Gun Control/Rights Thread

[Dazey]

My basic point is, just look at this cunt!

I mean just look at it! You make guns harder to come by and only available on the black market and what does he do? That fucker shows up in the hood looking for an illegal firearm and dollars to donuts he gets raped ten times before he gets his hands on so much as a fucking water pistol.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Dazey

[bran]

My basic point is, just look at this cunt!

I mean just look at it! You make guns harder to come by and only available on the black market and what does he do? That fucker shows up in the hood and dollars to donuts he gets raped ten times before he gets his hands on so much as a fucking water pistol.

i see your point but its not that hard. you wouldnt even need to go into hoods to get them. guns and drugs go hand in a hand. you dont need to go into a ghetto to get heroin or cocaine. if a psycho wants to get a gun with social media and all that he will get one without ever stepping into a bad neighborhood.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/26/exclusive-buying-a-gun-on-facebook-takes-15-minutes/

thats facebook......

Edited October 9, 2015 by bran

[Georgy Zhukov]

My basic point is, just look at this cunt!

I mean just look at it! You make guns harder to come by and only available on the black market and what does he do? That fucker shows up in the hood looking for an illegal firearm and dollars to donuts he gets raped ten times before he gets his hands on so much as a fucking water pistol.

This kid couldn't even go to the barber shop without his mom. His mom leaves for a few days to go to some spa resort, he retaliates by shooting her in the head while she sleeps then goes to the nearest elementary school.

His mom, the cunt, should have given up all her firearms. If she was afraid to have a pet because of what he might do, then why have guns? She was afraid of leaving him alone, but somehow she got persuaded. She didn't work of course, lived off alimony.

Wouldn't the price of illegal firearms shoot up if all firearm sales were ceased and possession would be illegal? I don't think even that twat could afford it.

[Apollo]

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible.

But that damage will be reduced by several orders of magnitude if he can't get his hands on a gun.

Unless he decides to use a bomb like Timothy and kill and injure over 700 people. Or set the school in fire.

I'm all for more gun control. I think it's crazy that people can own automatic weapons. And I'm all for making it harder to get permission to own a gun. It's a great step for sure.

I'm just saying that if u take a gun out of a demented kid's band he isn't going to just change his mind and not erupt on people. If I are sick enough to shoot 10 people then you are gonna find an alternative method to kill as many people as possible.

**********

Way more kids die from accidental drowning every year than are killed by shootings.

If your 10-year old wanted to go go a friends house that had a pool would u have the same reaction if they wanted to go hang out at a friends house whose parents were gun freaks? Knowing there is about a 1000 times more of a chance your kid will drown than get shot?

Edited October 9, 2015 by Apollo

[Georgy Zhukov]

Without guns, he'd probably just masturbate.

[bran]

gun prices would go up if they were ever banned but by how much who knows. a stolen gun right now is dirt cheap and more and more would come in from mexico and other countries. heroin carries a heavy penalty where i am but its dirt cheap and is more abundant than even weed.

[Len Cnut]

My basic point is, just look at this cunt!

I mean just look at it! You make guns harder to come by and only available on the black market and what does he do? That fucker shows up in the hood looking for an illegal firearm and dollars to donuts he gets raped ten times before he gets his hands on so much as a fucking water pistol.

I wouldnt think he'd have the bottle to be fair...come to that i wouldnt think he'd be strong enough to cock a gun

[DieselDaisy]

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible.

But that damage will be reduced by several orders of magnitude if he can't get his hands on a gun.

the problem is it still wouldnt be hard to get a gun. you are talking about a country that has as many guns as people.....not to mention if you ban guns(which will never happen) you think the cartels in mexico who have crazy amounts of fire power wont start bringing more and more guns into the country?(which they already do) like i said before with 3d printers you will literally be able to print out a machine gun if you want to and a fully functional gun can be built with everyday items lying around the house. its the same thing with guns as drugs, as long as there is a demand for it someone will always find a way to supply it. criminals and maniacs dont follow the law they could give a shit less, they break dozens of laws when they go off and murder someone. the sandy hook killer broke almost 40 different laws.

That was basically my point but I got shouted down.

[streak]

Maybe better mental health care and stricter gun control is the way forward?

[Dazey]

I've changed my mind. Guns are awesome and I want an Uzi!!!

[AxlisOld]

I've changed my mind. Guns are awesome and I want an Uzi!!!

That's what all you Brits say then you turn up at an Oregon Community College.

[Len Cnut]

McLeods gonna do the bloke at Krispy Creme for omitting his cream filled doughnut from a 12 pack

[bran]

I've changed my mind. Guns are awesome and I want an Uzi!!!

That's what all you Brits say then you turn up at an Oregon Community College.

ouch

[Georgy Zhukov]

Maybe better mental health care and stricter gun control is the way forward?

Okay, but what about people living with mental illness and are unaware of or do not seek treatment? They can be able to obtain a firearm. In the US if you are an adult (like the Sandy Hook shooter) legally you can't be forced to a mental hospital unless you are a harm to yourself and others. Since he didn't start harming people until that fateful day, he himself could buy a gun, or just use his mother's, which he did.

So the question is, if you are a parent or guardian of someone with a mental illness, should you not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Where does it end?

[bran]

Maybe better mental health care and stricter gun control is the way forward?

Okay, but what about people living with mental illness and are unaware of or do not seek treatment? They can be able to obtain a firearm. In the US if you are an adult (like the Sandy Hook shooter) legally you can't be forced to a mental hospital unless you are a harm to yourself and others. Since he didn't start harming people until that fateful day, he himself could buy a gun, or just use his mother's, which he did.

So the question is, if you are a parent or guardian of someone with a mental illness, should you not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Where does it end?

yeah but georgy that can go for a billion of other hypothetical questions. if you have a son that is a raging alcoholic should you be able to buy a car? if you have a daughter that is a pyromaniac should you be able to buy matches? lone wolf attacks of any kind are the scariest kind since they are hard to stop regardless of the means the person wants to use to hurt people. there isnt a good answer for any of this because

A) guns will never be banned in the US

B) you cannot stop everyone all the time no matter what measures you use to try and stop them.

[mrandyk]

Can't completely eradicate gun crime? Better not even try! Cancer is never going to be completely cured, so we better stop trying on that front too.

[bran]

Can't completely eradicate gun crime? Better not even try! Cancer is never going to be completely cured, so we better stop trying on that front too.

No one ever said stop trying.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Well the alcoholic thing can be fixed if someone is drunk driving and hit someone they can be charged, get their licensed taken away, forced to pay huge fines.

If you set things on fire, you can get charged with arson.

But that is beside the point. The point is to prevent people with mental illness from getting guns. The problem is, that why should someone who is not HIPAA certified be able to look at some of your health records?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Georgy Zhukov

[AxlisOld]

And that's why no one ever gets more than one DUI.

[downzy]

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

You've hit the nail on the head, per usual.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, politicians and the left freak out and overact on gun control. IMO, it's mainly because Republicans are more on the gun ownership side. So a mass-shooting is the perfect time to paint the entire republican population in a bad light.

The greatest mass killings in the US are not caused by guns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 600 - without using a gun.

And your facts about inner city violence are SPOT on. As are your comments about certain politicians not wanting to upset that voting population.

Hell, 30 people are killed EVERY day in the United States due to drunk driving accidents.

How many people are killed in mass-shootings? 30 people a YEAR?

From the time somebody wakes up this morning, and then wakes up tomorrow morning - more people will die in drunk driving accidents than will die in the entire next year from a gun man.

Why are people showing 1000 time more emotion about a shooting than they are about the 30 people that die EVERY single day from drunk drivers? Where is the outrage??? (Yes, one crime does not make another crime better or worse. People shouldn't miss the point).

If we could go back in time a couple hundred years and limit the gun industry and usage - that would be awesome.

But today, with how many guns are already out there in society - it's just the band aid to what the real problems are.

The gun is the tool the kid uses to shoot up the school or movie theatre. To think that if he didn't have access to a gun that he wouldn't have still reacted violently is really naïve, imo. If that kid is mentally unstable or so full of anger and without hope that he is willing to go kill a group of innocent people, he IS going to find another method to lash out. A bomb. Starting a school on fire. Poison. Crash your car into a school bus or into a playground.

More bans and tougher laws on guns is definitely a good step. But it certainly won't fix the real issue.

As for as Hilary voicing her opinion, how much value can we put into anything she says? Her views on major issues seem to completely change every few years as she works her way up the political ladder. How do you trust somebody whose core values end up changing so often?

THIS POST IS 100% MY OPINION AND NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYBODY'S CHARACTER (except for Hilary Clinton).

The argument that access to deadly weaponry doesn't effect the scope and depth of carnage has no basis in reality.

Would you prefer to be attacked by a man with a knife or by a man with a bomb?

No basis in reality. That's a strong statement.

Are you implying that if somebody is messed up enough (for whatever reason) that they would actually go kill a dozen people and then take their own life, are you saying of that person can't get ahold of a gun that they will lose part of their rage or will to kill, and will instead downgrade to just grabbing a knife and stabbing a few people or maybe just getting into a fist didn't? Or maybe not killing at all?

I am not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you to explain your statement.

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible. Your no basis in reality comment would seem to indicate you think the kid would go from wanting to murder to a lower level of violence?

I'm saying that if you make it harder for people to access and obtain guns (particularly the highly lethal variety with large magazines), the less damage they can inflict if and when they decide to act on their impulses.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but as I pointed out earlier, ever since Australia took measures to limit the quantity and access to firearms there hasn't been a single mass shooting incident in almost twenty years.

While I'm not expert on the deranged and the psychotic, but it's my understanding that the person who wants to kill a bunch of random people generally wants to do so at his or or hands. The person who uses a bomb is generally someone who is attacking an institution or system - the human carnage is often viewed as collateral damage. Moreover, there's no evidence (at least, none that I've come across) that would suggest that a lunatic deprived of a gun would resort to using bombs. If that were the case, why is it that we don't see bombs being used in countries that do have more restrictive gun laws?

My basic point is, just look at this cunt!

I mean just look at it! You make guns harder to come by and only available on the black market and what does he do? That fucker shows up in the hood and dollars to donuts he gets raped ten times before he gets his hands on so much as a fucking water pistol.

i see your point but its not that hard. you wouldnt even need to go into hoods to get them. guns and drugs go hand in a hand. you dont need to go into a ghetto to get heroin or cocaine. if a psycho wants to get a gun with social media and all that he will get one without ever stepping into a bad neighborhood.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/26/exclusive-buying-a-gun-on-facebook-takes-15-minutes/

thats facebook......

Largely because the U.S. has different gun laws within different states. If we compare other developed nations with more restrictive gun laws, we'd find that obtaining a gun through "social media" is just as hard as it would be in person.

[downzy]

Maybe better mental health care and stricter gun control is the way forward?

Okay, but what about people living with mental illness and are unaware of or do not seek treatment? They can be able to obtain a firearm. In the US if you are an adult (like the Sandy Hook shooter) legally you can't be forced to a mental hospital unless you are a harm to yourself and others. Since he didn't start harming people until that fateful day, he himself could buy a gun, or just use his mother's, which he did.

So the question is, if you are a parent or guardian of someone with a mental illness, should you not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Where does it end?

yeah but georgy that can go for a billion of other hypothetical questions. if you have a son that is a raging alcoholic should you be able to buy a car? if you have a daughter that is a pyromaniac should you be able to buy matches? lone wolf attacks of any kind are the scariest kind since they are hard to stop regardless of the means the person wants to use to hurt people. there isnt a good answer for any of this because

A) guns will never be banned in the US

B) you cannot stop everyone all the time no matter what measures you use to try and stop them.

But why would your alcoholic kid all of a sudden want to start driving your car? I've known several alcoholics who don't drive period as they leave it up to their girlfriends and wives (or, because of prior incidents, can't legally drive period). Your analogy suggests that some random kid with a drinking problem is just as much of a threat to others and himself as a guy like Adam Lanza, who had severe mental disorders and is probably the last kind of person you leave in a home with guns. Sorry, but I find that crazy.

Nobody is saying that gun control measures will make everyone safe. We have stricter gun laws here in Canada, but we still have gun-related violence. Does that mean the laws don't work? Of course not. We know this because we look south of the border where gun laws are far more lax and watch the carnage go on day-by-day.

Everyone in this thread seems to be in agreement that gun laws in the US need to be bolstered a bit. No one here seems to be suggesting that a policy like universal background checks is a bad thing and that there's more the government can do to reduce gun violence all the while protecting a citizen's constitutional right to own a gun.

So what I don't understand is why there are those in this thread who repeatedly remind everyone that we'll never stop all gun violence. Yeah, we get that. Seat belts aren't going to save everyone who finds themselves in a car crash, but they do still save lives. We're a better society for limiting access to cigarettes through sales by-laws and education campaigns than we would be if we did nothing. There are still smokers, but when compared to twenty or thirty years ago, cigarette use has dropped substantially. I don't see why the same can be done for gun violence with respect to tweaking gun laws in order to align gun-violence with the rest of the developed world.

[bran]

because the "ban" guns narrative does nothing since it will never happen, its pointless and the debate goes pages and pages just running around in circles. "mass shootings" account for around 160 deaths a year on average you can cut into that but the bulk of the shootings the ones that lead to thousands and thousands dead and even more injured will remain largely unaffected. to fix those numbers you need a large amount of changes and fixes. you need to look into fixing the inner cities, mental health, drugs, etc. instead the narrative in these threads just goes on about banning which is pointless since the banning of guns in the US will never happen. did you see the protesters in oregon today? oregon is hardly the most conservative state in the union.

[shades]

because the "ban" guns narrative does nothing since it will never happen.

True, and to be fair I think most liberals know that, and are not saying "ban" guns.

Like most conservatives, liberals probably want the same thing, some sort of common sense solution to mass shootings.

problem is there isn't one. NOTHING you can do. If it was an epidemic then maybe a systematic common denominator would stand out. But each case even as often as it seems to occur lately has it's own unique finger print.

Some were loners with obvious warning signs, some were seemingly normal people who went mad. Some used guns they purchased legally some used their relatives weapons, some used unregistered weapons.

What pisses gun owners off , imo, is that liberals use these events to score political points and or actually think there is legislation that could stop them,

There's not a gun owner out there that is afraid that somehow liberals will take their guns, trust me. We know that is not ever going to happen.. they practice.

I think liberals would be served much better if they tempered their dialogue to fall in line more with the way gun owners, responsible gun owners think.

And that is there should be a ban on assault rifles, and large capacity magazines, and

a funded organization with a hotline to look into reports of strange behavoir, much like the child protective agency, non evasive as possible, anonymous , with follow up investigations.

stop with the guns kill people, because they don't.

[Len Cnut]

Maybe better mental health care and stricter gun control is the way forward?

Okay, but what about people living with mental illness and are unaware of or do not seek treatment? They can be able to obtain a firearm. In the US if you are an adult (like the Sandy Hook shooter) legally you can't be forced to a mental hospital unless you are a harm to yourself and others. Since he didn't start harming people until that fateful day, he himself could buy a gun, or just use his mother's, which he did.

So the question is, if you are a parent or guardian of someone with a mental illness, should you not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Where does it end?

yeah but georgy that can go for a billion of other hypothetical questions. if you have a son that is a raging alcoholic should you be able to buy a car? if you have a daughter that is a pyromaniac should you be able to buy matches? lone wolf attacks of any kind are the scariest kind since they are hard to stop regardless of the means the person wants to use to hurt people. there isnt a good answer for any of this because

A) guns will never be banned in the US

B) you cannot stop everyone all the time no matter what measures you use to try and stop them.

But why would your alcoholic kid all of a sudden want to start driving your car? I've known several alcoholics who don't drive period as they leave it up to their girlfriends and wives (or, because of prior incidents, can't legally drive period). Your analogy suggests that some random kid with a drinking problem is just as much of a threat to others and himself as a guy like Adam Lanza, who had severe mental disorders and is probably the last kind of person you leave in a home with guns. Sorry, but I find that crazy.

Nobody is saying that gun control measures will make everyone safe. We have stricter gun laws here in Canada, but we still have gun-related violence. Does that mean the laws don't work? Of course not. We know this because we look south of the border where gun laws are far more lax and watch the carnage go on day-by-day.

Everyone in this thread seems to be in agreement that gun laws in the US need to be bolstered a bit. No one here seems to be suggesting that a policy like universal background checks is a bad thing and that there's more the government can do to reduce gun violence all the while protecting a citizen's constitutional right to own a gun.

So what I don't understand is why there are those in this thread who repeatedly remind everyone that we'll never stop all gun violence. Yeah, we get that. Seat belts aren't going to save everyone who finds themselves in a car crash, but they do still save lives. We're a better society for limiting access to cigarettes through sales by-laws and education campaigns than we would be if we did nothing. There are still smokers, but when compared to twenty or thirty years ago, cigarette use has dropped substantially. I don't see why the same can be done for gun violence with respect to tweaking gun laws in order to align gun-violence with the rest of the developed world.

You know several alcoholics? You didnt play for Arsenal in the early 90s did you? If so i love you and can i have your autograph?

[Apollo]

because the "ban" guns narrative does nothing since it will never happen.

True, and to be fair I think most liberals know that, and are not saying "ban" guns.

Like most conservatives, liberals probably want the same thing, some sort of common sense solution to mass shootings.

problem is there isn't one. NOTHING you can do. If it was an epidemic then maybe a systematic common denominator would stand out. But each case even as often as it seems to occur lately has it's own unique finger print.

Some were loners with obvious warning signs, some were seemingly normal people who went mad. Some used guns they purchased legally some used their relatives weapons, some used unregistered weapons.

What pisses gun owners off , imo, is that liberals use these events to score political points and or actually think there is legislation that could stop them,

There's not a gun owner out there that is afraid that somehow liberals will take their guns, trust me. We know that is not ever going to happen.. they practice.

I think liberals would be served much better if they tempered their dialogue to fall in line more with the way gun owners, responsible gun owners think.

And that is there should be a ban on assault rifles, and large capacity magazines, and

a funded organization with a hotline to look into reports of strange behavoir, much like the child protective agency, non evasive as possible, anonymous , with follow up investigations.

stop with the guns kill people, because they don't.

A voice of reason.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Apollo