 5184
PTSpurtung [96875]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 16:37:01
By Cathead [1581564]
Why is there a right to bear arms but no right to have free medicine?


because the right to bear arms doesn't mean one will be given to you for free.

sigoutrotcspurtungfo6.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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:04:00
By Swag [929733]
By TedThomas [887131]
By Swag [929733]

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


Why is that comical exactly? When millions of people possibly wants to assassinate you and pretty much know where you are 24/7, I personally give you permission to have highly trained guards with assault weapons follow you around. And no, I didnt say you can have an assault weapon. I said the highly trained personnel can have them.

The idea that you think you need to be able to have the same protection as probably the most well known person on the planet or that you think that is an actual logical argument is what is actually comical.




Anyone who has one of these "Assault weapons" will think their wife and kids are just as important to them to protect as anyone else's wife and kids. I would much rather protect mine than his, and i guarantee he feels the same way as would anyone else.

These "Assault weapons" are nothing close to military guns other than looks. Military have selective fire systems and state of the art sight systems. These "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and are no different that a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle. They just get picked on when some mentally ill person goes and shoots up a school.

The guy who shot all the people in the theater in Colorado, he had an "Assault weapon" that jammed and killed almost every single person with a shotgun.



Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.

If they arent any different than a semi automatic pistol or hunting rifle, then why do you need one? If they do the same thing then you should be just fine buying a regular handgun or hunting rifle right?

Edit: I didnt make my post to argue with anyone. I am just pointing out that anything that is aavailable for one persons protection should be available for anyone else. All lives are equally important and no one should have to worry about having weapons to protect themselves, but unfortunately this is the society that we live in and its no ones fault but our own.


I know thats what you are trying to point out, and I am pointing out that is a stupid argument. It was dumb when the NRA said it and it continues to be dumb when their followers repeat it.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:14:16
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Swag

ID: 929733
Level: 80
Posts: 7166
Score: 3753
eVųSwag [929733]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:20:56
[quopresident]By TedThomas [887131][/i]
By Swag [929733]
By TedThomas [887131]
By Swag [929733]

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


Why is that comical exactly? When millions of people possibly wants to assassinate you and pretty much know where you are 24/7, I personally give you permission to have highly trained guards with assault weapons follow you around. And no, I didnt say you can have an assault weapon. I said the highly trained personnel can have them.

The idea that you think you need to be able to have the same protection as probably the most well known person on the planet or that you think that is an actual logical argument is what is actually comical.




Anyone who has one of these "Assault weapons" will think their wife and kids are just as important to them to protect as anyone else's wife and kids. I would much rather protect mine than his, and i guarantee he feels the same way as would anyone else.

These "Assault weapons" are nothing close to military guns other than looks. Military have selective fire systems and state of the art sight systems. These "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and are no different that a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle. They just get picked on when some mentally ill person goes and shoots up a school.

The guy who shot all the people in the theater in Colorado, he had an "Assault weapon" that jammed and killed almost every single person with a shotgun.

Edit: I didnt make my post to argue with anyone. I am just pointing out that anything that is aavailable for one persons protection should be available for anyone else. All lives are equally important and no one should have to worry about having weapons to protect themselves, but unfortunately this is the society that we live in and its no ones fault but our own.


Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.

If they arent any different than a semi automatic pistol or hunting rifle, then why do you need one? If they do the same thing then you should be just fine buying a regular handgun or hunting rifle right?
[/quote]

The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.

I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.

An "Assault weapon" will do no more damage with 10 rounds than a semi automatic pistol with 10 rounds or another rifle with 10 rounds. As a matter of fact, most "Assault weapons" fire a .223 caliber round, which is considerably smaller and does less damage and has less range than your standard hunting rifle, which most are some variant of a 30 caliber round. So what makes the gun more dangerous? The fact that it has cosmetic resemblances to a military weapon? Thats the only similarity, the look of the gun. An AR-15, AK47, SKS or any other "Assault weapon" is not a military gun. It is a dramatically changed civilian gun made to look like a military weapon. They dont fire full auto unless you obtain illegal parts and modify the weapon.

Most murders and gun related crimes are comitted with pistols anyway, so why do you feel the "Assault weapons" should be banned? I have a Glock with a 30 round mag, i guarantee i could do more damage with it than someone could with a normal "Assault weapon".

You have absolutely no argument as to why they should be banned, just reasons why you think we could do without them. Give me one real, concrete and logic reason why they are more dangerous than anything else and ill leave this thread and you'll be right. You wont be able to. You'll do as usual. Call me a name, like idiot or some variant and ramble on with some bullshit. You wont win this argument Ted, promise you.

anon_zpse5237b97.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Spurtung

ID: 96875
Level: 84
Posts: 6905
Score: 5184
PTSpurtung [96875]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:22:52
By TedThomas [887131]
I know thats what you are trying to point out, and I am pointing out that is a stupid argument. It was dumb when the NRA said it and it continues to be dumb when their followers repeat it.


hey! that's (sorta) my line.

www.torn.com/forums.php?forumID=6&ID=15077442&start=60#15095148

sigoutrotcspurtungfo6.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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:36:21
By Swag [929733]
By TedThomas [887131]
By Swag [929733]
By TedThomas [887131]
By Swag [929733]

I think its comical that the president, his wife and children are protected by guys who have assaultweapons with high cap mags and he wants to ban them . What makes protecting him, his wife and children more important than me protecting myself, my wife and children? The people who are making these laws dont have to worry about protecting themselves, so i doubt that crosses their minds along with any other logical thought while coming up with most policies.


Why is that comical exactly? When millions of people possibly wants to assassinate you and pretty much know where you are 24/7, I personally give you permission to have highly trained guards with assault weapons follow you around. And no, I didnt say you can have an assault weapon. I said the highly trained personnel can have them.

The idea that you think you need to be able to have the same protection as probably the most well known person on the planet or that you think that is an actual logical argument is what is actually comical.




Anyone who has one of these "Assault weapons" will think their wife and kids are just as important to them to protect as anyone else's wife and kids. I would much rather protect mine than his, and i guarantee he feels the same way as would anyone else.

These "Assault weapons" are nothing close to military guns other than looks. Military have selective fire systems and state of the art sight systems. These "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and are no different that a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle. They just get picked on when some mentally ill person goes and shoots up a school.

The guy who shot all the people in the theater in Colorado, he had an "Assault weapon" that jammed and killed almost every single person with a shotgun.

Edit: I didnt make my post to argue with anyone. I am just pointing out that anything that is aavailable for one persons protection should be available for anyone else. All lives are equally important and no one should have to worry about having weapons to protect themselves, but unfortunately this is the society that we live in and its no ones fault but our own.


Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.

If they arent any different than a semi automatic pistol or hunting rifle, then why do you need one? If they do the same thing then you should be just fine buying a regular handgun or hunting rifle right?


The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.

I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.

An "Assault weapon" will do no more damage with 10 rounds than a semi automatic pistol with 10 rounds or another rifle with 10 rounds. As a matter of fact, most "Assault weapons" fire a .223 caliber round, which is considerably smaller and does less damage and has less range than your standard hunting rifle, which most are some variant of a 30 caliber round. So what makes the gun more dangerous? The fact that it has cosmetic resemblances to a military weapon? Thats the only similarity, the look of the gun. An AR-15, AK47, SKS or any other "Assault weapon" is not a military gun. It is a dramatically changed civilian gun made to look like a military weapon. They dont fire full auto unless you obtain illegal parts and modify the weapon.

Most murders and gun related crimes are comitted with pistols anyway, so why do you feel the "Assault weapons" should be banned? I have a Glock with a 30 round mag, i guarantee i could do more damage with it than someone could with a normal "Assault weapon".

You have absolutely no argument as to why they should be banned, just reasons why you think we could do without them. Give me one real, concrete and logic reason why they are more dangerous than anything else and ill leave this thread and you'll be right. You wont be able to. You'll do as usual. Call me a name, like idiot or some variant and ramble on with some bullshit. You wont win this argument Ted, promise you.


You have no argument as to why they shouldnt be banned. You said yourself that you can do the exact same thing with a regular handgun or hunting rifle, so basically your only argument for keeping them around is that people want them because they are cool looking.


I didnt say the presidents LIFE was more important, I said the need for security is greater than yours because he is an important figure in the world and you are not. The president of the United states has a target on his back to half the world, you do not. Its a pretty simple concept anyone with their brain should be able to comprehend.

You want one reason? Ok. You can attach a 100 round magazine to an AR-15 and you cant with a M1911 pistol or a glock. Alright, see ya. Have a good one.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:36:56
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Swag

ID: 929733
Level: 80
Posts: 7166
Score: 3753
eVųSwag [929733]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:44:28
This is a 100 round mag for a Glock, your point is still not valid. Anything that is made for a rifle will be made for a pistol.

glock_100_round_magazine-tfb.jpg

The reason they shouldnt be banned is there is no point. Less crimes are committed with them, less people are killed with them by far. They look more dangerous, so in uniformed peoples eyes, they have to be more dangerous. Its called ignorance.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:46:46
anon_zpse5237b97.png
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 Jan 18, 2013 17:49:29
My point is the only reason you have for keeping them around is they look cool. You said yourself they are useless.

You seem to be arguing as to why we should be banning handguns too.

And just to make it clear, I wasnt arguing anything about having an assault rifle ban. You brought it up. Its not like its going to happen anyways.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 18:05:37
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-rob-

ID: 65426
Level: 82
Posts: 11575
Score: 4126
NuBz-rob- [65426]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:56:19
No, "ignorance" is failing to understand that there's a huge national security threat involving potential kidnapping of the president's children.

If you're too stupid to understand that, I really don't think you're qualified to use the word "ignorance" in any regard.

Which foreign country, please tell me, is hoping to kidnap YOUR children to effect national security?

Lets go to Chris Christie for discussion of the NRA's latest disgusting add.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1ZVZK30WI

Can we just ban Swag from this thread? I was enjoying it more when the intelligent people were having a debate. The simpletons always drag things down.

BestEVER.gif4751_zpsc9715e02.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Swag

ID: 929733
Level: 80
Posts: 7166
Score: 3753
eVųSwag [929733]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 18:27:53
Im done arguing here. Thank you for proving my point that there is absolutely no reason to even try to ban "Assault weapons"

Call names all you want, thats the only ammo you have (pun intended)

Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 18:41:04
anon_zpse5237b97.png
Forum Main>>Non Related>> Gun control question
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 >>  Last