# Oregon shootings



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

guns should be banned, no because freedom 

etc

repeat x 5000

/thread


----------



## Born of Osiris (Oct 29, 2013)

:floyd1


----------



## Medicaid (Apr 7, 2014)

R.I.P. to the victims, 

I'm saddened, impatient, frustrated. Too upset at society to write my essay rant. But I'll say, 

Might ignore this story altogether, just like I skimmed through the crazy dude that went into the black church and killed those folks, got no time for the same shyt happening, but basically fix the legal system, update mental health treatment, do better with drug addiction treatment and recovery access. It's one of these three, it always is, if not a combo. 

But yeah, apparently he warned people, or looked for attention before hand ...


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

Rest in peace to the victims. It's a shame that these shootings are an everyday occurrence now.


----------



## TheGimmickKiller (Sep 21, 2015)

It sickens me that this is just commonplace now. Fuck the NRA for thinking the answer is _more_ guns. That's idiotic logic right there. Prevent shootings with more availability to shoot. Makes perfect sense. /s

I'm not saying ban guns, because people have a right to them so long as they're sane, law-abiding citizens. But we really need to fix this shit and make getting guns tougher than it is presently. Any motherfucker can get a gun it seems. Mental checkups consistently if you want a gun. Every six months, just like the dentist, they check on you and make sure you're not burning with rage and the desire to kill or harm others. Why don't people see how big a problem this is? How many more people have to die for them to take sincere notice? I hope those who died rest in peace, those injured get better, and all the families heal over time.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

fuck that peice of shit.


----------



## CJ (Jun 28, 2011)

Condolences to the victims & their families.


----------



## VRsick (Jan 1, 2009)

If Sandy Hook didn't change things, nothing will. This is just something America will have to deal with because people are too stubborn.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

*sigh*

It's time for that debate again where people want there to be no shootings but in the end nothing is going to get changed to accomplish it.

RIP victims


----------



## The Shield (Aug 30, 2015)

r.i.p <3


----------



## Arcade (Jun 9, 2010)

Another mass shooting that brings up the gun control debate and the media will use for sensationalist journalism, yet nothing will change several months after this incident.


----------



## sesshomaru (Dec 11, 2006)

Genking48 said:


> *sigh*
> 
> It's time for that debate again where people want there to be no shootings but in the end nothing is going to get changed to accomplish it.
> 
> RIP victims


Americans don't want to give up fundamental freedom to own guns.

RIP to the victims. I feel like idiots are taking this up because of all the publicity that Columbine got.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

I don't think banning guns is exactly the solution but something does have to change when it comes to owning a gun and who is capable of having one. Such a shame people died for no reason. RIP to the victims and their families and friends who are effected by today


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

TheGimmickKiller said:


> Any motherfucker can get a gun it seems. Mental checkups consistently if you want a gun. Every six months, just like the dentist, they check on you and make sure you're not burning with rage and the desire to kill or harm others.


But then you would have morons saying that that would be an invasion of privacy.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Let's get out our jump-to-conclusions mats.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

Another day, another mass shooting in America. R.I.P. to the victims and condolences to their families.


----------



## Teh_TaKeR (Jul 2, 2009)

Its so crazy here right now :/ I live in Eugene (about an hour and half or so North of Roseburg.) The whole town is in shock. Victims are being transported to the hospital here. Sickens me to see this happen..


----------



## Bubba Chuck (Dec 17, 2012)

It's not even safe to go to school anymore with all these mass shootings happening . RIP to all the victims.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

_*RIP to all the victims and my condolences to the families. *_


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

In anticipation of the wave of anti-gun posts I would ask why didn't we have these mass shootings 50 years ago??? There certainly were just as many guns per capita then as now. The gun laws were alot less stringent than they are today, and rural teens drove around with rifles and shotguns prominently displayed in their vehicles.

The reason for these killings is *NOT* guns, but the illegal proliferation of controlled substances that have played a major role in the degradation of the mental health of Americans.

Think about it. Since 1965 the growth of the illegal trade in narcotic and psychedelic drugs has grown into a multi-billion dollar a year industry in the United States. That statistic is even more alarming when you stop to consider that there are people behind those dollar figures who are buying and using those drugs - millions of them! 

Two generations of Americans have been raised in a drug infested nation. Add to that the myriad stresses of the modern society in which we live and it is evident that Americans are not the most mentally healthy people in the world. 

You can get rid of every gun in the country and the large mentally ill population will just resort to burning down school buildings with the children in them and making high powered IEDs that will do the job just as effectively as a gun.

Until the mental health issues of American society are seriously addressed these killings will continue - guns or no guns.

- Mike

P.S. The deadliest mass murder in U.S. history occured in 1928 when Andrew Keogh fire bombed a school in Bath Township, Michigan. Engraged at losing a local election, the mentally ill Keogh killed 45 people* without ever touching a gun*.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

Fucking tragic. My heart goes out to their friends and family. What a needless loss of life.


----------



## SpeedStick (Feb 11, 2010)

Every mass shooting shares one thing in common & It’s NOT weapons


----------



## UntilDawn (Sep 2, 2015)

Really sad that these shootings happen so often and mostly in places where people say they are safe, send condolences to the families of the victims. It's not like we can build an insane asylum similar to Arkham Asylum for mentally insane people.


----------



## Lariat From Hell (Oct 5, 2013)

The problem is that the media lionize these individuals, giving credence to their claims of "wanting to be on the news". The are made cult celebrities and stories for your afternoon news.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Mass shootings are a form of terrorism. They may not be an organized form of terrorism, but that's what they really are. Until and unless the narrative changes from pretending that these are all isolated incidents that can't be stopped or prevented nothing will change. 

Apparently, American is the only country in the world now incapable of stopping these as every other country in the world that doesn't have organized terrorist groups does not have this epidemic.


----------



## BORT (Oct 5, 2009)

Batko10 said:


> In anticipation of the wave of anti-gun posts I would ask why didn't we have these mass shootings 50 years ago??? There certainly were just as many guns per capita then as now. The gun laws were alot less stringent than they are today, and rural teens drove around with rifles and shotguns prominently displayed in their vehicles.
> 
> The reason for these killings is *NOT* guns, but the illegal proliferation of controlled substances that have played a major role in the degradation of the mental health of Americans.
> 
> ...


I think one thing people never seem to talk about is just where values are now compared to back then. Back then it seemed like hard work, being honest, and owning up to your actions was valued more. Nowadays life is all about "gettin famous" and trying to push yourself as some victim of something. This is the narrative that the media ALWAYS pushes and we know that the media is like a gateway to the "real world" to many of the people living in America, ESPECIALLY the youth. Instead of taking accountability for your dumb actions, people rather blame others like grown up children.

Basically put, America is full of spoiled, sissified, and entitled children and when their life sucks, they blame everyone else(like a child would) and lash out at everyone else(again, like a child would).

Just my opinion.


----------



## Jersey (Jun 24, 2014)

Nutass people at it again.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Blood is on the hands of EVERY fuckwit who spouts that second amendment bs


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Batko10 said:


> In anticipation of the wave of anti-gun posts I would ask why didn't we have these mass shootings 50 years ago??? There certainly were just as many guns per capita then as now. The gun laws were alot less stringent than they are today, and rural teens drove around with rifles and shotguns prominently displayed in their vehicles.
> 
> The reason for these killings is *NOT* guns, but the illegal proliferation of controlled substances that have played a major role in the degradation of the mental health of Americans.
> 
> ...



Yeah you see the point is, you don't give mentally disturbed people the tools to carry out the bad thoughts in their fucking head. 

And you know what the worst tools to let them have access to? Guns you fucking dimwit.


----------



## ironcladd1 (Jan 3, 2012)

Badbadrobot said:


> Blood is on the hands of EVERY fuckwit who spouts that fifth amendment bs


What does the fifth amendment have to do with anything? He can't incriminate himself in a trial. He's dead.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

Badbadrobot said:


> Yeah you see the point is, you don't give mentally disturbed people the tools to carry out the bad thoughts in their fucking head.
> 
> And you know what the worst tools to let them have access to? Guns you fucking dimwit.


Laws that restrict the access to guns by mentally ill people are already on the books. We don't need new laws, we need the ones already in place to be enforced.

However, as I said in my previous post, guns or no guns the homicides will continue. You can't restrict knives, vehicles, matches, gasoline, fertilizer (for the construction of explosives devices), etc. 

Focusing on the serious mental health situation and widespread drug problem (both illicit and legal pharmaceuticals) is imperative. Instead of putting a band aid on the problem by banning guns, the powers that be should be trying to solve the underlying problem - *mental health and drugs*!

- Mike


----------



## Phenom (Oct 17, 2002)

The NRA and the Second Amendment are claiming more lives on a daily basis, it seems.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

Phenom said:


> The NRA and the Second Amendment are claiming more lives on a daily basis, it seems.


Liberal sounding hyperbole. 

The Second Amendment in its two hundred plus year existence probably has helped save countless exponentially more lives through self defense then the summation of people who were victims of cowardly attacks in mass shootings.

The NRA is in place to make sure and help lobby that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is not infringed on in an unlawful manner. There are special interest groups out there who would want to restrict fire arms from law abiding citizens even contrary to the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I want at least one gun advocate to logically and sensibly explain why spree shooting (outside of countries that have organized terrorists) is exclusively an American problem. Other western countries have mentally ill people too. Other countries have drug problems too. Guess what they don't have. Spree shooters. Because they don't have access to guns. Try killing multiple people with knives ... Not possible. Try killing en masse without guns or bombs. Try making home-made guns and bombs. It's not easy. 

That is why no one anywhere is making their own guns and bombs and acting their violent impulse because it's not something just anyone can do. It's all a bunch of really stupid and illogical defences to pull out the homemade gun and knife defense. Really, really stupid. Name one country that had mass killings using homemade guns and/or knives. I'm talking mass killings. Name one that did not involve ready-made guns. 

Readily available guns make it all easy. Taking away guns makes it hard. Make it hard. Stop being blind to the problem and deflecting responsibility.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> I want at least one gun advocate to logically and sensibly explain why spree shooting (outside of countries that have organized terrorists) is exclusively an American problem. Other western countries have mentally ill people too. Other countries have drug problems too. Guess what they don't have. Spree shooters. Because they don't have access to guns. Try killing multiple people with knives ... Not possible. Try killing en masse without guns or bombs. Try making home-made guns and bombs. It's not easy. Guns make it easy. Taking away guns makes it hard. Make it hard. Stop being blind to the problem and deflecting responsibility.


I want at least one liberal to please explain to me why law abiding responsible gun owners should be punished for the cowardly actions of random crazy people. Especially when the right to bear arms is an integral right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving an automobile is not actually a Constitutional right but more people are killed each year through drunk drivers and reckless drivers than random senseless mass killings by insane cowardly shooters. Yet, I see no outcry for outlawing alcohol.

America has a larger population than most other countries in the Western World. It is common sense that the odds that these cowardly shootings go up the larger the population. Not to mention as batko has already alluded to that the morals have decayed in this country the last several decades and the drug problems and mental health issues have not helped the situation.


----------



## ironcladd1 (Jan 3, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> Try killing multiple people with knives ... Not possible.
> 
> Name one country that had mass killings using homemade guns and/or knives. I'm talking mass killings.


Fifty people were murdered from a knife attack in China last month:

http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

ironcladd1 said:


> Fifty people were murdered from a knife attack in China last month:
> 
> http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/


Took 9 people to do it in a highly coordinated attack while the victims were sleeping. That would be impossible to do if they were awake. 

Holy fuck. Did you even read the article or just posted it after seeing the headline?



ThirtyYearFan said:


> I want at least one liberal to please explain to me why law abiding responsible gun owners should be punished for the cowardly actions of random crazy people. Especially when the right to bear arms is an integral right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving an automobile is not actually a Constitutional right but more people are killed each year through drunk drivers and reckless drivers than random senseless mass killings by insane cowardly shooters. Yet, I see no outcry for outlawing alcohol.
> 
> America has a larger population than most other countries in the Western World. It is common sense that the odds that these cowardly shootings go up the larger the population. Not to mention as batko has already alluded to that the morals have decayed in this country the last several decades and the drug problems and mental health issues have not helped the situation.


Britain's population: 53 million
Canada's population: 35 million
America's population: 318 million

England # of School Shootins: 3 since 1987
Canada # of School Shootings: 3 since 1975
America # of School Shooting: about 220-230 since 1987 (counted manually off of Wikipedia's School Shooting page)

This is a significantly huuuuuge difference even corrected for population differences. You'll see a similar trend across other countries with greater gun control laws. The numbers are staggeringly high and you can't claim it's because of population difference. At america's rate of school shootings, the shootings in Canada and Britain should've been about 24-30. Nah. This whole "higher population" crap isn't gonna cut it in this case.


----------



## LaMelo (Jan 13, 2015)

Prayers for the families.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

institutional problem and all that.


----------



## Klorel (Jun 15, 2013)

TheGimmickKiller said:


> Any motherfucker can get a gun it seems.


With how easy it is to illegally buy a gun, pretty much.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> I want at least one gun advocate to logically and sensibly explain why spree shooting (outside of countries that have organized terrorists) is exclusively an American problem. Other western countries have mentally ill people too. Other countries have drug problems too. Guess what they don't have. Spree shooters. Because they don't have access to guns. Try killing multiple people with knives ... Not possible. Try killing en masse without guns or bombs. Try making home-made guns and bombs. It's not easy.
> 
> That is why no one anywhere is making their own guns and bombs and acting their violent impulse because it's not something just anyone can do. It's all a bunch of really stupid and illogical defences to pull out the homemade gun and knife defense. Really, really stupid. Name one country that had mass killings using homemade guns and/or knives. I'm talking mass killings. Name one that did not involve ready-made guns.
> 
> Readily available guns make it all easy. Taking away guns makes it hard. Make it hard. Stop being blind to the problem and deflecting responsibility.


Wait, are you seriously suggesting these shootings are an American exclusive problem?...Well, wrong try again.

And dude seriously "try killing multiple people with knives..." tell that to the 911 victims. 

Man I am not pro gun but you should probably fact check before you post. 

March 13, 1996 Dunblane, Scotland, 
April 28-29, 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia
April 28, 1999 Taber, Alberta, Canada
Dec. 7, 1999 Veghel, Netherlands
March 2000 Branneburg, Germany
Jan. 18, 2001 Jan, Sweden
Feb. 19, 2002, Freising, Germany
April 26, 2002, Erfurt, Germany
April 29, 2002 Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Sept. 28, 2004 Carmen de Patagones, Argentina
Sept. 13, 2006 Montreal, Canada
Nov. 7, 2007 Tuusula, Finland
Sept. 23, 2008 Kauhajoki, Finland
March 11, 2009 Winnenden, Germany
April 30, 2009 Azerbaijan, Baku
April 7, 2011 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
July 22, 2011 Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, Norway
March 19, 2012 Toulouse, France
September 21, 2013 Nairobi, Kenya
January 7, 2015 Paris, France


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

On July 22, 2011, a total of 80 people (mostly children) were killed in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik set off a bomb and then went on a shooting spree. *Norway has some of the toughest gun laws in Europe yet Breivik was able to obtain a gun and murder 80 people. *.

*Unfortunately, except for Breivik no one had a gun because of gun control laws that kept weapons out of the hands of responsible citizens*.

On March 11, 2009, in Winnenden, Germany, a mentally disturbed teenager killed 15 people in a school. The gunman shot two other people before killing himself after being cornered by the local police.

*Strict German anti-gun laws kept guns out of the hands of everyone except the psycho that killed 15 children and teachers!*

On Sept. 23, 2008, in Kuahajoki, Finland, a gunman shot 10 people to death after opening fire on a classroom. After killing the students, the shooter burned the victims’ bodies.

*Again, thanks to strict anti-gun laws the only one that had a gun was the psychotic killer*. There was no responsible, law abiding citizen on the scene who could have possibly put him down.

Mass shooting incidents compared across countries to calculate the victims per capita shows that the U.S. had a lower per capita death rate than Norway, Finland, and Switzerland. Granted, those countries have much smaller populations and fewer incidents that claimed a large number of victims in each incident. 

However, the fact that this occurs in the "civilized" countries with strict anti-gun laws clearly demonstrates that banning guns just disarms the law abiding public. The criminal or psychotic still can get his hands on a weapon if he or she desires.








[/IMG]

A few other examples of deadly shootings outside the U.S.:

_ April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious *Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku*, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. *He kills 12 people before killing himself *as police close in.

_ Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires *kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland.
*
_ April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in *Erfurt, Germany*, *kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

*_ April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in *Tasmania, Australia*, *shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others.* He was captured and imprisoned.

_ March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, *kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland*, and then kills himself.

_ Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into *Montreal's *Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, *killing nine and then himself.*

_ Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, *kills 16 people *in small market town of* Hungerford, England*, and *then shoots himself dead *after being cornered by police.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

^^ There's a major flaw in the population assumption that just because some countries have smaller populations therefore if you simply increase the population the number of shootings and victims will also go up. There is absolutely no logical basis to this assumption.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> ^^ There's a major flaw in the population assumption that just because some countries have smaller populations therefore if you simply increase the population the number of shootings and victims will also go up. There is absolutely no logical basis to this assumption.


It is not an absolute concept set in stone but statistically the likelihood and chances for any random event does go up the higher the population. It is basically a positive correlation. There is just more potential/probability for random disorder for lack of a better term.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> ^^ There's a major flaw in the population assumption that just because some countries have smaller populations therefore if you simply increase the population the number of shootings and victims will also go up. There is absolutely no logical basis to this assumption.


and there is a major flaw in your post that America is the exclusive home of gun violence...and your idiotic statement about knives.....seriously?


----------



## ironcladd1 (Jan 3, 2012)

The Apostate said:


> Took 9 people to do it in a highly coordinated attack while the victims were sleeping. That would be impossible to do if they were awake.
> 
> Holy fuck. Did you even read the article or just posted it after seeing the headline?


It's still a mass murder. People in mass shooting don't usually see it coming either.

Gun laws are much more strict in Norway, yet they still had the 2011 massacre: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

ThirtyYearFan said:


> It is not an absolute concept set in stone but statistically the likelihood and chances for any random event does go up the higher the population. It is basically a positive correlation.


Not even - especially when you look at China. 14-15 major shooting incidents since 1990's. America in comparison has had 220-230 since 1987 alone. China has a population of 1.3 billion. America has a population of 318 million. Guess which country has a real shooting problem?

Edit: (Wrong stat on China re-edited.) 

Your move. 



Greenlawler said:


> and there is a major flaw in your post that America is the exclusive home of gun violence...and your idiotic statement about knives.....seriously?


When you look at the sheer numbers (and I've already excluded countries that have rampant terrorism and organized violence problems) --- yes it is. 

Do you know how hard it is to kill more than 5-10 people one on one without combat training with a knife. By the time one normal, average-sized person gets through one stabbing murder, they barely have any physical energy left to commit another. Specially not a scrawny mentally ill kid on drugs.


----------



## AT&T Stadium (Aug 25, 2015)

VRsick said:


> If Sandy Hook didn't change things, nothing will. This is just something America will have to deal with because people are too stubborn.


I've said it before on this board but this is so true. It's hard to get more evil than what happened there and nothing changed. People are selfish pricks.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Rain said:


> With how easy it is to illegally buy a gun, pretty much.


What are you talking about illegally, try the Internet legally. It's a joke.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Greenlawler said:


> Wait, are you seriously suggesting these shootings are an American exclusive problem?...Well, wrong try again.
> 
> And dude seriously "try killing multiple people with knives..." tell that to the 911 victims.
> 
> ...


Seriously are you quoting the rest of the world in comparison to all the shootings that occur in the US lmao, I know most Americans don't understand the existence of other countries but that's a ridiculous comparison that makes no fucking sense.

You should maybe look up how many shootings have occurred in the us this year alone then come back to this list and realise how fucking awful the states is in comparison.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Batko10 said:


> On July 22, 2011, a total of 80 people (mostly children) were killed in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik set off a bomb and then went on a shooting spree. *Norway has some of the toughest gun laws in Europe yet Breivik was able to obtain a gun and murder 80 people. *.
> 
> *Unfortunately, except for Breivik no one had a gun because of gun control laws that kept weapons out of the hands of responsible citizens*.
> 
> ...


Utterly laughable, you people who defend the laughably laws around getting guns in the us with this bullshit are simply pathetic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

ironcladd1 said:


> It's still a mass murder. People in mass shooting don't usually see it coming either.
> 
> Gun laws are much more strict in Norway, yet they still had the 2011 massacre: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks


1 incident is an outlier. Multiple incidents are a trend. 

I never discounted other forms of mass murder including organized crime and terrorism. However, a series of isolated incidents all having certain similarities show a trend of violence all its own .. Something that is not replicated in other countries with stricter gun laws and bans and social standards of living closer to the States. Those are the ones that have isolated incidents over decades .. America has multiple incidents over a single year.


----------



## ironcladd1 (Jan 3, 2012)

Badbadrobot said:


> What are you talking about illegally, try the Internet legally. It's a joke.


Internet gun sales always go through a FFL dealer, unless it's a face-to-face sale. Selling a felon a gun in person or otherwise is already illegal. You can't just send guns to someone's house in the mail.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

China is not the Western World and it could be argued that China(outside the urban areas) has a vastly different culture than America and the Western World in general. Probably due to the decline in morality and drug influence and shooters playing the victim card-the instances of mass shootings in America are a major concern. If many Western World countries were increased to the size of the population of the US then stringent gun control laws would probably still have no deterrence to instances of mass shootings. 
Criminals and those who plot such deviant and cowardly and despicable acts probably have no qualm in whether they attain their weapon legally or illegally. That is the crux of the matter. Stricter gun control laws would only end up punishing the law abiding citizens. The reality is that many violent everyday shootings especially in urban areas are probably performed by felons or others who under current laws are not supposed to legally even possess a firearm. It reminds me of the old adage that locks are really meant for honest people.


----------



## Klorel (Jun 15, 2013)

Badbadrobot said:


> What are you talking about illegally, try the Internet legally. It's a joke.


Most of the guns obtained in these shootings are illegally obtained.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

AT&T Stadium said:


> I've said it before on this board but this is so true. It's hard to get more evil than what happened there and nothing changed. People are selfish pricks.


What is so selfish about respecting the 2nd Amendment? Should we be a country that gives in to "knee jerk" type reactions. If anything it is that American history has taught that we are careful to err on the side of rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution. I think many people would be very concerned about a government that hypothetically does not even abide by or respect the very Constitution that is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

Badbadrobot said:


> Seriously are you quoting the rest of the world in comparison to all the shootings that occur in the US lmao, I know most Americans don't understand the existence of other countries but that's a ridiculous comparison that makes no fucking sense.
> 
> You should maybe look up how many shootings have occurred in the us this year alone then come back to this list and realise how fucking awful the states is in comparison.


I understand more shootings have occurred in the States than outside, but you are the one who acted like no shootings occurred in countries outside of America, not me. And you are also the one who said "knives don't kill mass amounts of people" which is laughable.


----------



## AntiFlag607 (Oct 1, 2006)

Whenever I hear of another mass shooting, it makes me think of the old Joe Rogan quote; "This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem".

This type of thing is totally disgusting, but I truly believe it will happen more and more as long as people continue to ignore the insane side effects of anti depressants and anti psychotics. 90% of the people that commit these fucked up acts either are on some form of anti depressant/psychotic or are coming off one. This is a discussion this country desperately needs to have, yet its a seemingly impossible one. Watch any of the major news networks and you'll see that the majority of their ads are for pharmaceutical companies. You think those companies want that type of conversation? They'd pull their billions of advertising dollars if any network even dared to consider that these things are dangerous.

I hate it, it sickens me, I want to help affect a change in the dialogue, yet I know deep down its a pointless quest. At the end of the day there is just too much money at play and not enough people who are willing to go against the brainwashed masses those billions can buy.

BAH!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> In anticipation of the wave of anti-gun posts I would ask why didn't we have these mass shootings 50 years ago??? There certainly were just as many guns per capita then as now. The gun laws were alot less stringent than they are today, and rural teens drove around with rifles and shotguns prominently displayed in their vehicles.
> 
> The reason for these killings is *NOT* guns, but the illegal proliferation of controlled substances that have played a major role in the degradation of the mental health of Americans.
> 
> ...


WE didn't have them because there were LESS GUNS. The reason for these shootings IS BECAUSE OF GUNS, its because they are too easy to get.
If they were harder to get this stuff would not happen. THE USA needs strict gun control like Australia did Once they got strict gun laws their shootings and gun related deaths dropped drastically. 

You can't get rid of every gun but you can get rid of a good number of them like Australia did and it did wonders for them. 

So I guess using your logic when Australia or even the UK I guess when they got more restrictive gun laws all the crazy people just happened to go away right LOL.




Rain said:


> Most of the guns obtained in these shootings are illegally obtained.


And if you take guns off the streets and make them harder to get, then you won't be able to illegally get guns. Common sense.


----------



## Klorel (Jun 15, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> And if you take guns off the streets and make them harder to get, then you won't be able to illegally get guns. Common sense.


Criminals will always find a way to get something that is illegal. 
All they need to do is hop on the deep web and know where to look. There will be plenty of suppliers. Just look at drugs, so many people are buying drugs, and they are illegal.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Rain said:


> Criminals will always find a way to get something that is illegal.
> All they need to do is hop on the deep web and know where to look. There will be plenty of suppliers. Just look at drugs, so many people are buying drugs, and they are illegal.


Criminals "always" finding "a" way isn't a justifiable excuse to keeps weapons easily accessible. 

Even though major criminal investigative organizations claim that there is no specific "profile" of a mass shooter, there are specific observable trends and one of them is always impulse+easily accessible weapons that the kids simply took from their parents' or relatives cabinets. In almost every school shooting case the main common factor has been readily available guns. Almost none of the cases involved elaborate plans on the parts of the perpetrators to go out of their way to acquire their weapons. The point is that if you make it harder for everyone, you make it harder for the impulsive teen to get one. 

Selling drugs on the black market is much easier than selling guns on the black market. Making your own drugs is much easier than making your own guns. 

The excuses are running thin at this point. The whole "deep web" argument is based on perpetration of many myths surrounding the deep web. If the deep web is so easily accessible to random teens on the net, it is definitely just as easily accessible to law enforcement (duh!). Most of the shit about the deep web is fake and part of growing urban legends that just aren't true .. and in the cases where they're true they're as easily accessible to law enforcement as they are to random individuals. Law enforcement just doesn't always act until and unless it's a major takedown because of cost benefit. If the government prioritises the siezure of illegal arms being sold on the "deep web", it would be an easy matter to do so in this day and age.


----------



## Pratchett (Jan 9, 2013)

Rain said:


> Criminals will always find a way to get something that is illegal.
> All they need to do is hop on the deep web and know where to look. There will be plenty of suppliers. Just look at drugs, so many people are buying drugs, and they are illegal.


Deep web my ass.

All you have to do is know somebody anymore. :kobe

If I wanted a gun tomorrow, or illegal drugs, I could get them. With no paperwork and no gov't or doctor's approval. We can all point fingers and talk about who or what is to blame, but in the end stuff like this is going to require more conversation and more sacrifice than the average person will be willing to make.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Ash said:


> Deep web my ass.
> 
> All you have to do is know somebody anymore. :kobe
> 
> If I wanted a gun tomorrow, or illegal drugs, I could get them. With no paperwork and no gov't or doctor's approval. We can all point fingers and talk about who or what is to blame, but in the end stuff like this is going to require more conversation and more sacrifice than the average person will be willing to make.


Speaking of sacrifice, I love it when gun advocates bring up the constitutional right to own guns as a justification for not even limiting access to them let alone banning them outright ... IIRC, America is a country where owning another man was also considered a basic human right ... It may not have been written into the constitution, but until it was abolished, it was a right and people even died to preserve that right. Then they fought tooth and nail to preserve the Jim Crow laws. You see a pattern here? 

Over time "rights" have a way of being changed when freedom of those rights is abused to the point of causing harm to others. Drinking and driving was free-for-all too until enough people died and now it's criminalized to drink and drive --- with an automatic man-slaughter charge. At this point, guns in America are at a point where sacrifices have to be made in order to contain the problem and stop the bleeding. The real cause of how and why these killers are created can be cured even more easily when they no longer have the ability to hurt others as easily as they can right now.


----------



## Pratchett (Jan 9, 2013)

Even getting rid of guns people will still be able to hurt each other. Maybe not on as grand a scale, but still lives will be ended and/or affected.

As a society we spend too much time focusing on the symptoms and not on the problems. We may find a solution for gun violence, but the violent will always find an outlet for themselves.

How do we address that?


----------



## lectoryo (Aug 16, 2015)

Even if they do legalize carrying guns nationwide, kids wouldn't be carrying them. We'd still have school shootings, as that's one place no one would be able to defend themselves. There IS no stopping it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> I understand more shootings have occurred in the States than outside, but you are the one who acted like no shootings occurred in countries outside of America, not me. And you are also the one who said "knives don't kill mass amounts of people" which is laughable.


You're quoting the wrong person. There are fewer shooting incidents in the developed world combined than there are in America. If you want to get stuck on semantics in order to argue a non-sensible position at this point, be my guest. 

Also, given that gun incidents in America are in the 100's (whereas in the rest of the developed world they barely even touch double digits over comparable periods of time) there is an absolutely insurmountable evidence to support the idea that gun control and outright banning significantly reduces gun violence. 

Finally, how many incidents have happened in America and the rest of the world in total involving massacres where the perps only used knives? And how many of those died ... as compared to gun perpetrated crime. There is a significant gap there to prove with absolute certainty that if these kids entered schools armed with knives rather than guns a lot less people would've died. A lot less. On average it takes a lucky stabbing to kill someone, or at least 5+ deep stab wounds to kill someone. The amount of energy expended drains the person to the point where their next attack is weaker .. and weaker and weaker and so on. 

If you were to face someone untrained with a knife than someone untrained with a gun, which would be more likely to kill you as a result?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

The Apostate said:


> Speaking of sacrifice, I love it when gun advocates bring up the constitutional right to own guns as a justification for not even limiting access to them let alone banning them outright ... IIRC, America is a country where owning another man was also considered a basic human right ... It may not have been written into the constitution, but until it was abolished, it was a right and people even died to preserve that right.


Slavery was never considered a human right. Not sure where you got that from or what that has to do with the constitution and the second amendment. Clearly nothing, but as usual you're distorting history and grasping at straws. As for "people dying to preserve that right", seriously? At the peak of slavery in America, the number of Southerners who owned slaves was about 5% or so, AKA the very rich and social elite. You really think those were the same guys fighting and dying in the civil war? Of course not. Ridiculous claim by you. Do not continue to propagate this falsehood any further. 



> Then they fought tooth and nail to preserve the Jim Crow laws. You see a pattern here?


No? You're talking nonsense about a country's history which you are clearly misinformed about. You should stop. 



> Over time "rights" have a way of being changed when freedom of those rights is abused to the point of causing harm to others. Drinking and driving was free-for-all too until enough people died and now it's criminalized to drink and drive --- with an automatic man-slaughter charge. At this point, guns in America are at a point where sacrifices have to be made in order to contain the problem and stop the bleeding. The real cause of how and why these killers are created can be cured even more easily when they no longer have the ability to hurt others as easily as they can right now.


Dude, what the hell are you talking about? Drinking and driving was never a "right". Why are you comparing all of these things that were never considered rights with something that is enumerated in the constitution as a right which the government may not infringe upon? You're completely failing to make any kind of valid comparisons with this post.

What you are really arguing for is to increase government power, which seems odd coming from someone who at times seems to recognize the corruption and overall evil of the government, particularly in foreign policy issues. Why would you entrust the same people who are committing genocide in the middle east with the monopolization of firearms in the United States? How does that make sense at all? Clearly there is a huge inconsistency with your ideology which is likely borne from reactionary high-strung emotion, a result of a successful leftist media campaign to sensationalize certain issues to trigger an emotional response in gullible individuals making them more susceptible to the idea of expanding state power, as is the clear agenda of the political left in America. 

You have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker my friend.


What I find disgusting is this assertion by some that everyone in America shares culpability for mass shootings. The implication is that we *must* use the violence of the state against one another in the far-fetch'd hope that we achieve certain positive results (despite the repeatedly demonstrated utter failure of government programs to achieve anything but the opposite of their stated intentions). That's morally abhorrent, as is the state itself. I'm not responsible for what other individuals do, nor am I in anyway obligated to support the use of force against them to serve my own whims.


----------



## ErickRowan_Fan (Feb 8, 2014)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that mentally ill people combined with a free access to weaponry isn't a very healthy combination.

I do not see why the United States has such an issue passing a law which would ban guns from people who are proven to be _totally nuts_ or have an extensive criminal background. Law-abiding citizens would still be able to buy guns, to defend their ranch or whatever the hell it is that they do with weapons.

Personally, I don't think anything except a hunting rifle should be allowed in people's hands. Every other weapon is made for killing other human beings. It doesn't set a very good standard when people have to arm themselves from each other. The societies which eventually accepted stricter gun laws, are proven to be far less murderous, it is as simple as that.


----------



## lectoryo (Aug 16, 2015)

ErickRowan_Fan said:


> It doesn't take a genius to figure out that mentally ill people combined with a free access to weaponry isn't a very healthy combination.
> 
> *I do not see why the United States has such an issue passing a law which would ban guns from people who are proven to be totally nuts or have an extensive criminal background. Law-abiding citizens would still be able to buy guns, to defend their ranch or whatever the hell it is that they do with weapons.*
> 
> Personally, I don't think anything except a hunting rifle should be allowed in people's hands. Every other weapon is made for killing other human beings. It doesn't set a very good standard when people have to arm themselves from each other. The societies which eventually accepted stricter gun laws, are proven to be far less murderous, it is as simple as that.


Uh we do? Jesus. 

How hard is this stuff to really understand. Guy goes through life peachy fucking clean, decides to snap one day and goes on a killing spree. You can't stop someone with no history of being crazy, or a criminal. Hell, I could snap tomorrow. I have no history. Should you take away my rights with literally no reason to do so? 

Point is, you can't stop people from killing people. If you take away guns, they'll find another way. If you take away guns, ONLY criminals will have them. If you give everyone a gun, MORE people are going to die. 

Leave it the way it is.


----------



## ErickRowan_Fan (Feb 8, 2014)

lectoryo said:


> Uh we do? Jesus.
> 
> How hard is this stuff to really understand. Guy goes through life peachy fucking clean, decides to snap one day and goes on a killing spree. You can't stop someone with no history of being crazy, or a criminal. Hell, I could snap tomorrow. I have no history. Should you take away my rights with literally no reason to do so?
> 
> ...


The problem is that none of these guys have gone through life "peachy fucking clean".

These are individuals who are absolutely nuts, on various forms of medication and have a history of discussing their urge to kill people on the internet.

Yet they can still buy weapons like anybody else. There's clearly a problem that needs to be addressed here, and it doesn't have to be addressed by "taking away guns from everybody".

You only have to take away the guns from the people who are too damn violent and unstable to possess weapons.


----------



## lectoryo (Aug 16, 2015)

ErickRowan_Fan said:


> The problem is that none of these guys have gone through life "peachy fucking clean".
> 
> These are individuals who are absolutely nuts, on various forms of medication and have a history of discussing their urge to kill people on the internet.
> 
> ...


It just isn't possible that the guy is "absolutely nuts", legally, and legally owned a gun. Unless it was purchased before diagnosis. We do have laws. I haven't read much about the story yet, but I'm assuming there's an answer somewhere. I'm just tired of people suggesting things like "background checks". Well no shit.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Slavery was never considered a human right. Not sure where you got that from or what that has to do with the constitution and the second amendment. Clearly nothing, but as usual you're distorting history and grasping at straws. As for "people dying to preserve that right", seriously? At the peak of slavery in America, the number of Southerners who owned slaves was about 5% or so, AKA the very rich and social elite. You really think those were the same guys fighting and dying in the civil war? Of course not. Ridiculous claim by you. Do not continue to propagate this falsehood any further.
> 
> No? You're talking nonsense about a country's history which you are clearly misinformed about. You should stop.


What are you talking about? The idea that people didn't see the right to own slavery as their basic human right sounds like it's something straight out of conspiracy theory. 

Slaves were seen as property and the courts recognized and defended slave-owner's right to own said property. Freed slaves were often captured and returned with the help of the government. 

I already said that it was not a constitutional right but that does not mean that people didn't see it as their god-given right (and I use my words carefully) as the biblical defense of slavery was often used to justify slave ownership.

Men were labelled property and that was used to justify ownership of men. Slavery was one of the many reasons why the civil war was fought and slave owners did fight in the war for the right to retain their slaves. 

I'm genuinely curious as to why you seem to think that people didn't consider owning slaves their right. 

Secondly, if people didn't fight the Jim Crow laws tooth and nail, then what other reason is there for the violence against blacks and people who wanted black emancipation during the civil rights movement in the 60s? What else was that all about?

And yea, I've often been torn between wanting to get rid of government, but at the same time I'm not the sort that completely diminishes the good that it can achieve as well ... In terms of enacting stronger laws against acquisition of guns before humans can evolve to the point themselves, there does need to be a movement in order to limit gun rights and establish gun control and at this point government-led legislation with support is the fastest way to achieve that end.


----------



## New Day (Sep 20, 2015)

What a pro took out 10 people if im not wrong the other idiots killed 1-2 and injured many.
Must had practised aiming in call of duty/halo a lot


----------



## MillionDollarProns (Feb 10, 2011)

the beta uprising


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Been a whole lot less sword fighting deaths since blacksmiths stopped making so many swords.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

lectoryo said:


> It just isn't possible that the guy is "absolutely nuts", legally, and legally owned a gun. Unless it was purchased before diagnosis. We do have laws. I haven't read much about the story yet, but I'm assuming there's an answer somewhere. I'm just tired of people suggesting things like "background checks". Well no shit.


Another imbecile talking bull shit to preserve their right to bear arms

You can buy guns online and from fairs with no checks whatsoever

The us is the only country in the western world where this happens every week, your laws are pathetic and don't protect your people anywhere near enough

45 school shootings this year 45 !!!!!!!


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Mister Abigail said:


> Been a whole lot less sword fighting deaths since blacksmiths stopped making so many swords.


Knives are easier to conceal than king arthurs sword


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Doesn't make it less true...


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

What can kill more people quicker? a mad man with a knife? Or a mad man with an automatic?


----------



## Reservoir Angel (Aug 7, 2010)

And once again I'm left sitting across the ocean wondering how America's even survived as long as it has considering it's high number of not only guns, but idiots who think more guns is the solution to gun violence.

It's surely not that hard. If you have lots of people using guns to do lots of shootings, then the logic approach is "make it more difficult for the kind of unstable people who would do mass shootings to actually get their hands on the guns they need to do it." I don't see how the logical approach is "give everyone more guns, because everyone is secretly Rambo and will immediately be able to stop anyone shooting people."

Gun control is the best idea when you're a nation that has these kind of shootings so often you could practically set your fucking watch by them.


----------



## TheResurrection (Dec 21, 2011)

ThirtyYearFan said:


> I want at least one liberal to please explain to me why law abiding responsible gun owners should be punished for the cowardly actions of random crazy people. Especially when the right to bear arms is an integral right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving an automobile is not actually a Constitutional right but more people are killed each year through drunk drivers and reckless drivers than random senseless mass killings by insane cowardly shooters. Yet, I see no outcry for outlawing alcohol.
> 
> America has a larger population than most other countries in the Western World. It is common sense that the odds that these cowardly shootings go up the larger the population. Not to mention as batko has already alluded to that the morals have decayed in this country the last several decades and the drug problems and mental health issues have not helped the situation.


For the greater good.

I like to carry a knife with me for security reasons, I have no criminal record and have never been involved in any knife crime or terrorism. Despite this when I go on flights I'm not allowed to bring my knife with me because of the terrorist threat.

Do you think I should be allowed to take my knife on the plane with me in my pocket?

If not - why should responsible, law abiding airline passengers be punished for the cowardly actions of random crazy people?


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

I sort of agree that the damage has been done now. There are FAR too many guns in the US, and taking them away from the legal carrying citizens is more dangerous because of the ratio of unmarked, illegally owned ones out there.


But can Americans admit that the second amendment just shouldn't have been a thing in the first place? It's like you guys follow the constitution and the idea of freedom like a religion.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

First of all, my prayers go out to the families of the shooting victims. It's becoming a fucked up world that we live in where you are now seeing shootings in places that they weren't supposed to happen. I never thought of this issue when I went to college, I was going there to get an education and have fun. At least the police did the world a favor and shot the bastard who did it. I have no sympathy for cowards who want to do this shit. 




The Apostate said:


> And yea, I've often been torn between wanting to get rid of government, but at the same time I'm not the sort that completely diminishes the good that it can achieve as well ... In terms of enacting stronger laws against acquisition of guns before humans can evolve to the point themselves, there does need to be a movement in order to limit gun rights and establish gun control and at this point government-led legislation with support is the fastest way to achieve that end.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."- James Madison 

The easy solution has always been, "More gun-control laws, less access to guns." We already have gun laws on the books, the problem is enforcing them. Many say it is a tired statement, but it still rings true that only criminals will have the weapons if they ban guns. 

I'm absolutely in favor of and have no problem with background checks for those that want to own arms. It's common sense that we don't need people that are batshit crazy getting hold of weapons. But we need to sit down and have a realistic conversation about the matter. 

Both sides on the lunatic fringe just want to shout each other down and don't want to listen. I've been accused of being anti-gun and with the far-left because I want background checks yet most people that know me here can understand I'm a firm believer in our 2nd Amendment and want to consider myself a responsible gun owner. If something happens, I'm going to defend my family. I've always said if someone breaks into my home and confronts me, I'm going to shoot with no apologies whatsoever. I understand, though, the gravitas of owning a weapon and what the consequences are if I ever have to use them in such a situation. 

More laws is not the solution, the solution is doing a better job of enforcing the ones we already have and providing a better job of security and law enforcement on college campuses and elsewhere. 

That being said...




Badbadrobot said:


> Another imbecile talking bull shit to preserve their right to bear arms
> 
> You can buy guns online and from fairs with no checks whatsoever
> 
> ...


...this is one "imbecile" who is not giving up my right to bear arms...today, tomorrow, or ever. That is just flat-out non-negotiable. The reason it doesn't happen elsewhere is that many western nations severely regulate who can have a firearm, to the point that it is futile in most cases to even try to get one. 

The problem is many of these shootings take place in "gun-free zones." Many people know this, that's an open invitation for anyone with a gun to go in and start shooting. We need to improve security, many schools here have resource (aka police officers) people that provide that. No, that doesn't mean everyone needs to carry, but I have no objection with some teachers being allowed to carry, provide they meet the background check requirements and are of sound mind. But, again, that's the fault of those not enforcing what's already on the books.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

These threads are on every forum >< Morons spouting the constitution like some fucking 200 odd year old+ piece of paper should trump what the hell is going on now, its worse than bible bashers trying to deny equal rights by using the bible as a source.

Its 2015, you're the only country that has this as a routine problem.

I can sit back at home safe in the knowledge that the chances of my daughter being attacked at school are about the shame as her being eaten by a shark when we go for a swim. 

Americans and their 'right to bear arms', piss off.


----------



## New Day (Sep 20, 2015)

Why are people crying about guns real men have guns in their possesion i respect americans for loving guns because in europe all are pussies who only open mouth or sue you and start fight only when drunk or 5 vs 1.

I think i will go live in usa and buy a gun is a barrett 50 cal. considered a defensive weapon cause i love those beauties and want to own 1 (not for use but just to have it in my living room without ammo) to show what a badass i am.
money not a problem btw


----------



## Karma101 (Sep 7, 2012)

Weird how people are citing countries with a much lower murder rate than america as an argument against gun control. Make no sense.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

I can't be the only person super paranoid about going to class, right? I mean...I'm so anxious. There's nothing stopping my university from being the next one targeted by someone. It's terrifying. I really just do not want to be at school right now.


----------



## wkdsoul (Apr 2, 2012)

The headlines have gone from 'SHOCKING Shooting....' to 'ANOTHER Shooting..'

pretty much tells you all you need to know.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

wkdsoul said:


> The headlines have gone from 'SHOCKING Shooting....' to 'ANOTHER Shooting..'
> 
> pretty much tells you all you need to know.


This is what's freaking me out. It's so commonplace. It's like it's damn near contagious and it keeps spreading and people are just killing innocent people in large quantities for no reason.

How can anyone feel safe anywhere? Especially at schools? What once was seen as a safe haven to spread knowledge and meet new people is now a ticking time bomb.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

I'd say not again. But it is more like not still. This does not even surprise anymore.

RIP to another group of victims and condolences to their families and friends.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> First of all, my prayers go out to the families of the shooting victims. It's becoming a fucked up world that we live in where you are now seeing shootings in places that they weren't supposed to happen. I never thought of this issue when I went to college, I was going there to get an education and have fun. At least the police did the world a favor and shot the bastard who did it. I have no sympathy for cowards who want to do this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you think arming teachers is a good idea then I'm afraid you have a rather delusional view of how life at school is and the stress that comes with being a teacher; if anything introducing guns in schools in that way would likely lead to more shootings either through accidental means or through one person just having enough of it and knowing where a gun is.

As for "Gun Free Zones" the point of them is to prevent accidental incidents involving guns; not the prevention of shootings. Fundamentally how can it when outside of that are you're allowed to purchase a gun and carry it with you.


----------



## New Day (Sep 20, 2015)

Jack Thwagger said:


> I can't be the only person super paranoid about going to class, right? I mean...I'm so anxious. There's nothing stopping my university from being the next one targeted by someone. It's terrifying. I really just do not want to be at school right now.


Just watch out for any creepy looking kid and if you see one that is acting strange/nervous and is sweating call the police


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

I'm from Canada, not known as a land of constant mass shootings but we actually have plenty of guns. We're among the top 12 gun owning nations, alongside fellow quiet gun owners like Iceland, France and Cyprus. 

Buying a gun in Canada takes time. Background checks mean you don't walk out of a store a first time gun owner the same day you take a fancy to having a firearm. You need a government issued license, renewed every five years, to legally purchase guns and ammunition. Licensing involves having passed the national firearms safety course. There are further, advanced training and licensing requirements for restricted firearms, which include semi-automatics and handguns. 

Our gun registry no longer exists - the government doesn't keep track of how many guns you have, only that you are licensed to own and use them - so those who worry about needing to overthrow the military someday are no longer burying guns in their backyards (some few folks were really doing this). 

Honestly, I think our system works. I look at a gun as a tool one needs to know how to properly operate for its intended usage, much like a car. Where I'm from, guns are primarily hunting equipment. They aren't elevated to any significant cultural or political status. Of course we have gun violence; people will use any sort of thing at hand violently. The difference is that since we don't think about guns all that much they aren't necessarily the first item grabbed when we feel murderous. We're more likely to cut you with a beer bottle.


----------



## Trublez (Apr 10, 2013)

So glad I'm from the UK. RIP to the victims.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> More laws is not the solution, the solution is doing a better job of enforcing the ones we already have and providing a better job of security and law enforcement on college campuses and elsewhere.


I agree and admit to a reasonable degree that complete gun control in America (and exclusively America) is a pipe-dream at this point. It's estimated that the total number of guns is around 270-300 million (yikes!) ... There's little to no chance of demilitarizing America ... At the same time, in order to be denied a gun in many parts of America, you have to have priors which therefore allows first time offenders the ability to easily get a gun as background check is grossly limited. When it comes to second hand sales, most States have a gross oversight where many States do not require an existing gun owner to have the new buyer be checked ... meaning that even someone with priors who would be denied gun ownership can still acquire a gun from another person. 

Part of the problem here is though that there is a lack of desire to assume personal responsibility on the part of a vast majority of gun owners as well. I don't know just how deep that particular problem runs, but it's too often ignored completely as gun owners pretend that they're all extremely responsible about how the handle guns ... They may or may not be responsible but the persons involved in mass shootings almost always acquire guns far too easily and many acquire guns from people who have no intention of committing crimes themselves ... The "law-abiding" citizens are in a way enablers but then shirk responsibility when it comes to transferring guns to a potential killer ..

Almost no one then tries to track the history of the gun either. In Florida it's actually illegal to maintain a register of "law-abiding" gun owners. That to me is essentially shirking responsibility Florida law permits private firearms transfers between residents without processing through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). There are other loopholes that allow people to bypass the background check requirement too --- and plenty of States that authorise gun ownership transfers without background checks ... 

Responsible gun ownership should include the desire to submit to checks as well as check others. It ought to be seen as a shared responsibility.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

Badbadrobot said:


> Another imbecile talking bull shit to preserve their right to bear arms
> You can buy guns online and from fairs with no checks whatsoever


A gun purchased on-line must be delivered to a *Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer*. It is illegal to ship the weapon to the buyer unless the buyer is a FFL dealer.

I have bought a number of weapons on line at gunbroker.com. In order to have the gun shipped your FFL must fax his license and other information to the gun seller. Then the gun seller ships the weapon to the FFL dealer. Even if the FFL dealer knows you he is required to have you fill out a questionaire. While you are doing this he does a background check via phone. This procedure applies to handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

My son purchased an AR-15 on line about two years ago and *even though he is a police officer he had to go through the same procedure that I or any other civilian has to go through when buying a gun on line.*

In Minnesota when a *handgun* is purchased in a gun store the prospective buyer must produce a "*permit to purchase*" which is obtained from the local police precinct after they do a background check. The background check takes a week to ten days. In some states there is still a two day waiting period to pick up your weapon at the gun store despite the background check.

The *hand gun* that is purchased can legally be kept in your home, or carried to and from the practice range unloaded and in a lockbox. If you want a "*carry permit*" you have to go the Sheriff's office, pay a $100 fee, and wait 30 days while they do an extensive background check.

When I renew my carry permit I have to go through the same procedure and they *ALWAYS* wait the full 30 days before sending you the permit in the mail. I've never received my permit earilier than 30 days despite the fact that I have renewed numerous times and I'm a former police officer.

At a "fair" (properly called a "gunshow") when you purchase a firearm the seller (regardless of whether or not he is a FFL dealer) does the same background check via phone that is done when you go to pick up an internet purchase.

Face to face private transactions do not require a background check as far as I know. However, 99.9% of transactions are completed at the gun show. Legitimate, law abiding gun owners are not going outside to do a transaction by some guy's van even though it is perfectly legal.

The only area where I could see them tightening up is in face to face private gun sales. Otherwise, it is obvious that you can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a *hand gun*. Buying guns on line is even more tightly restricted. Your name is going to be on more lists than you can shake a stick at when you buy on line. If you have a police record or are wanted on warrants it is going to show up. 

- Mike


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/

Maybe Minnesota is doing something right, its not all around America though.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/
> 
> Maybe Minnesota is doing something right, its not all around America though.


The laws regarding on-line purchases are federal laws and applicable in all states.

The state laws regulating hand gun ownership vary, but Minnesota's laws are *NOT* the strictest in the country. 

In some areas such as New York City and Chicago it is virtually impossible to be approved for a handgun *permit to purchase* or *carry permit*. Nevertheless, those are two cities with some of the highest number of shootings despite the strict legislation depriving law abiding citizens from owning guns for personal protection.

- Mike


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> The laws regarding on-line purchases are federal laws and applicable in all states.
> 
> The state laws regulating hand gun ownership vary, but Minnesota's laws are *NOT* the strictest in the country.
> 
> ...



According to a 97 survey, approximately 40% of all criminals got their guns from friends and family members. Another 40% acquire them on the black market illegally. But for guns to end up on the black market illegally, they have to have been purchased legally by someone at some point and then stored and/or off-loaded irresponsibly. The so-called "law-abiding" citizens are just not being _that _responsible with their guns no matter how you look at it.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan (Apr 26, 2012)

skypod said:


> I sort of agree that the damage has been done now. There are FAR too many guns in the US, and taking them away from the legal carrying citizens is more dangerous because of the ratio of unmarked, illegally owned ones out there.
> 
> 
> But can Americans admit that the second amendment just shouldn't have been a thing in the first place? It's like you guys follow the constitution and the idea of freedom like a religion.


The reason that Americans follow the Constitution like a "religion" is because that document is the actual supreme law of the land that is above any law enacted in the United States whether it be federal law, state law or local city/county ordinance. The Constitution is the blueprint for government and has provided the very basis for a rule of law that has endured for over two hundred years and has helped propel the United States as a modern day superpower. When a government can just ignore supreme law then they can justify and do anything in all other issues as well. That hypothetically leads to a tyrannical government not accountable to the people. 

The only way to totally restrict gun ownership in the United States is to amend the Constitution which is basically going to end up requiring 3/4 of the state legislatures agreeing to amend the Constitution. I seriously doubt that there would be 38 states that would be in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment or even amending it. I think a misconception that many people who are not US citizens have is that the President or Congress can just simply enact an executive order or legislation that totally restricts gun ownership dramatically. That is not how it works in the United States. Even legislation that either Congress has enacted at the federal level or states or even city ordinances at the local level is subject to heavy scrutiny by the state and federal courts to ensure that it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

The Apostate said:


> According to a 97 survey, approximately 40% of all criminals got their guns from friends and family members. Another 40% acquire them on the black market illegally. But for guns to end up on the black market illegally, they have to have been purchased legally by someone at some point and then stored and/or off-loaded irresponsibly.


And those people are breaking the law and should be punished. As a responsible gun owner and former police officer why should I be punished for their crimes???

Statistics show that carry permit holders are not the ones out there commiting crimes, and that the crime rate goes down in states where carry permits are issued. 

Fact: Gun homicides were 10% higher in states with restrictive CCW laws, according to a study spanning 1980-2009 

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry licenses have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988. 

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, 

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. 4 Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year. 

Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws. 

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages. 

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, 8 the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

Fact: People with concealed carry licenses are: 
•5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public

•13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Yeah ... solution to violence is to bring in more guns. That argument has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to simply look at the stats of countries that have fewer guns overall in order to realize that the solution to gun violence is not more guns, but fewer guns. Introducing more guns is at best a bandaid. The fix however is reducing guns. Countries that have stricter gun laws and fewer citizen owned guns like Germany, UK, Japan, Canada etc have siginificantly lower gun-related deaths than America. 

According to wikipedia: 
Sources: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

US has a rate of 10.03 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people (these are population adjusted figures so the "large population = more violence" defence is nullified). 

In comparison, 

Australia - Total number of citizen owned guns = 15/capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 0.86 per 100,000 people
Canada - Total number of citizen owned guns = 30.8/capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 2.20 per 100,000 people
UK - Total number of citizen owned guns = 6.6 / capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 0.26 per 100,000 people
Germany - Total number of citizen owned guns = 30.3/capital. Total number gun-related deaths = 1.24 per 100,000 people
Switzerland - Total number of citizen owned guns = 45/capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 2.91 per 100,000 people. 
Japan - Total number of citizen owned guns = 0.6 / capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 0.06 per 100,000 people. 

USA - Total number of citizen owned guns = 88.8 / capita. Total number of gun-related deaths = 10.64 per 100,000 people. 

Now there are some positives here that indeed America having the highest number of guns hasn't automatically translated to the highest rate of gun-related deaths --- but these stats debunk the idea that arming more citizens in order to prevent gun-related deaths is a better option than disarming entirely. Countries that have lower rates of gun-ownership show significantly lower rates of gun-related deaths.


----------



## DeeGirl (Aug 18, 2014)

These shootings are disturbingly common occurrences now. RIP to the victims, and condolences to the families.


----------



## TheResurrection (Dec 21, 2011)

Batko10 said:


> And those people are breaking the law and should be punished. As a responsible gun owner and former police officer why should I be punished for their crimes???


For the good of society. 

We are punished for other people's crimes all the time. I'm punished by having to pay taxes to keep criminals in jail and pay for a police force. I'm punished when I go to the airport by having to go through security and leave my knife at home because of terrorists even though I have nothing to do with terrorism. I'm not allowed to make or own fertiliser bombs even though I'd only be making them as a hobby or because I like seeing explosions.

There are a fuckload of laws that inconvenience innocent people because of a few bad individuals.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Too many guns in America :mj2

The country has a problem, it knows it has a problem so that's honestly not a conversation I'm willing to go over again. But let that be a lesson to you all: smile brightly, and smile often. That way the one weird kid that finally snaps will probably spare you :eva2



Jack Thwagger said:


> I can't be the only person super paranoid about going to class, right? I mean...I'm so anxious. There's nothing stopping my university from being the next one targeted by someone. It's terrifying. I really just do not want to be at school right now.


There are 20 million college students in the US and considering fatality count has only been in the hundreds over the past few years there's only like, a .000001% chance of anything happening to you. If that helps


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

samizayn said:


> There are 20 million college students in the US and considering fatality count has only been in the hundreds over the past few years there's only like, a .000001% chance of anything happening to you. If that helps


It doesn't. I'm sure every single school there was a shooting at, they thought "Oh, it won't happen here". 

It can happen anywhere.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Don't worry Thwagger, you're far more likely to be killed in a car accident before even reaching school.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

samizayn said:


> ... But let that be a lesson to you all: smile brightly, and smile often. That way the one weird kid that finally snaps will probably spare you...


The liberal answer to violent crime - "Smile and beg for your life. If the scumbag killer is in a good mood he might spare you!"

You can crawl on your hands and knees, and beg. I won't be a "soft target" for some psycho, gang banger, or junkie. 

- Mike


----------



## gamegenie (Aug 14, 2011)

Rain said:


> Criminals will always find a way to get something that is illegal.
> All they need to do is hop on the deep web and know where to look. There will be plenty of suppliers. Just look at drugs, so many people are buying drugs, and they are illegal.


Not if we ban it. 

We'll make shopping for illegal guns like looking up pedophilia. bama


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

gamegenie said:


> Not if we ban it.
> 
> We'll make shopping for illegal guns like looking up pedophilia. bama


I see. Sort of like the way making narcotics illegal slowed down and stopped the trade in heroin, cocaine, methamphetimine, and other drugs. 

Prohibition worked really well also. There was probably more alcohol consumed during prohibition than before the law was enacted.

- Mike


----------



## Lucifer The Dark (Jun 29, 2007)

Banning guns does no good, once you go that route the only people with guns will be the criminals, here in the UK we're not allowed to defend ourselves whatsoever, guns, out, knives, out, we can't even legally hit someone if they are attacking us. I applaud the Americans for standing up for the right to own guns.

All it would have taken to end this latest shooting in a better way is one other person with a gun to put a bullet between that sick fuck's eyes.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

Banning guns? Why not ban crazy people while we are at it? Better gun laws? Yes. How? I have no fucking clue. More people die each year from much less complicated reasons. Are we banning those things? No. Guns are here and they're are not going away.


----------



## gamegenie (Aug 14, 2011)

Batko10 said:


> I see. Sort of like the way making narcotics illegal slowed down and stopped the trade in heroin, cocaine, methamphetimine, and other drugs.
> 
> Prohibition worked really well also. There was probably more alcohol consumed during prohibition than before the law was enacted.
> 
> - Mike


nope. 

As I said, illegal guns will be treated like pedophilia. 

The act will get the equal shaming and outrage in our society so that the very notion of carrying an illegal firearm would call outrage if found out by our citizens who will promptly notify police for arrest.

The sharing, distributing and selling of illegal firearms would put you in life behind bars (or less if you're rich like Subway Jared). 


You still want to champion behind something nasty, filthy and criminal as carrying, distributing, selling, and seeking illegal firearms? I don't think you would in this case. bama


----------



## Loudness (Nov 14, 2011)

Mass shootings in Germany this year: 0
Mass shootings in UK this year: 0
Mass shootings in France this year: 0
Mass shootings in Italy this year: 0
Mass shootings in Australia this year: 0
Mass shootings in Serbia this year: 0
Mass shootings in Spain this year: 0
Mass shootings in Denmark this year: 0
Mass shootings in Sweden this year: 0
Mass shootings in Finland this year: 0
Mass shootings in United States this year: 294

Source: http://www.shootingtracker.com/

Also I thought the OP was a repost































































































but then I realized it was a new school-shooting ayyyy lmao. Muh guns, muh freedom!


----------



## TheShieldSuck (May 27, 2015)

I'm glad we Brits dont have guns. Not just because we dont have this but because even from the UK hearing the "ban all guns" v "but maaa constitoootion" is repetitive and annoying.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Rain said:


> Criminals will always find a way to get something that is illegal.
> All they need to do is hop on the deep web and know where to look. There will be plenty of suppliers. Just look at drugs, so many people are buying drugs, and they are illegal.


Oh so we shouldn't make it harder for them? That is terrible logic. And like I said it did wonders for Australia how their gun related shootings and deaths dropped big time once they took back the guns and made better gun control laws.

Just watch this videos, it has a lot of facts about it.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I would not mind stricter background checks

I come from a family that owns guns and I could be called a "gun enthusiast" (I am a terrible shot, once dumped two magazines into a shooting range ceiling) although I only really care about vintage fire arms that are of pre 1980s design 

I feel a certain mindset needs to be had when dealing with guns, they are a big responsibility 

They are not toys and should not be bought casually nor should they be played with 

When I go to gun shops to look at older guns (the p38 will be mine someday) I always see people drooling over the junk the government fears as "assault weapons" sights, folding stocks and for-grips when in reality those products are made to prey on uninformed buyers who want "tacticool" guns and play special forces

And I feel that is the problem, many people don't respect their guns and treat them as toys, even some gun dealers have no idea what they are selling (I asked for a production year on some guns to see if the were real vintage over $1000 value or Spanish clones around a $500 value and the seller had no idea)

The law should never take something away that has always been legal for over 200 years at this point


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

gamegenie said:


> nope.
> 
> As I said, illegal guns will be treated like pedophilia.
> 
> ...


Comparing guns to pedophilia is about as absurd as it gets. 

Repealing the 2nd Amendment is not going to happen. With 39% of American households owning legal guns in 2014 I don't think that your agenda of getting them declared illegal and shaming gun owners is going to work. 

- Mike


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> Comparing guns to pedophilia is about as absurd as it gets.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment is not going to happen. With 39% of American households owning legal guns in 2014 I don't think that your agenda of getting them declared illegal and shaming gun owners is going to work.
> 
> - Mike


Gun owners _should _be ashamed of themselves especially considering that 40% of all criminals acquired their guns from their law-abiding friends and family. While home burglaries, easy unchecked second-hand sales (across state lines) etc amount to another large percentage of it. 

And that stat actually comes from a pro-gun site ... Love how you gun owners pretend that just because a few of you are responsible therefore everyone that owns one is.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

stevefox1200 said:


> although I only really care about vintage fire arms that are of pre 1980s design...
> 
> ...When I go to gun shops to look at older guns *(the p38 will be mine someday)* I always see people drooling over the junk the government fears as "assault weapons"...
> 
> ...The law should never take something away that has always been legal for over 200 years at this point


Stevie, I think you would appreciate this P-38 made in 1944. My dad took this from a Nazi officer when he was fighting in Germany. 

Notice the rough machining on the slide. The end was near and the Reich was churning these out as fast as they could. The earlier issues that replaced the Luger were alot nicer, but this is a GI capture that is our family heirloom. I don't shoot it, but periodically break it down to clean and lubricate the internal parts.

If you are also into WW II rifles the Soviet Mosin 91-30 long rifle can still be had for a very reasonable price. The Mosin M-44 carbine with deployable spike bayonet is tough to get today and has gotten very pricey. If you like the old stuff, check them out!








[/IMG]








[/IMG]


----------



## Reservoir Angel (Aug 7, 2010)

Sometimes I think the 2nd Amendment is probably the worst thing ever written by an American politician, considering how often it's used as some everything-proof shield of bullshit whenever the idea of gun control of any kind is remotely talked about.


----------



## gamegenie (Aug 14, 2011)

Batko10 said:


> Comparing guns to pedophilia is about as absurd as it gets.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment is not going to happen. With 39% of American households owning legal guns in 2014 I don't think that your agenda of getting them declared illegal and shaming gun owners is going to work.
> 
> - Mike


Nope again!

For starters, I'm not comparing registered guns to pedophilia, I'm comparing illegal guns.

Legal guns will be equivalent to playing the straight and narrow to ones physical sexual attractions. 

All legal guns would be properly registered through the Fed bureau.

The cracking down will be on illegal guns, which will be treated like pedophilia. The harboring-possession, the selling, the distributions by criminals would be akin to the crimes of vile pedophiles and they will get equal public shaming. 
Illegal guns should not be tolerated by any law-abiding citizen who want to protect the innocence and livelihood of our people who don't want to live in a society where they must look over their shoulder for a creeper packing an illegal gun. 

The 39% of American households with legal arms you mention would sure turn in sick, disgusting illegal gun owners over to the Fed. bama

Most would probably want to see these ilk executed immediately so our tax dollars won't have to foot the bill of their time in jail.


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

All these people talking about gun control don't realize that most mass shooters don't have a violent criminal history so even expanding background checks to private sales wouldn't make a difference. You'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment and not even the average liberal wants to do that. We're gonna have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve taking away a constitutional right from 300 million people.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Jack Thwagger said:


> It doesn't. I'm sure every single school there was a shooting at, they thought "Oh, it won't happen here".
> 
> It can happen anywhere.


Yeah honestly, me too. Not because it's particularly likely or not but because it would just be such an awful, panic filled way to go out. Even if it wasn't me, the idea of someone I love, or even someone I'm only acquainted with being a victim of this kind of thing is horrifying, and can sometimes feel inevitable. But I suppose bad stuff is around the corner everywhere we go and can consume us if we let it -- everytime I step on a plane I'm convinced it'll be the one to crash land/disappear completely/be driven into a mountain by a suicidal homocidal pilot. This seems to be another one of those.



Batko10 said:


> The liberal answer to violent crime - "Smile and beg for your life. If the scumbag killer is in a good mood he might spare you!"
> 
> You can crawl on your hands and knees, and beg. I won't be a "soft target" for some psycho, gang banger, or junkie.
> 
> - Mike


Singling out my facetious comment over the several posts ITT pointing to gun regulation as the obvious remedy. Terrible post even for yourself Batko.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> All these people talking about gun control don't realize that most mass shooters don't have a violent criminal history so even expanding background checks to private sales wouldn't make a difference. You'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment and not even the average liberal wants to do that. We're gonna have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve taking away a constitutional right from 300 million people.


It's already been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that individuals that go on a mass shooting binge usually use guns provided to them by other "law-abiding" citizens who've already passed gun checks ..either through theft, gifts, second-hand purchases. 

Individuals that commit mass-shooting gun crime (especially school shooters) actually are very unlikely to buy their own guns first hand. Most of them are passed on through across the state lines, or the vast majority are simply taken from the cabinets of their own parents, relatives or friends' parents. 

Gun owners want the ability to own guns cu'z it's their right and that's all ... They don't want to be held responsible for keeping the circulation alive through exploiting loopholes or lobbying for less control on second hand sales. Of course, this relentless lobbying against gun control makes it easier for people to also legally buy guns and then sell them illegally .. heck in many states, they can sell a gun to a criminal without a background check at all and it's still legal. I was just on a yard sale FB page in my area and someone's selling a colt. I checked the gun law of Florida and I can buy it --- the owner won't do a check or anything. I commit the crime of buying a gun without a license, but where is the so-called responsibility of the so-called law-abiding citizen to check who he sells to? He's not legally required to do it ... no responsibility at all. 

Yes, I agree that first hand gun controls are not the solution. Disarming however is. Australia did it - and their gun violence rate is now less than 10 times America's corrected for population.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Batko10 said:


> Stevie, I think you would appreciate this P-38 made in 1944. My dad took this from a Nazi officer when he was fighting in Germany.
> 
> Notice the rough machining on the slide. The end was near and the Reich was churning these out as fast as they could. The earlier issues that replaced the Luger were alot nicer, but this is a GI capture that is our family heirloom. I don't shoot it, but periodically break it down to clean and lubricate the internal parts.
> 
> ...


Getting a decent one is a pain the ass

Collectors bought most them up before I was even born and there are a ton of clones from everywhere from Spain to China 

It don't help that a lot of the Nazi imagery has been ground off the rougher real ones 

Its a pain in the ass to get WP ammo (I think its flat out illegal to import) now and days and I prefer legit over NATO ammo re-chambering on Eastern Bloc weapons 

I don't even plan on shooting the damn things, I just appreciate the history and the mechanical designs, older guns are very unique and beautiful

(PS: nice gun but you can sure tell it was late war, near the end Axis guns were pipes and plywood, late war arisaka's are some of the roughest guns I have ever seen short of a zip gun)


----------



## Born of Osiris (Oct 29, 2013)

Loudness said:


> Mass shootings in Germany this year: 0
> Mass shootings in UK this year: 0
> Mass shootings in France this year: 0
> Mass shootings in Italy this year: 0
> ...


:wow


Gun maniacs are a cancer to society.


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

It's so depressing to think that the only thing that might change things would be a substantial increase in mass shootings, to the point where it can no longer be shrugged off.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

stevefox1200 said:


> Getting a decent one is a pain the ass
> 
> Collectors bought most them up before I was even born and there are a ton of clones from everywhere from Spain to China
> 
> ...


I hear you. The worst part about the stuff on the market today is the damn import marks these companies put on them. It wouldn't be bad if they made them small and put them in an inconspicuous place. Unfortunately, alot of the importers use the import mark as a type of advertising.

The "CYQ" mark identifies this one as being a late issue Spreewerke. We haven't fired it since my dad passed, but it is an accurate piece. The best part is that since this is a GI capture there are no import marks - just the factory markings. 

Cleaning it is a bit of a pain. The German technology was superior, but unnecessarily complicated. Field stripping this weapon is a bit more complicated than it should be. For combat I prefer the Russian weapons like the AK-47 - simple, fast, with interchangeable parts.

Good luck! Check gunbroker.com periodically. The genuine WW II Nazi P-38s are pricey, but they do occasionally come up for sale.

- Mike


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Legit Question: Has there ever been a case where someone has gone on a school rampage/mass shooting, and the killer has been shot by someone other than themselves or the police? 

Like, by someone who was just in the area randomly with their own 'safety' gun?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The problem is that neither side wants to compromise. Both want all or nothing and nothing changes.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm going to stay away from the gun control debate and offer my condolences to the families of those who died. Such a damn tragedy.


----------



## C.J.Styles (Apr 27, 2015)

Another Hoax in the fight against gun control.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life (Jul 31, 2013)

Here comes two weeks of the media plastering this guys name, face, social media, blogs all over the tv.

it has to stop. stop making these monsters into celebrities. talk about the victims. share their life. Talk bout the town, its hardships, talk to mental health professionals, local priest, etc.

every single time this happens the media blows it up and makes the killer into michael myers. stop making them famous.


----------



## QWERTYOP (Jun 6, 2013)

Jesus fucking Christ, America. How many more? The answer is not rocket science, but you won't "cuz freedom. 'murica". See you same time, same place after the next massacre.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

Mister Abigail said:


> Legit Question: Has there ever been a case where someone has gone on a school rampage/mass shooting, and the killer has been shot by someone other than themselves or the police?
> 
> Like, by someone who was just in the area randomly with their own 'safety' gun?


The problem is that the media rarely makes a big deal out of private citizens stopping mass shootings with their legally carried handguns. Good news doesn't make as big headlines and sell as many papers. Usually, when these stories are printed they are buried on page 10.

Also, guns are not permitted to be carried any closer than 1,000 feet from a school even if the person carrying has a legal permit. This makes the school a soft target and easy pickings for a psychotic shooter. A private citizen with a handgun and carry permit wouldn't be near enough to a school to take any action.

Here are a few incidents for the record. There are plenty more, but you get the drift.

The 17 December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. *He shot both robbers, killing one*.

April 24, 1998 Parker Middle School Dance Shooting
14 Year old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others when he was confronted by *James Strand who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived*.

July 5, 1999 The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. *Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.
*
9 December, 2007 The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by *the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
*
25 May, 2008 Winnemucca NV shooting
The shooter, Ernesto Villagomez, entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when *a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing.
*
May 4, 2009 College Park, GA,
Two gunman entered a party and ordered the men separated from the women. Then they started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey. 
When one of the assailants prepared to rape a girl, a student was able to access a handgun and engage the two attackers in a firefight, *driving one off and killing the other before the thug could rape his girlfriend. 
*“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, *was stopped by a CCW carrier*

27 May, 2010 AT&T Store
Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, *drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots.
*
9 September, 2012 Plymouth PA shooting 
Consider that the Plymouth shooting incident happened just three months before Sandy Hook.* Mark Ktytor, a concealed carry permit holder, stopped a likely mass killing before it reached enough victims to officially quallify.* 

April 24, 2012 Destiny Christian Center Shooting
Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, *drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.
*
29 July, 2012 Peach House shooting, Texas
In Early Texas, *armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors *and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle.

24 July, 2014 Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in West Philadelphia shooting
ATLANTA — Prosecutors say Dr. Lee Silverman opened fire on Richard Plotts, after Mr. Plotts shot his caseworker and barged his way toward Dr. Silverman’s office desk after gaining access to Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital. *Dr. Silverman crouched down behind his desk and fetched his gun, which he then fired at Mr. Plotts, wounding him several times before he was subdued*.

19 April, 2015 *Uber driver Shoots Gunman who is shooting into Crowd in Chicago
*The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.
A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.
The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

virus21 said:


> The problem is that neither side wants to compromise. Both want all or nothing and nothing changes.


That's because the anti-gun crusaders want tighter gun-control laws, it's the 2nd Amendment's fault, etc. I have no problem with background checks for all gun owners, especially when it comes to private sales. I had no issues with that to buy my firearms. However, the gun-control crowd says ban all guns and more laws against gun use. That ain't going to happen, period. Why is it so difficult for them to enforce the gun control laws already on the books?


----------



## SpeedStick (Feb 11, 2010)

Guns are NOT the problem, medication ARE



> • Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
> 
> • Asa **** from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show **** was on Trazodone.
> 
> ...


Just given you some I can give you  20 years ﻿


----------



## QWERTYOP (Jun 6, 2013)

SpeedStick said:


> Guns are NOT the problem
> 
> ﻿


Where's the "facepalm" smillie? Like I said, see you at the next inevitable massacre, America.


----------



## The Beast Incarnate (Feb 23, 2014)

Jack Thwagger said:


> This is what's freaking me out. It's so commonplace. It's like it's damn near contagious and it keeps spreading and people are just killing innocent people in large quantities for no reason.
> 
> How can anyone feel safe anywhere? Especially at schools? What once was seen as a safe haven to spread knowledge and meet new people is now a ticking time bomb.


I feel terrible for the students and their loved ones. Can't imagine anything worse than coming home to find out your young child has been murdered, much less at a place you assumed was a safe haven of sorts :crying:

Right now I'm actually in the background / hiring process to become a police dispatcher at a college. I pray something like this never happens at my campus but if it does I know I'll be ready to try to get my officers there ASAP to help save lives.


----------



## Rick_James (May 11, 2012)

Crazy how this keeps happening, almost seems like each one "encourages" the next, these guy's see that whatever sort of point they are looking to make is "seen by the world". I'm not even sure if there's a solution for something like this, I mean what proper planning could stop something like this?


----------



## The Beast Incarnate (Feb 23, 2014)

Rick_James said:


> I'm not even sure if there's a solution for something like this, I mean what proper planning could stop something like this?


There is a way to prevent it (cctv cameras & metal detectors at every access point + armed security staff at the metal detectors for searches) but would make colleges feel more like the airports w/ long waits and TSA agents so I'm not sure people are willing to go for that unless there is more and more tragedies like this to finally push people into a milliteristic mindset.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

The solution is manifold:

1. Fucking control properly who can get guns
1.1 stop Internet and fair sales without checks

2. Have a guns amnesty get illegal weapons handed in
2.1 get the police to crack down on all those who've not had background checks and confiscate their weapons

3. Properly fund your healthcare system
3.1 help those in need properly, set up many more places to help those psychitractic conditions for instance

4. Create jobs
4.1 invest in future facing technologies and fund schools to create the workforce of tomorrow 

5. Get rid of the second amendment

And that's a start


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

The Beast Incarnate said:


> There is a way to prevent it (cctv cameras & metal detectors at every access point + armed security staff at the metal detectors for searches) but would make colleges feel more like the airports w/ long waits and TSA agents so I'm not sure people are willing to go for that unless there is more and more tragedies like this to finally push people into a milliteristic mindset.


wouldn't that be fun


----------



## Solf (Aug 24, 2014)

Loudness said:


> Mass shootings in Germany this year: 0
> Mass shootings in UK this year: 0
> Mass shootings in France this year: 0
> Mass shootings in Italy this year: 0
> ...


I think this is like, the first time ever I do agree with you. We may have huge differences of opinion in various areas, but I stand by your point on this one.

The US has a huge gun problem, and reading the answers in this thread makes me think it's not going to be able to be solved. It's fucking logic, yet those morbid gun lovers keep blaming everything else but their little penis extensions.

Frightening, really. Frightening because what seems to be obvious everywhere else is being argued there.

Of course, the violence of society, particularly mentally, is to be blamed as well, but this isn't a US only problem, and it is but fueled by the abundance of guns. This is toxic. You can't ignore the roots of the problem, yet you should still cut off the ways it can worsen.


----------



## The Beast Incarnate (Feb 23, 2014)

Memento Mori said:


> wouldn't that be fun


Right? Imagine the amount of tardies to lecture you would have! 

It used to be the same way though with airline security until 9/11 happened. Finally there was a tragedy that caused enough fear & public outrage to cause massive changes in airport security (metal detectors, searches, cctv cameras, armed guards, etc). 

Hell, even going to disneyland or a sporting event you have to go through metal detectors so I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet with college campuses. It will eventually though... just will (sadly) take a lot more tragedies like this to finally get the public outraged enough to finally make changes.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> The problem is that the media rarely makes a big deal out of private citizens stopping mass shootings with their legally carried handguns. Good news doesn't make as big headlines and sell as many papers. Usually, when these stories are printed they are buried on page 10.
> 
> Also, guns are not permitted to be carried any closer than 1,000 feet from a school even if the person carrying has a legal permit. This makes the school a soft target and easy pickings for a psychotic shooter. A private citizen with a handgun and carry permit wouldn't be near enough to a school to take any action.


Give me a break, you do know that if they had tougher control control that those people in your examples never would have had a gun in the first place. Your logic is so awful on all issues. You make is harder for people to get guns so those incidents don't happen in the first place. 

Also you have a so called good citizen with a gun in a school shooting at someone with a gun, you really don't think that they are not going to hit students as well in the cross fire? I always love how people like you think more guns is the answer when we have been getting mor and more guns and we are getting more and more shootings. The answer is common sense, its LESS GUNS and stricter gun control, that will have less shootings. 




Batko10 said:


> The 17 December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one.


So a so called law abiding citizen shot two bank robbers who was not going to shoot anyone because he was putting everyone in a cooler, and he killed one of them? And you are using this as an example how guns work LOL. 

Also the thing you fail to point out is pretty much EVERYONE in your examples had gotten the guns ILLEGALLY because they are so easy to get. If gun control was stricter they wouldn't be getting them, and like I said, those incidents never would have happened in the first place.




Rick_James said:


> Crazy how this keeps happening, almost seems like each one "encourages" the next, these guy's see that whatever sort of point they are looking to make is "seen by the world". I'm not even sure if there's a solution for something like this, I mean what proper planning could stop something like this?


There is, make it harder for those shooters to get those guns. The answer is rather simple my friend. 

Watch this video that i posted earlier. 






See what taking guns off the streets and making them harder to get in AUS did for them, and what it could do for the US.


----------



## nucklehead88 (Dec 17, 2012)

Hi. First and foremost, my condolences to everyone down in Oregon. 

Secondly. As an outsider(Canadian) looking in, I just have to ask you guys this....WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH WITH YOU GUYS DOWN THERE? WHY? WHY DO PEOPLE NEED GUNS? I understand it's your second amendment right to have them, but guess what...YOU DON'T NEED THEM. Why? Why are some people so obsessed with owning killing machines? Its an archaic rule that should be phased out before everyone gets shot. It was written in the 1700's. Times have changed America. Time to move on. You don't need a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Jesus. I'm not saying this because I hate guns because I don't. I'm saying because I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing innocent people being killed on nearly a daily basis in a country I love almost as much as my own. Licence em. Do bloody something. Make it like driving a car. Need a licence and be over 16 or something. Just stop this. The rest of the modern world manages to get on with life without shooting each other all the time. 

Example on gun violence time: I live in Vancouver British Columbia, Canada. Lovely place. Very similar to Seattle Washington. Similar landscape, location, population. Hell we even both have a liking of the colors blue and green. But this is where we differ.

*Number of shootings in Vancouver (between 2009-2013)*: 87
*Number of shootings in Seattle (THIS YEAR ONLY)*:"227 Shootings So Far This Year in Seattle, as of July 20"
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/07/27/22605256/the-morning-news-there-have-been-227-shootings-in-seattle-this-year-and-the-columbia-river-is-way-too-warm
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/homicide/map.html

For two cities that are almost the exact same size, this is very telling.


----------



## Rick_James (May 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> There is, make it harder for those shooters to get those guns. The answer is rather simple my friend.
> 
> Watch this video that i posted earlier.
> 
> ...


Yeah it's a tricky subject I'm personally down the middle. I'm not really for banning ALL guns, but I think a lot could be done. I think it would be unfair to the people that just want to legit protect their family, and while there are a lot of "what if's" attached, like a kid getting the parents gun and such, but still, it's probably the best way to defend yourself against something like a robber.

On the flip side, as long as the guns are around this stuff will keep happening, it seems like the NRA is using the mental health thing as a red herring, as obviously you can't solve that stuff and it's too easy for a nut case to get a gun, just steal one from a relative when they aren't home really.

I think the government should almost restart this thing from the ground up because there are obviously a lot of laws already but it seems some are followed and others are not. In particular I think technology where the gun only works in the hands of the owner should be explored a lot further and at this point, I'm not really opposed to monitoring and tracking bullet purchases as well. Hell even something like gun training being mandatory (in the same way that you have to go to the BMV for a license). I know that most of the gun owners are responsible people, but I don't think it will violate their rights if they have to go through a few hoops if it means everyone is more safe.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

I am so tired of the gun control people immediately using the event to try and "win the argument". Doesn't matter what statistics you show, or how Arizona is safer than Chicago, show that the worst mass killings have nothing to do with guns, and that almost all of these types of mass shootings are carried out with guns not purchased legally... down with guns because! Oops, damn facts getting in the way of overly emotional arguments during a crisis to try and manipulate people into rash action.


----------



## Adam Cool (Oct 1, 2012)

Kabraxal said:


> I am so tired of the gun control people immediately using the event to try and "win the argument". Doesn't matter what statistics you show, or how Arizona is safer than Chicago, show that the worst mass killings have nothing to do with guns, and that almost all of these types of mass shootings are carried out with guns not purchased legally... down with guns because! Oops, damn facts getting in the way of overly emotional arguments during a crisis to try and manipulate people into rash action.


You are right, I am not even a gun fan but I don't care if people own them or not, Better have something to defend yourself just in case rather than being defenceless againts a thug


----------



## Lucifer The Dark (Jun 29, 2007)

Actually there was a shooting just the other day here in London, oh but we don't have guns here do we? no that's right the criminals have the guns, Guns are not a problem, a lack of legal guns is the problem.


----------



## gabrielcev (Aug 23, 2014)

My thoughts and prayers really to the people who died. When I hear about stuff like this it really brings me down.


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

The Apostate said:


> It's already been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that individuals that go on a mass shooting binge usually use guns provided to them by other "law-abiding" citizens who've already passed gun checks ..either through theft, gifts, second-hand purchases.
> 
> Individuals that commit mass-shooting gun crime (especially school shooters) actually are very unlikely to buy their own guns first hand. Most of them are passed on through across the state lines, or the vast majority are simply taken from the cabinets of their own parents, relatives or friends' parents.


Not sure where you got that from but if you're right that still proves my point. Expanding background checks to include private sales wouldn't do anything unless the shooter already had a violent criminal background and the Oregon shooter didn't.




> Yes, I agree that first hand gun controls are not the solution. Disarming however is. Australia did it - and their gun violence rate is now less than 10 times America's corrected for population.


Like I said not even most liberals want total disarmament. They want bans on "assault" weapons and expanded background checks. People like you who want to do away with the 2nd amendment are a minority even in your own political group.

Since a few people here keep bringing up Australia as some kind of model of gun control I just wanna point this out:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2012: 226
2011: 187
2010: 232
2009: 226
2008: 231
2007: 231
2006: 242
2005: 220
2004: 241
2003: 289
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

Even before gun control in 1996 the gun homicide rate over there was much lower than ours and it was steadily dropping on its own since the early 80's.


----------



## Karma101 (Sep 7, 2012)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> Since a few people here keep bringing up Australia as some kind of model of gun control I just wanna point this out:
> 
> http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
> 
> ...


That data clearly shows that they began to decline dramatically after 1996 relative to previous years though, so that would suggest gun control worked pretty well in that particular scenario. Not arguing for a particular side here, just saying that's is what the data you just posted shows.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> Not sure where you got that from but if you're right that still proves my point. Expanding background checks to include private sales wouldn't do anything unless the shooter already had a violent criminal background and the Oregon shooter didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't give me the 2nd ammendment right bullshit when hoarders with all kinds of mental diseases, afflictions and problems can abuse is to hoard more guns than they have clean pieces of underwear. The fuckboy that killed these 10 people acquired 14 pieces of arsenal and ammunition legally without any checks and balances also with the help of his mother in the name of 2nd amendment rights and then went off and shot 10 people. 14 fucking guns. If that's not a red flag, then I don't know what is .. If it isn't, then it should be seen as such. Anyone buying a certain number of weapons should have his name registered with the FBI as a potential threat to the lives of people in the country especially given the current climate of unending gun violence. I'm looking around my house and I don't have 14 of anything ... even pens and tumblers and plates and cutlery ... and yet this guy went off an bought 14 guns without anyone batting an eyelash. I don't give a shit about 2nd amendment rights - and I think they should be changed and be made more restrictive. 

There was a military vet on site with a concealed weapon (another man from Oregon reported this on a facebook group I follow) and he decided to do nothing because he did not want to be mistakenly shot by police. The conceal carry laws in Oregon allow individuals to carry in gun-free zones ... That didn't do jack shit in this case, now did it? 

Don't be one of those people bring up the 2nd amendment right in the defence of killers. The 2nd amendment will eventually be changed. Even the so-called constitutional right defence does not hold up when you realize that people are abusing it to the point of hoarding more weapons and ammunition and then failing to restrict access to murderers and killers. This is even more ironic when you realize that the conservatives that defend the right to not be seen as criminals or potential criminals when hoarding an unreasonable amount of guns and assault weapons will do everything in their power to support and push for pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies regardless of crime or threat. So much hypocrisy from the right-wingers at times that it's not even saddening anymore. It's just borderline insane. 

I don't worship the constitution like some of you people. It is a man-made set of laws and once enough people realize that it's causing more harm than good in this particular case, it will eventually be changed. 

Also, draw a couple of excel charts and plot a trend line on the Australian data. The rate of drop-off as well as overall reduction of death totals after disarming is significantly better - enough that it serves as a perfect model to follow.


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

I have a hard time believing this story.... i'm trying to be respectful to everyone here and not be a bigot but it's kinda hard....

So i'm just going to say it, i think the muslims were behind this, I don't know if they reached out to this kid on social media and hit him with a bunch of propaganda, or maybe the government is in on it....if you believe that kinda thing....


I don't know, but i have a hard time believing some kid hates Christians enough to do something like this.... in 2015......unless his a Muslim ....

scientologists wouldn't pull something like this.... i mean if you leave the brotherhood they'll fuck your day up.... but their more interested in getting your money than putting you in a body bag....dead people can't donate their life savings away.......

you don't kill Christians unless you're religious, that's just common sense.....so if it isn't muslims then who ?


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Elly Elephant said:


> I have a hard time believing this story.... i'm trying to be respectful to everyone here and not be a bigot but it's kinda hard....
> 
> So i'm just going to say it, i think the muslims were behind this, I don't know if they reached out to this kid on social media and hit him with a bunch of propaganda, or maybe the government is in on it....if you believe that kinda thing....
> 
> ...


Fuck off


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Elly Elephant said:


> I have a hard time believing this story.... i'm trying to be respectful to everyone here and not be a bigot but it's kinda hard....
> 
> So i'm just going to say it, i think the muslims were behind this, I don't know if they reached out to this kid on social media and hit him with a bunch of propaganda, or maybe the government is in on it....if you believe that kinda thing....
> 
> ...


Weak troll is weak.


----------



## I Came To Play (Jul 18, 2012)

Elly Elephant said:


> I have a hard time believing this story.... i'm trying to be respectful to everyone here and not be a bigot but it's kinda hard....
> 
> So i'm just going to say it, i think the muslims were behind this, I don't know if they reached out to this kid on social media and hit him with a bunch of propaganda, or maybe the government is in on it....if you believe that kinda thing....
> 
> ...


:haha


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

They seem to be happening every few weeks now. :nerd:



C.J.Styles said:


> Another Hoax in the fight against gun control.


It saddens me how many fall for it. 

If any died, RIP.



Elly Elephant said:


> I have a hard time believing this story.... i'm trying to be respectful to everyone here and not be a bigot but it's kinda hard....
> 
> So i'm just going to say it, i think the muslims were behind this, I don't know if they reached out to this kid on social media and hit him with a bunch of propaganda, *or maybe the government is in on it*....if you believe that kinda thing....


:eva2


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

It seems to happen more often because of modern day media gets this shit straight out. Also the media always seem to plaster the fucker's name and face all over the place. Personally I think the only thing they should be posting are those affected by the incident. The suspect should never be referred to by name but simply as suspect douchebag. If we relay to never give any recognition to this assholes they won they won't have anyone to idealize or model themselves after.

I also posted the last time there was a shooting two images, one showed the violent crime rates and one when states approved concealed carry, and there was a strong correlation to reduced rates. I also read that when guns were banned in Australia that home invasions skyrocketed and they technically didn't even have a legal term for it. 

Plus these kind of violent acts always seem to occur in "gun free" zones, there are always stories here in Texas where a gunman is stopped by a CC citizen or armed home owner, but it won't make mainstream media 'cause that would go against the agenda. I specifically remember right after the Colorado douchebag shot up the theater that a man was shot and killed by an off duty officer with his personal firearm before the dude to make it into a theater here. Getting rid of guns is never gonna solve this shit, they will still get their hand on it, I mean it's not like Mexico has strict gun laws or anything :side:

People are crazy and social media doesn't help, weirdo's and outcasts are only reminded more that their are weirdos and outcasts, so they lash out.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

This thread is truly scaring me I'm surprised some of you have the intelligence to breathe


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

The Apostate said:


> Don't give me the 2nd ammendment right bullshit when hoarders with all kinds of mental diseases, afflictions and problems can abuse is to hoard more guns than they have clean pieces of underwear. The fuckboy that killed these 10 people acquired 14 pieces of arsenal and ammunition legally without any checks and balances also with the help of his mother in the name of 2nd amendment rights and then went off and shot 10 people. 14 fucking guns.


You're missing my point. You said you wanted the right to bear arms to be taken away like in Australia. I'm telling you not even the average liberal over here wants to do that. They want background checks on all gun sales and a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. You're gonna have to come up with a better idea to stop mass shootings than banning all guns because that's not gonna happen. Hardly anyone here supports repealing the 2nd amendment.



> There was a military vet on site with a concealed weapon (another man from Oregon reported this on a facebook group I follow) and he decided to do nothing because he did not want to be mistakenly shot by police. The conceal carry laws in Oregon allow individuals to carry in gun-free zones ... That didn't do jack shit in this case, now did it?


I'm pretty sure the college he was at doesn't allow concealed carry. The law might allow it but if the school says no it's no and I doubt many students are gonna want to risk getting in trouble with the school just so they can bring a gun to class. If this military vet had the chance to stop the shooter but didn't that's not really the fault of concealed carry laws is it?

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the shooter chose a place that he knew hardly anyone would be carrying? This guy, Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, none of them tried to shoot up a gun range or gun shop. Nobody is gonna be stupid enough to try and stage a mass shooting at a place where they know tons of people have guns.



> This is even more ironic when you realize that the conservatives that defend the right to not be seen as criminals or potential criminals when hoarding an unreasonable amount of guns and assault weapons will do everything in their power to support and push for pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies regardless of crime or threat.


What are you even talking about? You're going way off the deep end here.



> Also, draw a couple of excel charts and plot a trend line on the Australian data. The rate of drop-off as well as overall reduction of death totals after disarming is significantly better - enough that it serves as a perfect model to follow.


The death rate was already dropping on its own even as the population size went up. The Aussies gave up their gun rights out of an irrational fear of mass shootings and I like to think we won't do the same.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Rick_James said:


> Yeah it's a tricky subject I'm personally down the middle. I'm not really for banning ALL guns, but I think a lot could be done. I think it would be unfair to the people that just want to legit protect their family, and while there are a lot of "what if's" attached, like a kid getting the parents gun and such, but still, it's probably the best way to defend yourself against something like a robber.
> 
> On the flip side, as long as the guns are around this stuff will keep happening, it seems like the NRA is using the mental health thing as a red herring, as obviously you can't solve that stuff and it's too easy for a nut case to get a gun, just steal one from a relative when they aren't home really.
> 
> I think the government should almost restart this thing from the ground up because there are obviously a lot of laws already but it seems some are followed and others are not. In particular I think technology where the gun only works in the hands of the owner should be explored a lot further and at this point, I'm not really opposed to monitoring and tracking bullet purchases as well. Hell even something like gun training being mandatory (in the same way that you have to go to the BMV for a license). I know that most of the gun owners are responsible people, but I don't think it will violate their rights if they have to go through a few hoops if it means everyone is more safe.


You don't have to ban all guns but banning semi automatic guns is a good start. What is the need for any civilian to have a semi automatic gun?

Also for anything other than a shot gun, do it like Switzerland where you can't carry any kind of ammo at your house, and have to get it from the shooting range. Then to go further for the people that like to bring up mental illness, if anyone in your house has a mental illness then no one in the house can have a gun. And everyone in the house needs to be tested before allowing someone in the house to have a gun.

Things like that especially the first one, would reduce the amount of shootings in the USA.




Lucifer The Dark said:


> Actually there was a shooting just the other day here in London, oh but we don't have guns here do we? no that's right the criminals have the guns, Guns are not a problem, a lack of legal guns is the problem.


This kind logic is always the most laughable kind. Better gun control doesn't mean no shooting deaths, it just mess less. And England has way less shooting deaths than the US and its not even close. How many mass shootings in England this year? ZERO, how many in the US Almost 300.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Found them.



















Dunno if the first image showed up, doing this from my phone.


----------



## DJ2334 (Jan 18, 2011)

You know it's sad when this is no longer an uncommon thing to happen. I remember when Virginia Tech happened, it was so unusually odd because we haven't had a shooting like that since Columbine High School. Now, shit like this is happening all the time...

And of course the media is highlighting the shooter more than anything (a little less than usual, but still putting focus). Disturbed explains it best with this song on how the media only helps influence these crazies to do these things:






It's sad when you can automatically paint a picture of the shooter in your head, but not the victims and the ones who lost their lives...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> You're missing my point. You said you wanted the right to bear arms to be taken away like in Australia. I'm telling you not even the average liberal over here wants to do that. They want background checks on all gun sales and a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. You're gonna have to come up with a better idea to stop mass shootings than banning all guns because that's not gonna happen. Hardly anyone here supports repealing the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



why do all the countries with good gun control have ZERO mass shootings this year yet the USA has almost 300?
Also you don't have to ban all guns, but banning semi automatic guns is a good start.

Also after they took back the guns the shootings dropped drastically , that wouldn't have happened if they did nothing. 

Gun control worked great in Australia stop trying to ignore the facts, its just making you look bad.

Also how many mass shootings in AUS this year? ZERO
How many in the USA? like I said almost 300.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Crime is my lower that it has been in the past

It has nothing to do with the ability to get firearms and more to do with the ease of contraceptives and abortions along a much lower profit drug market

In short there are less kids being born in high risk families who can't raise them properly and being a criminal is too much work for too little gain

Also unless you want to go to house to house and physically remove peoples guns or offer the most kick ass buy back program in history I have zero ideas on how to "remove guns from society"


----------



## HBK 3:16 (Oct 9, 2014)

It's disheartening that this is happening so much.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Gun violence isn't even near as bad as some think, apparently 1993 was a hell of a year and a turning point.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

From the Bureau of Justice statistics


----------



## solarstorm (Jan 18, 2015)

All mass shootings are tragedies. I'm a liberal and I strongly believe most liberals DO NOT WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS. That's an exaggeration used to fire up voters at election time and get NRA memberships to increase. 

I live in upstate NY, in the more rural part of the state. Hunting is a way of life out here. Target shooting is big too. My dad has a handful of guns and goes to a range once a week + has a concealed carry permit. The guy is the definition of the "good gun owner." He practices to ensure accuracy in the event he ever has to use his gun. He's a mechanic that cleans the gun after each use to prevent mechanical issues. He locks the guns when my children visit, because he doesn't want to take any risks - even though it's pretty clear that my 7 and 9 year old daughters have no interest in playing with a gun. He has a calm temperament and isn't the type to escalate a situation/use his gun in rage. 

I'm not against ownership in any way. I know responsible gun owners. I also know a guy that conceal carries his otherwise legal gun without a permit, has a drinking problem, and loves to show off his guns + pull the 'toughguy' routine. That guy really shouldn't be a gun owner. He's a disaster waiting to happen. I'M A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN. I do not have a gun license and refuse to get one, even though my father wants me to (in order to be able to inherit his guns when he passes). I have a blinding temper at times and know myself enough that if I was really pissed and had the gun on hand/nearby, that I would make a life-ruining bad decision. I won't own a gun to prevent that from happening. It's a matter of being responsible.

I've never been arrested. I'm a teacher with a clear FBI background check(certified Social Studies 7-12, currently subbing). There's nothing in the world that could even remotely stop me from getting a license, if I wanted one. I KNOW FOR A FACT that I shouldn't be able to get a gun license. Yet, I'd have no issue doing so. The system is broken and people that shouldn't own guns are able to. 

I'm in favor of stronger background checks and a psychological evaluation as part of getting your first license (it doesn't need to be repeated each time, as it would be overkill for individuals with multiple guns). Weed out individuals with rage issues, substance abuse, and other concerning traits.

I say concerning traits, because of the 80s action hero wannabes out there. very time there is a shooting, there are countless individuals who start talking about 'good guys with guns' and how if they or someone similar were there that things would turn out differently. There's a blurred division between reality and fantasy in SOME of those individuals. It's hard to imagine people with this mindset doing anything other than escalating a bad situation. Look at the movie theater in Aurora.If four overeager guys in that theater of a couple hundred started firing...what would happen? They'd wind up shooting at each other because nothing tells you which shooter is the criminal and which is another "good guy with a gun." It would be chaos and likely worse than what actually happened (multiple direction - stray bullets). It was dark and there was smoke. They would not be able to differentiate. Those 'good guys' would only make things worse. 

That's not to say that guns aren't useful for self-defense. Late at night, what else is going to protect you when someone tries to break in? I'm just saying that the hero fantasies are worrisome because all of these 'good guys with guns' could be increasing bodycounts, not reducing them.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

solarstorm said:


> Look at the movie theater in Aurora.If four overeager guys in that theater of a couple hundred started firing...what would happen? They'd wind up shooting at each other because nothing tells you which shooter is the criminal and which is another "good guy with a gun." It would be chaos and likely worse than what actually happened (multiple direction - stray bullets). It was dark and there was smoke. They would not be able to differentiate. Those 'good guys' would only make things worse.
> .


That was an interesting post. I'd like to meet your old man. He sounds like someone I would get along with.

I have to disagree with you about incidents like the CO movie theater shooting. You made an awful lot of assumptions in that paragraph.

First of all, you assumed that the "good guys" in the theater would be over eager and start shooting willy nilly. In a previous paragraph you commended carry permit gun owners as responsible. Here you're saying that they are "over eager." 

If they were four guys *without *legal carry permits like your friend who drinks and shows off then I would agree. But, statistics clearly show that the overwhelming majority - I repeat *OVERWHELMING MAJORITY *- of carry permit gun owners are like your old man and myself. We practice shooting in order to hone our skills, keep our weapons out of sight, try to calm down or walk away from an argument rather than enflame it, and completely understand that deadly force is a last resort.

BTW, the darkness in the theater would be to the advantage of the "good guys." The flash from the shooter's gun would give away his location immediately and provide a beacon to aim in on and take him out.

Could the good guys have caused some collateral damage? It's possible, but once the shooter started firing and people were dying that is no longer a consideration. Taking out the active shooter so that he can't kill or injure any more people is the primary goal.

As a civilian, if I see some scumbag robbing a 7Eleven store with a gun I wouldn't take any action unless he started shooting people. Let the prick take the money. Getting into a gunfight over a few hundred dollars is not worth it. However, once he starts shooting all bets are off. He has to be taken out as fast as possible.

Each situation is different, but the rule of thumb is to protect people from serious physical injury and/or death. 

- Mike


----------



## SpeedStick (Feb 11, 2010)

Krauthammer said:



> “I don’t doubt that the President’s statement was 100% sincere and 100% knee-jerk.
> 
> He has no idea what the gun was, how it was obtained, who the person is, or what the motive is. What does he do if it turns out it was a terrorist? Obama himself said there’s a special category if it’s a terrorist. We don’t know whether it is or not.
> 
> And to make a pronouncement at this time when, I hate to say it, the bodies are still warm and the wounded are now in surgery, I think is at least premature.”


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

birthday_massacre said:


> why do all the countries with good gun control have ZERO mass shootings this year yet the USA has almost 300?
> Also you don't have to ban all guns, but banning semi automatic guns is a good start.
> 
> Also after they took back the guns the shootings dropped drastically , that wouldn't have happened if they did nothing.
> ...


How many rights are you willing to give up to stop people from dying? We could save a whole bunch of people every year by banning cars. I know some people will say it's different because cars aren't designed for killing and guns are but as far as I'm concerned death is death. Die from a gunshot or a car wreck, I'd still be just as dead and my body wouldn't know the difference. So not only would we save about 30,000 lives every year but it would be great for the environment and we'd all be healthier since we'd be walking or biking everywhere. You'd still be allowed to use your car if your job was too far away or you were disabled or there was an emergency or something. Banning people from using cars would do a lot more good than banning guns but I bet you wouldn't go for it and neither would most people because it would take too much effort on their part.

Now what if I said I had no problem giving up my right to drive a car? And what if I also volunteered your rights away as well? That's exactly what liberal gun grabbers are doing. They're okay with giving up their right to own guns and hey that's fine by me if they wanna do that but they also want to give up my gun rights and the rights of over 300 million people. That's not okay. Your chances of dying in a mass shooting are so small that it's not a rational fear to have and so for me giving up my 2nd amendment rights isn't worth it. The Aussies apparently felt otherwise and that's up to them but most Americans don't agree. Don't like it, go move to Australia.


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

Where are people getting this idea that there have been 300 mass shootings so far this year? I'm curious.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> Where are people getting this idea that there have been 300 mass shootings so far this year? I'm curious.


I think they are including everytime more than one person is injured in an incident so even some dumbass dumps a couple rounds in a 7/11 it is now a mass shooting, 'cause there sure as fuck haven't been 300 of these twatfucks similar to Oregon.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

_I find it interesting that the United States is in first place in the world with *88 guns per 100 people.* Switzerland is in fourth place worldwide with *45 guns per 100 people*. Yet, Switzerland has had only 1 mass shooting in recent years which occured in 2001.

People in Switzerland are as vehemently opposed to gun control as the gun owners in the United States and virtually everyone keeps guns in their homes. Yet, crime is miniscule compared to crime in the U.S.  This seems to fly in the face of the liberals who blame guns for violence. There are plenty of guns in Switzerland, but very little violence and crime.

I reiterate - violence in the U.S. is a mental health issue that is exacerbated by narcotics and over prescription of legal pharmaceuticals. In addition, the sissified "me, me" generation that has evolved over the last 50 years abetted by the mass media has twisted the mentality of a huge number of Americans. 

- Mike_

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works

*The country had one mass shooting in 2001, but a resulting anti-gun referendum failed to pass. The Swiss will not give up the gun. Can their system work in the U.S.?
*
By Helena Bachmann / Geneva Dec. 20, 2012

Even as the gun-control debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., *the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms*. ..

...*the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public*...

...Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita...*Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low*: ...

...The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. *Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased.*

...One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — *is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation...
*
READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Batko10 said:


> ...The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of *mental illness*, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of *automatic firearms and selective fire weapons*, which are banned.
> 
> *is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation...
> *


Heres why the US has a fucking problem. We don't screen for mental illness, let everyone have a collection of functional firearms, including military grade and treat guns as a fucking toy.


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

As far as I know - and I may be wrong - America's constitution and amendments etc have not been changed since being implemented. If I'm wrong then inform me and disregard all I say:


This is a gun from the 1790s, which is when the second amendment was written:










The shooter in question here apparently had 13(?) guns. Multiple pistols, a couple of rifles and a shotgun. Now if you were to search for a pistol you'd likely find a recent Glock. If you were to search even for a 'hunting' rifle you'd find something with obvious killing power, and a shotgun, well, is a fucking shotgun.

Guns have evolved throughout the last 250~ years. *Why can't the amendments?*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> How many rights are you willing to give up to stop people from dying? We could save a whole bunch of people every year by banning cars. I know some people will say it's different because cars aren't designed for killing and guns are but as far as I'm concerned death is death. Die from a gunshot or a car wreck, I'd still be just as dead and my body wouldn't know the difference. So not only would we save about 30,000 lives every year but it would be great for the environment and we'd all be healthier since we'd be walking or biking everywhere. You'd still be allowed to use your car if your job was too far away or you were disabled or there was an emergency or something. Banning people from using cars would do a lot more good than banning guns but I bet you wouldn't go for it and neither would most people because it would take too much effort on their part.
> 
> Now what if I said I had no problem giving up my right to drive a car? And what if I also volunteered your rights away as well? That's exactly what liberal gun grabbers are doing. They're okay with giving up their right to own guns and hey that's fine by me if they wanna do that but they also want to give up my gun rights and the rights of over 300 million people. That's not okay. Your chances of dying in a mass shooting are so small that it's not a rational fear to have and so for me giving up my 2nd amendment rights isn't worth it. The Aussies apparently felt otherwise and that's up to them but most Americans don't agree. Don't like it, go move to Australia.


That information has been posted in this thread a number of times with a link. And if you follow the link, it shows each shooting. Here is the link http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

You are not giving up any rights , you are just making stricter gun control, using your logic, its like saying, oh making stricter laws against drunk driving is taking away our right to drive. 

Your logic is so terrible its just laughable. And yes its totally different. People are not using cars to kill people intentionally. You just look super ignorant when trying to compare the two. You actually make your case even weaker when you try doing so. 

The mass shootings in the US are so far ahead of most other countries, something needs to be done about it. Stop putting your head in the sand and pretending the it will fix itself on its own it won't.

There is nothing wrong with making sure people don't get guns illegally. Also why does any civilian need a semi automatic gun?

I would love for you to answer me that one.

Also most americans not too long again didn't believe blacks or even women should have the same rights as white men. And people like you were saying the same thing, oh you don't like it, leave america. You do know we live in a democracy right? 

I just find it laughable anyone who thinks we don't need stricter gun laws. I guess you are not into saving lives.


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> I just find it laughable anyone who thinks we don't need stricter gun laws. I guess you are not into saving lives.


thats it man, but i've come to realize these leftist want a ww3, these people want innocent people to die... it's the only way their actions make sense....

like this nut job.....



HardKoR said:


> Gun violence isn't even near as bad as some think,


so you're saying i can gun down the people you care about most in this world, and you'll smile and say ''we'll gun violence was worse in 93'' wtf is wrong with you !?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> _I find it interesting that the United States is in first place in the world with *88 guns per 100 people.* Switzerland is in fourth place worldwide with *45 guns per 100 people*. Yet, Switzerland has had only 1 mass shooting in recent years which occured in 2001.
> 
> People in Switzerland are as vehemently opposed to gun control as the gun owners in the United States and virtually everyone keeps guns in their homes. Yet, crime is miniscule compared to crime in the U.S. This seems to fly in the face of the liberals who blame guns for violence. There are plenty of guns in Switzerland, but very little violence and crime.
> 
> ...


The US should ban semi automatic weapons which would be huge. . Then just follow what else they do in Switzerland. What is the point of having semi automatic guns?

here is what is banned in Switzerland

Generally prohibited arms are:

Automatic firearms such as machine guns, etc.
Automatic knife when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Butterfly knife when the blade more than 5 cm and total length of more than 12 cm
Throwing knives; regardless of the shape and size
Symmetrical daggers when blade length less than 30 cm
Brass knuckles
Shock rods
Throwing Stars
Skidding with armrest
Stun guns
Weapons that imitate an object of utility as shooting phones, etc.

That would be an easy place for the US to start, by banning those same things in the US.

So would you be ok with the USA having the same gun laws as Switzerland ?

yes or no.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Elly Elephant said:


> so you're saying i can gun down the people you care about most in this world, and you'll smile and say ''we'll gun violence was worse in 93'' wtf is wrong with you !?


What I am saying is since then gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, contrary to what all you gun banishing folk think is the solution. Since '93 my family has a statistically better chance of not getting shot now than then. You seem to think just ditch guns and the problem is solved, I mean lots of shit is banned but still available, i.e. drugs.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

HardKoR said:


> What I am saying is since then gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, contrary to what all you gun banishing folk think is the solution. Since '93 my family has a statistically better chance of not getting shot now than then. You seem to think just ditch guns and the problem is solved, I mean lots of shit is banned but still available, i.e. drugs.


The thing with pro gun people like you is, you don't want stricter gun control because you know it will prove you wrong that stricter gun control will cause less shooting deaths. 

If you ban semi automatic guns for example, the problem will get better and you will have less shooting deaths. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just lying to themselves or is just plain ignorant.


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

HardKoR said:


> What I am saying is since then gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, contrary to what all you gun banishing folk think is the solution. Since '93 my family has a statistically better chance of not getting shot now than then. You seem to think just ditch guns and the problem is solved, I mean lots of shit is banned but still available, i.e. drugs.


well that is true, the government is corrupt, incompetent and useless..... but to me that says ''we need to remove these fucks from office'' rather than..... ''lets bring on more guns''

If i was in charge of the united states, you wouldn't have this problem, because i wouldn't fuck around.... you deal ice, coke, heroine, guns ect, you wont be seeing light again when we catch you... i would also make it legal for the co's to beat them daily.... give em medical checks to keep them alive and suffering as long as possible though....

honestly answer this.... if those were the rules, how many wanna be tough guys would be left... not many.... if any.... but yeah.... lets submit to these thugs instead... that'll be good for our childrens future......

people will spin it and call me sick, but it worked 2000 years ago... it'll work now....... besides if your a decent person you'd have nothing to worry about XD

think of it like dealing with a bully, whats more effective, reasoning with them.... or giving them a taste of their own medicine.... personally i think it's the second one.......


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> The US should ban semi automatic weapons which would be huge. . Then just follow what else they do in Switzerland. What is the point of having semi automatic guns?
> 
> here is what is banned in Switzerland
> 
> ...


If you read the article carefully you would know that Switzerland does *NOT* ban *SEMI-AUTOMATIC* guns. They ban *AUTOMATIC* guns, i.e. *MACHINE* guns. *AUTOMATIC* guns, i.e. *MACHINE *guns, are also banned in the United States.

You should educate yourself on the difference. Simply put, a semi-automatic gun will fire one round every time you pull the trigger. An automatic gun, i.e. machine gun, will continue to fire rounds until the finger removes pressure from the gun's trigger.

Banning all semi-automatic weapons would mean banning all rifles, shotguns, and handguns except for: bolt action rifles, double barrel and pump shotguns, and revolvers. In other words, 90% of the guns presently legal would have to be declared illegal and confiscated. Good luck with that!

Possession of an automatic gun, i.e. machine gun, is a Federal offense punishable by *10 years in prison *and up to a *$250,000 fine (YES - TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS)*.

*The above penalty not only includes a ready to fire automatic gun, but any gun that can be converted to an automatic gun.* This is why when AK-47 rifles are imported into the U.S. they are not allowed in with the original receiver. The importing company gets the rifles WITHOUT automatic receivers and must put in a compliant receiver. 

Back in the day they imported the AKs with original receivers that were converted to semi-automatic mode. However, they were easy to re-convert back to automatic. 

Most of the items in you Switzerland list are against the law in the U.S. including* brass knuckles, gravity knives, automatic and switchblade knives*.

- Mike


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

VRsick said:


> If Sandy Hook didn't change things, nothing will. This is just something America will have to deal with because people are too stubborn.


reading this thread has made me realize this, i don't care anymore .... fuck it... if americans are happy to have their CHILDREN GUNNED DOWN, then why should i care ?

if their ''rights'' are more important then their children's safety..... who am i too tell them no... their clearly a bunch of savages anyway......

so fuck it, do nothing let this shit keep happening because muriccca fuuuckk yeah'' and all that shit....

like t.i said ''living in the land of the free..... free just to murder me''




> I know radio prolly ain't gonna play this... but chopper going off in the hood man like Afghanistan or the Gaza strip somewhere man.
> Yeah, we hear it so much we probably numb to it by now. After all, it's the American way right?





> Let me ask you something
> Tell me why you can get more for being C.O. than you can for being a teacher?
> Tell me why it means more to the government to pay the people
> Who got to watch over the prisoners more than the people
> Who got to keep the children from becoming prisoners? That make sense?


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> The thing with pro gun people like you is, you don't want stricter gun control because you know it will prove you wrong that stricter gun control will cause less shooting deaths.
> 
> If you ban semi automatic guns for example, the problem will get better and you will have less shooting deaths. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just lying to themselves or is just plain ignorant.


Actually if you follow the data banning seminauto rifles will do very little reduce deaths, as the majority of the deaths are cause by hand guns, and of the smaller caliber bullets as well.

You know nothing about me. I will agree that if you could magically make every gun disappear you would solve the problem, however I am a realist and it is impossible to do so. My point is that American gun violence has gone down with the increase of concealed carry and home gun ownership, the graphs don't lie.

The problem with these mass shootings goes deeper that guns, way deeper. These dipshits have serious problems, take guns away and these fuckers will still go off, lets say with a knife/sword instead, while less deaths would occur, using Elephant's logic then you would totally be ok if someone knifed your loved ones because "hey it still less violence than when we had guns."

Also I am sure as fuck not saying the solution to this problem is more guns, while conceal carry and home gun ownership has lowered gun deaths it will it get rid of it. Not even the solutions anti gunners have would solve it, I bet there are still people in OZ and the UK who still die of gun violence.

This shitfuck didn't go killing people because of guns, but because of a deeper underlying problem that is hard to control. The guns were his tools, yes take the guns away and it is harder for him to take out his actions but he would still go off with a knife or worse a homemade bomb. Fix the person, identify what goes wrong with these individuals and guns, knives and bombs be damned, no one dies.


----------



## solarstorm (Jan 18, 2015)

Batko10 said:


> That was an interesting post. I'd like to meet your old man. He sounds like someone I would get along with.
> 
> I have to disagree with you about incidents like the CO movie theater shooting. You made an awful lot of assumptions in that paragraph.
> 
> ...


I tried to note when I talked about psych screenings that one of the considerations for licensing should be one's intentions for the weapon (ie. are they using it to compensate for insecurity / looking for opportunities to play hero) or is it more about being cautious and prepared in case it's ever needed? 

Again, I'm more worried about mental states than a lot of the other issues debated. There are very different types of people that own guns and you seem to be in the same category as my dad, uncles, etc... I've known both responsible and shitty gun owners. I'm more worried about the right people owning guns than I am people buying AR-15s, having large clips, or pistol grips. You could own a rocket launcher for all I care if you're the right kind of responsible person. The person is the concern. 

Ones intentions is a legit concern. In NY, you need to write a letter to a judge to request a concealed carry permit. My dad wrote about being an outdoors guy and how the laws of "Hunting, Camping, or going to/from a range" weren't broad enough for his uses. He talked about being able to be protected from wildlife moreso than person-to-person protection. He wanted to carry broadly to be prepared, if necessary.

Meanwhile, my wife's uncle is a retired prison guard that had a job-issued pistol and mandatory training until he left the job a year ago. He worked primarily upstate, but was sent to Rykers here and there when they needed additional staff. He wrote for a carry permit noting that he wanted extra protection for him and his family, given the number of inmates that have threatened him over the years. His permit was denied. The judge was concerned he was too willing and too eager to use that gun. To the judge, it already sounded like the guy was envisioning/fantasizing about how + who he'd use it on. 

After every shooting, the NRA President gives a speech (or five) using the same argument - that a "Good guy with a gun" will stop a "Bad guy with a gun" and therefore, we should have fewer restrictions and more people carrying. There are lots of people who that likely applies to and a handful of people that you don't want it to apply to. To use notable examples everyone can be familiar with - there are also guys like George Zimmerman, who went out of his way to 'play cop' following a teen, instigating a fight, and shooting the teen - even when the 9/11 operator asked him to stay in his car. A couple guys with that kind of hero fantasy could be dangerous in a crowd. I can't imagine those types being so cautious in their firing/use.

You bring up a damn fine point about the muzzle flash in a dark theater, though. Never even thought of that one.


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

HardKoR said:


> Actually if you follow the data banning seminauto rifles will do very little reduce deaths, as the majority of the deaths are cause by hand guns, and of the smaller caliber bullets as well.
> 
> You know nothing about me. I will agree that if you could magically make every gun disappear you would solve the problem, however I am a realist and it is impossible to do so. My point is that American gun violence has gone down with the increase of concealed carry and home gun ownership, the graphs don't lie.
> 
> ...


look, i get that your a hillbilly from texas.... and all but where are these knife attacks in new zealand and Canada ? australia ? uk ?

seems this stuff on happens in america... with guns... think about it.... or don't ....


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

solarstorm said:


> You bring up a damn fine point about the muzzle flash in a dark theater, though. Never even thought of that one.


Thanks! Both of your posts were insightful and I agree with alot of what you wrote. 

I'm not surprised, but I have to say that the judge who denied your uncle the carry permit on his "impression of him" is a typical New York City liberal asshole. Unless there was a solid, valid reason not to issue your uncle a carry permit a former corrections officer should get one without a hassle. 

I guarantee you that the judge has a carry permit and a revolver or semi-automatic under his robes. He knows that those fuckers are not playing games and will go after court and law enforcement if they get a chance.

Rikers is a fucked up place with really bad people. I put a number of them there back in the '70s and '80s when I was on the job. I take my hat off to your uncle for working in that rat hole. I wouldn't work corrections for any money. That is truly the most thankless job on earth. 

Anyway, it's nice talking to you. Your people sound like they are solid, down to earth folks. 

- Mike


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Actually if you look up the graphs for gun homicides in the UK after the ban there was an increase before there was a fall and deaths are at a rate similar to before the ban.

These violent acts are not a gun problem but an American problem. Cultures are wildly different. I am far from a Texas hillbilly but a second generation Mexican American from the seventh largest city with one of the lowest crime rate of large cities that is composed of whites as a minority and Hispanics as an overwhelming majority.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

HardKoR said:


> Actually if you follow the data banning seminauto rifles will do very little reduce deaths, as the majority of the deaths are cause by hand guns, and of the smaller caliber bullets as well.
> 
> You know nothing about me. I will agree that if you could magically make every gun disappear you would solve the problem, however I am a realist and it is impossible to do so. My point is that American gun violence has gone down with the increase of concealed carry and home gun ownership, the graphs don't lie.
> 
> ...


Its time to destroy you.

Here you go











Checkmate , game over.

Just shows in the US the states were the stricter gun laws have less shootings per 100,000 people.

So tell me how stricter gun laws don't work? The numbers back up they do. People like you crack me up that you keep denying what the facts say.

Don't please with the BS oh he would have used a knife instead. you can't do mass killings with a knife, and a bomb LOL . Really?

So all the countries when they get stricter gun laws they use bombs instead? Stop making stuff up, you are just making yourself look bad.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> If you read the article carefully you would know that Switzerland does *NOT* ban *SEMI-AUTOMATIC* guns. They ban *AUTOMATIC* guns, i.e. *MACHINE* guns. *AUTOMATIC* guns, i.e. *MACHINE *guns, are also banned in the United States.
> 
> You should educate yourself on the difference. Simply put, a semi-automatic gun will fire one round every time you pull the trigger. An automatic gun, i.e. machine gun, will continue to fire rounds until the finger removes pressure from the gun's trigger.
> 
> ...


I know the difference. 

I didn't say Switzerland banned semi automatically, I was just saying the US should start with that, in addition to what Switzerland banned and I listed that off. I can see the confusion since I worded it weird. I also should have been more clear, I should have said semi automatic rifles not hand guns. That was my bad. 

Both should be banned in the USA (semi and auto rifles ) . There is no point in anyone having semi or automatic rifles. .

Why would anyone need that? And yes the US should ban all those kinds of guns. Anything that makes it simple to fire off a succession of a lot of rounds one after the other.

90% of the guns should be illegal.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its time to destroy you.
> 
> Here you go
> 
> ...


Funny how this topic comes out every time there is a mass shooting which occur in the states at the top of that list.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Both should be banned in the USA (semi and auto rifles ) . There is no point in anyone having semi or automatic rifles. .
> 90% of the guns should be illegal.


So, you believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the U.S. Do you also believe that they should be banned in Switzerland???

Since you say that 90% of guns should be banned I assume you also believe that semi-automatic hand guns should banned in the U.S.? Does that also go for Switzerland?

- Mike

P.S. Since automatic guns are banned in both the U.S. and Switzerland I'm dropping them from the discussion.


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

OXITRON said:


> As far as I know - and I may be wrong - America's constitution and amendments etc have not been changed since being implemented. If I'm wrong then inform me and disregard all I say:
> 
> 
> This is a gun from the 1790s, which is when the second amendment was written:
> ...


 @Batko10 @birthday_massacre @solarstorm
Could any of you read my post and tell me why I am wrong if I am please? :mj2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

HardKoR said:


> Funny how this topic comes out every time there is a mass shooting which occur in the states at the top of that list.


You are not even making sense. There is a reason why the US needs better gun control , its because they top the list. But you are claiming the US does not need better gun control.





Batko10 said:


> So, you believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the U.S. Do you also believe that they should be banned in Switzerland???
> 
> Since you say that 90% of guns should be banned I assume you also believe that semi-automatic hand guns should banned in the U.S.? Does that also go for Switzerland?
> 
> ...


Yes they should. There is no need for semi automatic rifles. I would love for you to tell me what the point of semi auto riles are for civilians? You don't think its over kill for someone to protect themselves with a semi auto rifle?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

OXITRON said:


> @Batko10
> @birthday_massacre
> @solarstorm
> Could any of you read my post and tell me why I am wrong if I am please? :mj2


No one is saying all guns should be banned, just certain guns. And guns should be harder to get. You don't even have to amend the constitution, you are just making the gun laws more strict.

Don't listen to pro gun people, they are acting like if we make it harder to get guns that is taking way peoples rights.

Those are the same kind of people the act like, letting gay people get married, is changing the constitution when its not.

They just lie to try to scare people into thinking americans are losing their rights.

And you are correct, when they made that law guns are nothing like they are today.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

OXITRON said:


> @Batko10
> @birthday_massacre
> @solarstorm
> Could any of you read my post and tell me why I am wrong if I am please? :mj2


I know you didn't tag me, but you are sorta wrong. The Prohibition amendment was repealed in the constitution.


And a Amendment repealing the 2nd admendment would be pretty much impossible. You'd need 2/3rds of both the House and senate to agree to propose the amendment, then you would have have 3/4ths of the states agree to it before it becomes amended to the constitution.

so yeah good luck trying to get passed.


----------



## solarstorm (Jan 18, 2015)

OXITRON said:


> @Batko10
> @birthday_massacre
> @solarstorm
> Could any of you read my post and tell me why I am wrong if I am please? :mj2


You're not wrong regarding the interpretation and changing of laws. I'm not entirely sure why I'm being mentioned here. I'm one of those 'anti-gun liberals.' I just think limits on hardware won't change the inherent problems behind all of these shootings.

I'd focus more on tightly monitored background checks and mandatory psychiatric screenings as part of licensing. I'm not a pro-gun guy, but I'm not in favor of creating a ton of meaningless regulations with minimal improvement. People can cause a shitload of damage with a goddamn six shooter. They're guns. Killing people is what they exist to do. I'd rather widen the number of people banned from ownership for rage issues, substance issues, mental issues, etc... than let damn near everyone buy guns, but limit the hardware. 

Ultimately, education, job opportunities, healthcare, etc... are the real solution. To establish a more stable and civil culture, we can't have so many people struggling to survive. We can't have adults that are barely literate and unable to think critically. We need time for a generation to pass and civil/intelligent individuals to raise their children and imbue proper character from day one - moving past the 'toxic masculinity' that drives so many to conflate 'being a man' with violence (and militarism). 

Batko10 cited Switzerland and I read an interview on this subject not that long ago. It was to 'fact check' the ways gun-rights activists cite their nation's policies. The widespread gun ownership was tied to national defense/mandatory service for all citizens and the official noted that if we want to improve our violence issues, we should work more to replicate their system of benefits, reduced workweeks, increased paid maternity + paternity leave, largely free college, etc... Because the culture is the source of their peace moreso than the guns or anything else.

TLDR - We need to focus on the Economy, Education, and the Culture. Until that's fixed, we need to focus on the people more than hardware. Deeper background checks. Psychiatric evaluations as part of licensing. Perhaps even a gun registry (though some fear government abuse with that).


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

Kaep'n Crunch said:


> I know you didn't tag me, but you are sorta wrong. The Prohibition amendment was repealed in the constitution.
> 
> 
> And a Amendment repealing the 2nd admendment would be pretty much impossible. You'd need 2/3rds of both the House and senate to agree to propose the amendment, then you would have have 3/4ths of the states agree to it before it becomes amended to the constitution.
> ...


Just for the record I wasn't asking _how_ the amendment would be changed. I was basically asking why people would be so against something so dated changing to be more applicable to the current age.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Repealing the amendments from the foundational bill of rights would be a terrible precedent to set. Tyrannical governments kill way more people than lone wolf madmen.

Not sure if anyone's posted this yet:

OREGON PASSES BACKGROUND CHECK BILL WITH CONFISCATION PROVISION

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...round-check-bill-with-confiscation-provision/



> On Tuesday, Democrats in Oregon’s Senate ignored sheriffs and passed SB 941 by a vote of 17-13. This bill applies background checks to all gun sales in the state, retail and private, and provides a mechanism by which the guns of certain persons can be confiscated.
> 
> Bill sponsor Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) has been touting SB 941 as a way to fight crime by forcing everyone to go through the same background checks that individuals buying a gun in a gun store go through. Several sheriffs and Republican lawmakers made clear that criminals do not go through background checks and will not go through background checks with or without SB 941.
> 
> ...


right wing news source caution etc

Should be noted that this bill would *not* have prevented Thursday's tragedy.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes they should. There is no need for semi automatic rifles. I would love for you to tell me what the point of semi auto riles are for civilians? You don't think its over kill for someone to protect themselves with a semi auto rifle?


You didn't answer my question regarding semi-auto handguns? Should those be banned, also? And, should both semi-auto rifles and pistols be banned in Switzerland as well as the U.S.???

- Mike


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> You didn't answer my question regarding semi-auto handguns? Should those be banned, also? And, should both semi-auto rifles and pistols be banned in Switzerland as well as the U.S.???
> 
> - Mike


I did answer your question. I said semi automatic rifles should be banned but the hand guns are fine, as long as there are strict laws for getting them.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> I did answer your question. I said semi automatic rifles should be banned but the hand guns are fine, as long as there are strict laws for getting them.


And that includes Switzerland as well as the U.S.?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

You can't compare what works in a homogeneous country like Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries with what works in a largely multicultural country like the USA. There are a ton of factors at play beyond what their gun laws happen to be. I know people really want to simplify this issue to justify whatever their political positions are, but unfortunately these are complex issues. Anyone who can't handle the complexity probably shouldn't discuss the issue at length, let alone make proposals that would be enforced via violence (the state).


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> And that includes Switzerland as well as the U.S.?


Yes there is no point to letting people get semi automatic rifles. What is the point of them? You still have to answered that question.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> You can't compare what works in a homogeneous country like Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries with what works in a largely multicultural country like the USA. There are a ton of factors at play beyond what their gun laws happen to be. I know people really want to simplify this issue to justify whatever their political positions are, but unfortunately these are complex issues. Anyone who can't handle the complexity probably shouldn't discuss the issue at length, let alone make proposals that would be enforced via violence (the state).


Did you see the state by state stats I posted on how many shootings based on how strict the gun laws are? If they just make all states have strict gun laws these shootings would go down.

Also here is an article for those of you who think, oh If i have a gun I can stop a bad guy.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/tex...ots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> Did you see the state by state stats I posted on how many shootings based on how strict the gun laws are? If they just make all states have strict gun laws these shootings would go down.


You are making a fundamental logical error here. Correlation is not causation. Just because areas with stricter gun laws have less gun violence does not mean that the stricter gun laws *cause* there to be less gun violence, or more importantly violence overall. Here's a great and humorous site you should check out which illustrates this concept:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Also, that chart you posted is far from conclusive. There are quite a few states with minimum gun laws that are very high up that list. You can't just explain those away as anomalies, you have to recognize all of the other factors and variables at play. It's not as simple as you want it to be, unfortunately. 



> Also here is an article for those of you who think, oh If i have a gun I can stop a bad guy.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/tex...ots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/
> 
> Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away


Come on, this is intellectually lazy. You know posting an example of a situation where a "good guy with a gun" made a mistake doesn't debunk the idea that having more "good guys with guns" is better for society. Cops make mistakes which lead to innocent deaths as well, do you want to get rid of all police? (If so, we should discuss this idea further. )


----------



## muttgeiger (Feb 16, 2004)

It's sad. I feel like the internet has contributed more to this type of thing than the availability of guns, or religious shit or anything else. The ease of communication that the internet has brought has been a great addition to society in many ways, but it seems like people are just getting angrier and angrier, and more riled up about shit, because they are constantly deluged with people yelling about various 'issues'. Whenever something comes up, everyone acts like they are in a fucking cult, where anyone who doesn't 100% agree with their opinion is some kind of evil enemy. There are a lot of stupid people, or lonely people, or people who are just lost, who are easily influenced out there, and think taking these actions are 'right', because of the outside influences, that quite frankly, didn't used to exist on such a large scale. It's not just mentally ill people anymore who do these things. 

You can't ban the internet obviously, but I really do think the advent of that kind of instant communication has had some unintended negative effects on society. One of the main ones being an equal forum for people who would have otherwise been ostracized and ridiculed by society to spout crazy shit, with no easy way for others to tell if they are nuts, making shit up, or just trying to get a rise out of people. Thereby influencing vulnerable people with radical views on things, that lead to this type of behavior.

Might sound crazy, but I really think that's the main societal change that has led to the change in peoples' behavior, rather than anything we can regulate by law unfortunately.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes there is no point to letting people get semi automatic rifles. What is the point of them? You still have to answered that question.


The semi-automatic rifle is for home defense. I have a Yugo M70 AK-47 semi-auto and a semi-auto AR-15.

During a home invasion there is a good chance that there will be more than one perpetrator and/or you will miss with your first shot. By the time you pull the bolt back and load a second round into the chamber of a hunting rifle you will be a dead man.

With a loaded 30 round mag in my semi-automatic AK I'm not going to miss! Also, I will keep shooting until I am sure the perp is not going to get up. No, only an idiot tries to wound someone attacking him. You shoot to kill and put as many rounds into your adversary as possible.

This probably sounds barbaric to the hand wringing liberals on the forum. I hope they don't have to experience a home invasion to understand that I am correct on this.

On the other hand, I use a bolt action Soviet Mosin 91-30 long rifle for deer hunting. I removed the WW II scope and attached a regular deer hunting scope. The rifle is deadly accurate and the 7.62x54R cartridge has plenty of knock down power.

The difference between shooting a deer and a human breaking into my home is that I have all the time in the world to take my shot at the deer. And, if by some fluke I miss, it was Mr. Buck's lucky day. I abide by Robert DeNiro's philosophy of "ONE SHOT" when hunting ("The Deer Hunter"). 

Also, the deer doesn't shoot back!

- Mike


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

muttgeiger said:


> It's sad. I feel like the internet has contributed more to this type of thing than the availability of guns, or religious shit or anything else. The ease of communication that the internet has brought has been a great addition to society in many ways, but it seems like people are just getting angrier and angrier, and more riled up about shit, because they are constantly deluged with people yelling about various 'issues'. Whenever something comes up, everyone acts like they are in a fucking cult, where anyone who doesn't 100% agree with their opinion is some kind of evil enemy. There are a lot of stupid people, or lonely people, or people who are just lost, who are easily influenced out there, and think taking these actions are 'right', because of the outside influences, that quite frankly, didn't used to exist on such a large scale. It's not just mentally ill people anymore who do these things.
> 
> You can't ban the internet obviously, but I really do think the advent of that kind of instant communication has had some unintended negative effects on society. One of the main ones being an equal forum for people who would have otherwise been ostracized and ridiculed by society to spout crazy shit, with no easy way for others to tell if they are nuts, making shit up, or just trying to get a rise out of people. Thereby influencing vulnerable people with radical views on things, that lead to this type of behavior.
> 
> Might sound crazy, but I really think that's the main societal change that has led to the change in peoples' behavior, rather than anything we can regulate by law unfortunately.


Interesting take and full of truth I believe. Social ostracism was a great tool for society and it has been diminished quite a bit with the advent of anonymous mass communication. 

Another thing worth mentioning is that the killer wrote about his admiration for Vester Flanagan, writing "A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone ... His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day ... Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight." 

So the allure of going from being a nobody to being made infamous by the media which make a gigantic meal out of these situations seems to have been a significant motivation for him.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> You are making a fundamental logical error here. Correlation is not causation. Just because areas with stricter gun laws have less gun violence does not mean that the stricter gun laws *cause* there to be less gun violence, or more importantly violence overall. Here's a great and humorous site you should check out which illustrates this concept:
> 
> http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> 
> ...


You have an excuse for everything when the facts don't back up your point of view. You are better than that. Its been proven time and time again stricter gun laws means less shootings and gun related deaths. The facts are there. You can choose to ignore them all you want. 

How is the list far from conclusive? It shows the states with stricter gun laws have less shootings and the ones with less strict or no gun laws, have way more shootings LOL. It totally backs up the point how gun control means less shootings and shooting deaths. And like I said before Australia is a perfect example of how gun related shootings and deaths dropped once they got stricter laws but of course people like you have an excuse for that too.

That example is not intellectually lazy . Its a perfect example of how even so called good people with guns can shoot people by mistake, just like good people that are careless and leave out their guns then their kids shooting their brother or sister or friend with that gun because they are playing with it.

I love how you keep ignoring all the stats and facts.

There is no point in even debating with you because you can accept facts.

And you really don't want to get into cops shooting people, especially unarmed black people. You will lose that argument as well.


----------



## muttgeiger (Feb 16, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> Another thing worth mentioning is that the killer wrote about his admiration for Vester Flanagan, writing "A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone ... His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day ... Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."
> 
> So the allure of going from being a nobody to being made infamous by the media which make a gigantic meal out of these situations seems to have been a significant motivation for him.


Yeah I was actually going to mention that lessening the coverage might help deter these type of events, for that exact reason, but I just didn't feel like typing all night..

It's a sticky situation all around. You know the networks are just going to go for the ratings, plus many of the victims families do appreciate their loved ones to be commemorated publicly, I'm sure. If all media just adopted a policy of ignoring the identity of the actual shooters, it would be great, but I don't see them going for it...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> The semi-automatic rifle is for home defense. I have a Yugo M70 AK-47 semi-auto and a semi-auto AR-15.
> 
> During a home invasion there is a good chance that there will be more than one perpetrator and/or you will miss with your first shot. By the time you pull the bolt back and load a second round into the chamber of a hunting rifle you will be a dead man.
> 
> ...



You don't need a semi auto rifle for home defense , please, its overkill (pun intended) . A hand gun is just as good. 

As for a home invasion, how about not trying to shoot the person and just trying to escape? You see tons of stories where someone with a gun thought someone was breaking in, and it was really a family member sneaking into the house late at night. Also wouldn't a semi automatic hand gun work fine? You don't need to reload that after one shot.

You don't need a semi automatic rifle. its laughable you think having an AK in a house for home protection is ok. 

You are not correct on this, you don't need a semi automatic rifle to protect yourself, a semi automatic hand gun will work just fine.

I really hope you don't experiencing killing a family member with your gun, to see that I am right on this.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't need a semi auto rifle for home defense , please, its overkill (pun intended) . A hand gun is just as good.


I've got those, too! But, for home defense the AK is short enough to manuever, gives you a solid base when firing, is deadly accurate at close range, and has serious knock down power. The flash suppressor will keep you from losing your night vision in the dark. 




birthday_massacre said:


> As for a home invasion, how about not trying to shoot the person and just trying to escape?
> You don't need a semi automatic rifle. its laughable you think having an AK in a house for home protection is ok.


Be driven out of your home by some punks breaking in??? Now, that is *LAUGHABLE*! Only a cringing, cowardly liberal would even suggest that.

I live alone since my son got married, but I wouldn't even think of letting some scumbags drive me from my home. And, what about the younger guy who has a family. What is he going to do? Put the kids under his arms and tell his wife to run for it???

Using the excuse that you "might mistake a family member for a burglar" to run from your home like a scared rabbit is pathetic. I'm done discussing anything with you. You put the icing on the cake with this last statement. 

- Mike


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Batko10 said:


> Using the excuse that you "might mistake a family member for a burglar" to run from your home like a scared rabbit is pathetic. I'm done discussing anything with you. You put the icing on the cake with this last statement.
> 
> - Mike


Interesting you say "like a rabbit". Look up r/K gene selection theory with regards to conservatives and liberals if you are not already familiar with the concept. I think you will find the idea very interesting and relate-able.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> I've got those, too! But, for home defense the AK is short enough to manuever, gives you a solid base when firing, is deadly accurate at close range, and has serious knock down power. The flash suppressor will keep you from losing your night vision in the dark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OH so you are one of those guys who think you are a tough guy LOL.
As for that younger guy, yeah you are right he should open fire, which would make the robber if the have a gun fire back and possible hit that child you talked about. Yeah that is really the best way to go .

That is all I need to know about you.



CamillePunk said:


> Interesting you say "like a rabbit". Look up r/K gene selection theory with regards to conservatives and liberals if you are not already familiar with the concept. I think you will find the idea very interesting and relate-able.



Yeah this is coming from someone that ignores facts and basically puts in his fingers and his ears and goes LA LA LA LA LA because you cant accept the truth and the facts that better gun laws means less shootings and deaths.

I wonder what is must be like to live in your world where you don't accept facts. You probably still think the world is flat.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I didn't ignore any facts, I pointed out why the statistics you provided weren't conclusive, tried to explain a pretty simple logical concept that correlation is not causation, and you completely ignored me to launch ad hominems. Why should I continue the discussion any further with a person who ignores my arguments and attacks me? That would be insane.

Google "higher gun ownership lower crime". You will find a ton of results, some arguing and providing statistics that higher gun ownership equates to lesser crime. Some will argue and provide statistics saying the exact opposite, as you have. Statistics can be manipulated and conclusions can be drawn based on correlations made from focusing on certain variables. Nothing is conclusive about any of it. Correlation is not causation. I'm sure you just pull up whichever stats fit your confirmation bias, but those of us who think critically actively work against our confirmation bias and consider all of the data, not just that which supports our preconceptions.

I know all of this will go over your head and you will just launch more ad hominems, but hopefully some people are able to see the sense in what I am saying.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I didn't ignore any facts, I pointed out why the statistics you provided weren't conclusive, tried to explain a pretty simple logical concept that correlation is not causation, and you completely ignored me to launch ad hominems. Why should I continue the discussion any further with a person who ignores my arguments and attacks me? That would be insane.
> 
> Google "higher gun ownership lower crime". You will find a ton of results, some arguing and providing statistics that higher gun ownership equates to lesser crime. Some will argue and provide statistics saying the exact opposite, as you have. Statistics can be manipulated and conclusions can be drawn based on correlations made from focusing on certain variables. Nothing is conclusive about any of it. Correlation is not causation. I'm sure you just pull up whichever stats fit your confirmation bias, but those of us who think critically actively work against our confirmation bias and consider all of the data, not just that which supports our preconceptions.
> 
> I know all of this will go over your head and you will just launch more ad hominems, but hopefully some people are able to see the sense in what I am saying.


They are conclusive, that is the point. You are just making up stuff and that is the issue. You claim they are not conclusive because you don't agree with them. They back up every other stat in places like Australia that got stricter gun control. 

All these countries that have stricter gun laws than the US and they have less mass shootings than the USA, not sure how much more evidence you need. You are not making any sense and that is the problem. The only people that will agree with you are the gun nuts that ignore all the facts about gun control.

You can't refute how the countries with better gun control have way less mass shootings than the USA. But yeah keep up with your illegal premise that more guns means less shootings. 

The only stats you need are how strict a countries or states gun control is and then show how many mass shootings those countries or states have.

If you really don't think those two things have a correlation you really don't know what you are talking about.

And you can talk about a causation all you want but there is an association with stricter gun laws and less gun violence , something you cannot deny.

I just love how you try to explain away all the stats that prove better gun laws make less shootings yet you can't show any evidence to show how less gun laws will give less gun shootings.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

fpalm


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

keep up with your illegal premise, cp.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

"If every child in every school had an Apache Gunship, these kinds of things wouldn't happen." - America Circa 2021


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

birthday_massacre said:


> That information has been posted in this thread a number of times with a link. And if you follow the link, it shows each shooting. Here is the link http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015


So any time more than one person is hurt in a shooting we're calling it a mass shooting now? Okay.



> You are not giving up any rights , you are just making stricter gun control, using your logic, its like saying, oh making stricter laws against drunk driving is taking away our right to drive.


You and others on here keep talking about doing what Australia did. They went around confiscating guns in a mandatory gun buyback and now if you want a license you need to prove you have a genuine need to own a gun and self defense doesn't count as a reason. That's called giving up your rights.



> Your logic is so terrible its just laughable. And yes its totally different. People are not using cars to kill people intentionally. You just look super ignorant when trying to compare the two. You actually make your case even weaker when you try doing so.


Whether you die intentionally or not you'd still be dead so what's the difference? It's not like you'd be less dead if you die in a car accident.

The point I'm making here is, what are you willing to give up to save lives? We could save tens of thousands of lives and help the environment by banning car travel unless it's necessary but most people would see that as a violation of their freedom. Even if we ban guns nearly a third of all murders would still happen and even more than that actually since some people would just find another way to get the job done. What rights are you willing to give up to stop those murders?


----------



## southrnbygrace (Jun 14, 2014)

IMO, everytime someone gets behind the wheel and drives drunk then kills someone in wreck they have intentionally used a car as a murder weapon.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

southrnbygrace said:


> IMO, everytime someone gets behind the wheel and drives drunk then kills someone in wreck they have intentionally used a car as a murder weapon.


Agreed, I think they deserve about as much as a murderer personally, you made the choice now pay.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> So any time more than one person is hurt in a shooting we're calling it a mass shooting now? Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you going to seriously lie about the stats? All the shootings counted 4 or more people were wounded or killed. Where are you seeing just one person was wounded or killed?
The DEF of a mass shooting is a shooting in which 4 or more people or wounded or killed and if you look at the numbers all of them had 4 or more.

You can't even be honest about the numbers.


In Australia you can still own a gun can you not? So you didn't lose any rights. And what they did WORKED. I guess you are not into saving lives .

People don't use cars to mass murder people. Its a huge difference, its laughable you even try to use that. But using your logic people that are caught drunk driving shouldn't have their license taken away because in your eyes that is taking way their right to drive.

I just love logic like yours.

And i quote

"Even if we ban guns nearly a third of all murders would still happen and even more than that actually since some people would just find another way to get the job done."

Right so lets not save 66% of those lives that can be prevented by better gun control. Are you seriously going to claim that. And no they won't find other ways to mass murder people because it didn't happen in Australia or other countries that have strict gun laws. Stop making stuff up. You need facts to fact up your point of view.

Also you are not losing your rights to have a gun. The laws to get one are just more strict.

Not sure how you claim making it harder to get a gun is losing your rights.

I am done with this thread because the pro gun people in this thread can't even be honest and ignore all the stats and facts to back up how better gun control saves lives.


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

Humans need to behave better and not kill each other.


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

Banning Alcohol would save way more lives in the US then banning guns.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

Shit happens I mean lets say we take everyone's guns away even the criminals and the gang bangers not going to happen though yeah

lets say the police want to come into your house and rape your wife and kids and or an angry mob wants to steal your shit and cause u and your family harm and the nearest police station is almost an hour away 

what the hell are you going to do about it yeah exactly I personally think people who don't have guns are brain washed idiots 

now if this college had a few officers with guns walking around well I guarantee you a lot less people would be dead right now

its common sense people 

how do you stop a bad guy with a gun ? a good guy with a gun 

end of story idiots


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

Truthbetold said:


> Banning Alcohol would save way more lives in the US then banning guns.


lets ban cars too that outta do it


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

polar bear said:


> lets ban cars too that outta do it


people need to travel and drive to work.


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

95% of people have guns to hunt or prevent home invasion.


----------



## Adam Cool (Oct 1, 2012)

Truthbetold said:


> Banning Alcohol would save way more lives in the US then banning guns.


Funny though Tobacco in 2014 killed more People than all of the wars that were going on combined(about 160K died from war while At least 600K died from second hand smoking)


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

*Re: Oregon shootingsl*



Adam Cool said:


> Funny though Tobacco in 2014 killed more People than all of the wars that were going on combined(about 160K died from war while At least 600K died from second hand smoking)


Yes i would say that cigarettes should be illegal and i'm not trolling or being sarcastic.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

OXITRON said:


> As far as I know - and I may be wrong - America's constitution and amendments etc have not been changed since being implemented. If I'm wrong then inform me and disregard all I say:
> 
> 
> This is a gun from the 1790s, which is when the second amendment was written:
> ...


The actual text of the Amendment hasn't changed. And the actual words are never going to change because it's nearly impossible to change the Constitution. Since the Constition was ratified there have been 17 Amendments. 2 were a result of the Civil War, 1 was a result of Vietnam, 2 cancel each other out as the 21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment. 

But while the words haven't changed the law on guns is drastically different. First things first, there are federal gun laws. And when the law was written you were allowed to own the top of line best fire arm money could buy. You certainly can't do that anymore.


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

Truthbetold said:


> Banning Alcohol would save way more lives in the US then banning guns.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Pretty sure that's among the worst ideas in modern history.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Has to be troll that's advocating Prohibition (of anything to be fair) in the United States.


----------



## MillionDollarProns (Feb 10, 2011)

Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to hogwarts tomorrow. hufflepuff uprising


----------



## Truthbetold (Sep 22, 2015)

OXITRON said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
> 
> Pretty sure that's among the worst ideas in modern history.


News Flash it's not the 1920's anymore that was almost a century ago.

Al Capone and the Real Machine Gun Kelly are long gone.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

Truthbetold said:


> people need to travel and drive to work.



it was clearly a joke bud


----------



## Count Vertigo (Jun 30, 2015)

RIP to the victims and my condolences to their families, *you know something is totally fucked up when you go like "Oh not again" when a mass-murder of children is reported.*

I'd like to hear the idiots defending their machines designed with the sole purpose to kill other beings, human or not go spout the same bullshit to the families of all the children murdered.


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

People can say gun control worked in Australia all they want but the way I see it is an entire nation of people gave up their rights to prevent a small number of deaths. That doesn't work for me at all. I've been alive and kicking for 27 years and never once was afraid that I'd die in a mass shooting. This stuff might seem common but remember America has 300 million plus people. The chances of it happening to you or someone you know are so small it's just not a rational fear to have.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

I always find that shows like Last Week Tonight cover things like this quite well.








MillionDollarProns said:


> Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to hogwarts tomorrow. hufflepuff uprising


Some of you Gothamites are alright.

Don't go to the Gotham Rogues game tonight.

Take control of your city.









I'm not sorry, I'm not!


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

Banning guns isn't the answer. There's plenty of nations that manage to have low gun-related deaths without the need for strict gun laws.

Spotting these idiots early, with a strong investment in mental health is the way to go. Its easy to blame guns, as it provides an easy media narrative to go after.

What people don't take into account is how gun ownership has saved vulnerable groups, like women or minority groups from harassment or potential assault. These are never reported. 

Take the politics out of these situations and maybe we can get a true long-term solution at averting these tragic events.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> People can say gun control worked in Australia all they want but the way I see it is an entire nation of people gave up their rights to prevent a small number of deaths. That doesn't work for me at all. I've been alive and kicking for 27 years and never once was afraid that I'd die in a mass shooting. This stuff might seem common but remember America has 300 million plus people. The chances of it happening to you or someone you know are so small it's just not a rational fear to have.


If the US cut the death rate like Australia did, the US would save over 16,000 lives , you call that just a few LOL.

In AUS they cut the gun suicide rate by 57% and the gun homicide rate by 42%

Please tell me how that is just a few lives?

Also two more shootings today in the US in Texas and Arizona.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

_The people in Roseburg, Oregon let Obama know in no uncertain terms that they don't appreciate him exploiting the shooting tragedy in their town to further his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

- Mike
_





Roseburg, Oregon Protests Obama Visit: ‘Chicago Needs You’

by Lee Stranahan, Oct 9, 2015










ROSEBURG, Oregon — As helicopters whirred overhead, bringing President Obama to the southern Oregon community that was the scene of a mass casualty shooting last week at a community college, hundreds of protesters gathered below to voice their objections to the president’s visit.

As Breitbart News has been reporting all week, many residents of Roseburg had strong feelings about the president using the UCC shooting to promote his pro-gun control agenda, and many of those residents turned out in force mid-morning on a Friday. The protesters began arriving at 8 AM and by 12:33 PM cars were still arriving.

“*Obama Unwelcome*” and “*Go Golf*” were among the signs the protesters carried. Many of the anti-Obama crowd brought American and Gadsen flags to the event and *people were openly carrying firearms*.

One protester held a sign saying that President Obama should be in Chicago rather than Roseburg. “He needs to be in Chicago, in his own hometown and his own home state,” the woman told Breitbart News. “This is where there is a gun problem; we don’t have one here.”


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

They are uneducated ******** what do you expect? They are the same people who backed the racist confederate flag, and also want creationism taught in pubic schools.


----------



## Batko10 (Sep 10, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> They are uneducated ******** what do you expect? They are the same people who backed the racist confederate flag, and also want creationism taught in pubic schools.


_This is the typical liberals' argument against the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is ignorant, uneducated, and a racist *******.

The facts do not bear out this claim unless we agree that* 52% of all Americans* and *54% of black Americans *are ignorant, uneducated, racist ********. 

- Mike
_
ABC, NBC Skip Poll Finding Massive Support for the Second Amendment 

*By Scott Whitlock | December 11, 2014 | 5:12 PM EST 

*"Pew found that* 52 percent of Americans *say Second Amendment rights are more important than gun control — up 7 percentage points from just after the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 schoolchildren and six faculty dead. 

That’s the highest approval rating in two decades, and it’s being driven in part by changing attitudes among black Americans, who are increasingly likely to view guns as good for public safety. Pew found *54 percent of blacks *now say firearms protect people from being victims of crimes, compared to 41 percent who say they are a public safety risk. 

Just two years ago, only 29 percent of blacks said guns were a public safety boon. “*Over the past two years, blacks’ views on this measure have changed dramatically*,” Pew researchers said."

*READ THE FULL ARTICLE:*
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...poll-finding-massive-support-second-amendment


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Batko10 said:


> _This is the typical liberals' argument against the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is ignorant, uneducated, and a racist *******.
> 
> The facts do not bear out this claim unless we agree that* 52% of all Americans* and *54% of black Americans *are ignorant, uneducated, racist ********.
> 
> ...


Its a fact the confederate flag is a racist flag. if you don't know or think that you are ignorant. 
You really don't agree the south is really racist ? Its a fact a lot of the south is super racist. 
As for creationism being taught in schools, anyone who wants that is clearly uneducated because it means then reject evolution. how is that person not uneducated? How can anyone claim the earth is just 10,000 years old?


Also people are very ignorant if they think that gun controls violates the 2nd amendment . Gun control doesn't mean banning guns. Gun nuts need to stop claiming having better gun control is violating the 2nd 2nd amendment, it just makes them look ignorant. 

So in the US states that have the strict gun control laws are those states violating the 2nd amendment?'

Its been proven time and time again, better gun control means less gun violence and gun deaths. 

Not sure why anyone wouldn't want that.


----------



## Sephiroth (May 27, 2006)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its a fact the confederate flag is a racist flag. if you don't know or think that you are ignorant.
> You really don't agree the south is really racist ? Its a fact a lot of the south is super racist.
> As for creationism being taught in schools, anyone who wants that is clearly uneducated because it means then reject evolution. how is that person not uneducated? How can anyone claim the earth is just 10,000 years old?
> 
> ...


Raid tonight?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its a fact the confederate flag is a racist flag. if you don't know or think that you are ignorant.
> You really don't agree the south is really racist ? Its a fact a lot of the south is super racist.
> As for creationism being taught in schools, anyone who wants that is clearly uneducated because it means then reject evolution. how is that person not uneducated? How can anyone claim the earth is just 10,000 years old?
> 
> ...


Strict gun control does violate the second Amendment. The Constitution says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Infringed means, "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." A common synonym is the word "trespass." 

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to everyone. If the government goes too far in taking those rights away the law is going to have to pass strict scrutiny in the court, which most laws are unable. 

Regulations on guns are OK, that has been ruled on a few times and it has been fine. But if regulations end up being restrictions there could be some problems. 

Before you call me ignorant and uneducated I want you to know that I'm a semester and a half from graduating law school and I'm ranked 10th in my class.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its a fact the confederate flag is a racist flag. if you don't know or think that you are ignorant.
> You really don't agree the south is really racist ? Its a fact a lot of the south is super racist.


Compelling argument.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOUR STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
































or racist


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

stevefox1200 said:


> IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOUR STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*you're, or is that intentional?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

FITZ said:


> Strict gun control does violate the second Amendment. The Constitution says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Infringed means, "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." A common synonym is the word "trespass."
> 
> The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to everyone. If the government goes too far in taking those rights away the law is going to have to pass strict scrutiny in the court, which most laws are unable.
> 
> ...


How does strict gun control violate the second Amendment? You cant be serious. So all the states in the US that have strict gun control like MA where I live, we are having our 2nd amendment rights violated ? LOL

It sure does not feel like it to anyone that lives here. 

You act like stricter gun laws mean no one can own a gun which is a straw man people like you need to stop using. 

Show me all the problems in MA which is the 3rd most strict gun laws in the country. Where is the outcry that its tougher here to get a gun than in the south?

You are ignorant when it comes to this if you are going to claim stricter gun laws would violate the 2nd amendment. . Because like I said using your logic any state with strict gun laws are violating our 2nd amendment rights which is simply not true. I don't care what you are close to graduating from.

The only people that are worried about strict gun control are the ones who are worried they won't be able to get them legally if we have stricter gun laws.

Also when the whole right to bear arms thing was written into the constitution there was no such thing was semi automatic guns or rifles. 

Back then they were those single shot guns, that took forever to reload in most cases.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Compelling argument.


Care to refute either of the things I said?

Is the confederate flag not racist?
Is the south not the most racist part of the US?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> You act like stricter gun laws mean no one can own a gun which is a *straw man* people like you need to stop using.





birthday_massacre said:


> They are uneducated ******** what do you expect? They are the same people who backed the racist confederate flag, and also want creationism taught in pubic schools.


:leo


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> Care to refute either of the things I said?
> 
> Is the confederate flag not racist?
> Is the south not the most racist part of the US?


Gun registration and original firearm control was made to prevent minorities from buying guns in post civil war south 

They were afraid of the black man being as well armed as the white man

Former slaves were "too dangerous" to let have guns, too "high risk"


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its a fact the confederate flag is a racist flag. if you don't know or think that you are ignorant.
> You really don't agree the south is really racist ? Its a fact a lot of the south is super racist.
> As for creationism being taught in schools, anyone who wants that is clearly uneducated because it means then reject evolution. how is that person not uneducated? How can anyone claim the earth is just 10,000 years old?
> 
> ...



Illinois has probably the toughest gun laws in the country and look at Chicago I mean c'mon now criminals aren't going to follow the law I think that's pretty obvious 

though the floor is yours what do you feel should be done? How are you proposing that we have better gun control?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> Illinois has probably the toughest gun laws in the country and look at Chicago I mean c'mon now criminals aren't going to follow the law I think that's pretty obvious
> 
> though the floor is yours what do you feel should be done? How are you proposing that we have better gun control?


You do know making stricter gun laws will make it harder for criminals to legally and illegally get guns. That is what the stats show. 

Better gun control is easy, just follow what other countries have done or what the US states are doing the have strict gun control and less mass shootings.

Also here is the problem with making Chicago for a case against gun control is that 60% of the guns recovered from Chicago are from out of state. They are getting them illegally because its easy to get them in other states than it is IL. 24% of the guns are from Indian which has pretty much no gun control laws at all. 

If all states have tough gun laws the crime in chicago would go WAY down just like it did in Australia. They pretty much eliminated mass shootings in their country, So using them as a model is a good start.

I also love how you ignore all the other states with strict gun laws and have way less gun violence than the states with less gun control.










That is a chart of the states with the least gun violence and if you look at the ones near the top, what do they have in common? Most of the strictest gun laws in the country.

The ones at the bottom with the most gun violence have the most laxed gun laws.

You also act like IL is one of the worst gun related death states in the country when that is simply not true.

If you want a place to start for better gun control , its simple.

All states should require a permit, and a universal background check. They should also requiring a waiting period as well.

Start with that and go from there.

You really think those three simple things shouldn't be a law when trying to get a gun?


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know making stricter gun laws will make it harder for criminals to legally and illegally get guns. That is what the stats show.
> 
> Better gun control is easy, just follow what other countries have done or what the US states are doing the have strict gun control and less mass shootings.
> 
> ...


I'm going to be honest with you I think that graph is a load of shit nor do I have a lot of trust in the us government, the united states legal system, or the media 

Tell me what's stopping the government from rejecting guns to certain groups of people who don't even have a criminal record or mental health issues and what's stopping the government from keeping files on everybody with guns and then one coming to everybody's home and taking them away 

also lets be real how do we even know this shooting at Oregon even happened? Read up and watch some videos on Sandy Hook, 911, etc


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> I'm going to be honest with you I think that graph is a load of shit nor do I have a lot of trust in the us government, the united states legal system, or the media
> 
> Tell me what's stopping the government from rejecting guns to certain groups of people who don't even have a criminal record or mental health issues and what's stopping the government from keeping files on everybody with guns and then one coming to everybody's home and taking them away
> 
> also lets be real how do we even know this shooting at Oregon even happened? Read up and watch some videos on Sandy Hook, 911, etc


LOL you have to be kidding me. So you are one of those conspiracy theorist . I guess you believe all that BS Jesse Ventura and his buddy (his name escapes me) say, like about how Obama is a Reptilian alien right.

The graphic is a fact and of course you are going to claim you think its bullshit because it proves you wrong and shows how better gun control means less gun violence..

Here is another graphic that is updated as of Oct 1st 2015.










That are pretty much the same. Two different graphs from two different years, show pretty much the same thing. 

As for you hypothetical question, they don't do it in the states as the top of the list for strict gun control, like my state of MA. We are the 3rd strictest state in the USA and what you claim just does not happen.
You just show what kind of person you are that you claim factual states are not true and you have hypotheticals that don't even happen in strict gun states.

You are a perfect example of how some pro gun people are ignorant.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

polar bear said:


> I'm going to be honest with you I think that graph is a load of shit nor do I have a lot of trust in the us government, the united states legal system, or the media
> 
> Tell me what's stopping the government from rejecting guns to certain groups of people who don't even have a criminal record or mental health issues and what's stopping the government from keeping files on everybody with guns and then one coming to everybody's home and taking them away
> 
> also lets be real how do we even know this shooting at Oregon even happened? Read up and watch some videos on Sandy Hook, 911, etc


(Y)

I don't like guns. I've never seen one in my life. This documentary changed my view on gun control.








birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you have to be kidding me. So you are one of those conspiracy theorist .


There are videos of the crisis actors all over youtube. When you dig deeper you'll find the shootings at least suspicious. How can you know if you don't at least look in to it? How many lies do your government/media have to tell you before you question them?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> (Y)
> 
> I don't like guns. I've never seen one in my life. This documentary changed my view on gun control.
> 
> ...


Right, so the stats the show actually shootings that can be backed up , are lies. So the GOVT lied about the shooting in Oregon and it really didn't happen?

Are you really going to go with that ? You do know its very easy to prove the shootings did or did not happen, and to show what states have strict and non strict gun control.

Please tell me how the GOVT can lie about that LOL

Also are other GOVTs lying when they have strict gun control and they don't have as many mass shootings as the US does?

Everyone is lying about gun control.

LMAO Is that the best you can do

This is why pro gun people have no credibility.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> Right, so the stats the show actually shootings that can be backed up , are lies. So the GOVT lied about the shooting in Oregon and it really didn't happen?


Most of the US shootings since Sandy Hook are staged imo.



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you really going to go with that ? You do know its very easy to prove the shootings did or did not happen, and to show what states have strict and non strict gun control.


How is it easy to prove?



birthday_massacre said:


> Please tell me how the GOVT can lie about that LOL


They can lie about whatever they want. Most will believe whatever they say. Most don't believe the official version of 9/11 yet the media still sell it to this day.



birthday_massacre said:


> Also are other GOVTs lying when they have strict gun control and they don't have as many mass shootings as the US does?


I'm not pro gun. If you consider it a possiblility that the shootings are staged by your government, it's probably not a good idea to hand over your guns to them is all I'm saying. :justsayin


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> Most of the US shootings since Sandy Hook are staged imo.
> 
> 
> How is it easy to prove?
> ...


This has to be a troll post. It does not even deserve a reply


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Fuck a duck the conspiracy theorists in this place are fucking bat shit crazy.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> This has to be a troll post. It does not even deserve a reply


I apologise for my fellow Englishman, I had no idea conspiracy theorists existed here, I shall promptly put him on ignore.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

:troll


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

Buckley had a good stance on gun control, i agree with him, Just wanted to share this because other people might come to enjoy his work like i do


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

Do you know what that means, my liberal friends?

It means guns are predominantly being used as a means to express one's #RightToDie .

Restricting guns means you're severely restricting the American public's #RightToDie . This makes you a violator of basic human rights, which makes you a vile, intolerant bigot.


----------



## Badbadrobot (Mar 24, 2015)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.
> 
> Do you know what that means, my liberal friends?
> 
> ...



You know it's real easy to picture a load of you looking like huck Finn not a care in the world some 150 years out of date with your ideologies, fighting like a fart in the wind, to think your pov is remotely relevant in today's society.


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.
> 
> Do you know what that means, my liberal friends?
> 
> ...


did you watch the video i posted ? 11,000 deaths in the u,s from guns.... and NO suicides ect don't count..... that's just the straight up murders......

try a bit harder.... please......


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong. The US has the highest gun ownership and highest number of mass shootings by far, and I'd probably add to that accidental shootings, the most tragic of which involve young children.

And sure, there are more things involved in the act than just the tool used.

However, to the pro-gunners I would say: How can you not even support any kind of change to laws or more restrictions as a trial? To see if it works? Based on other countries, it has worked. So why not try it out?

Or do you honestly believe there that gun availability has absolutely nothing to do with this alarmingly high rate of mass shootings?

I just don't understand at this point, shooting after shooting after shooting, that even the most ardent pro gun advocate wouldn't soften on the issue? What if it was your family, your kids involved in this stuff?


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

yeahbaby! said:


> I just don't understand at this point, shooting after shooting after shooting, that even the most ardent pro gun advocate wouldn't soften on the issue? *What if it was your family, your kids involved in this stuff?*


this is why im such an angry young man these days..... how can you be postive when the majority of people think the way the quote describes....

how can you look at sandy hooks and say ''fuck those kids, my rights are more important'' 

spin it how you want, but thats what pro gun people truly believe.....

edit: the part i bolded says it all... these people have no soul....no nothing.... their animals....otherwise they would be as disgusted as i am at innocent people losing their life due to nutters......with guns.......


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

yeahbaby! said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong. The US has the highest gun ownership and highest number of mass shootings by far, and I'd probably add to that accidental shootings, the most tragic of which involve young children.
> 
> And sure, there are more things involved in the act than just the tool used.
> 
> ...




yes the US has the highest bun ownership and the highest number of mass shootings


Here is a stat for you.


The US is 5% of the worlds popular but accounts for 31% of the worlds mass shootings. The US has about 320 million people and there are about 270m to 310m guns in the country. 

So the US only accounts for 5% of the worlds population but they account for 1/3 of all mass shootings, and pro gun people think more guns in the answer LOL


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Badbadrobot said:


> You know it's real easy to picture a load of you looking like huck Finn not a care in the world some 150 years out of date with your ideologies, fighting like a fart in the wind, to think your pov is remotely relevant in today's society.


That's all swell, but you're still an intolerant bigot.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Elly Elephant said:


> did you watch the video i posted ? 11,000 deaths in the u,s from guns.... and NO suicides ect don't count..... that's just the straight up murders......
> 
> try a bit harder.... please......


Yes, and those 11,000 deaths represent just one-third of all gun deaths. As I've already stated, two-thirds of gun-related deaths are suicides, which is a good thing.

Why?

Because it's allowing people to exercise their right to die, while simultaneously helping with population control, and decreasing humankind's carbon footprint.

Overall, gun violence is a net positive for both the U.S. and the world.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> yes the US has the highest bun ownership and the highest number of mass shootings
> 
> 
> Here is a stat for you.
> ...


The sad thing is at the end of the day it's all about money. The gun companies stand to lose immeasurable profits if gun restrictions are brought, so their lobbyists work overtime to influence congress under the guise of freedom and the 2nd amendment.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

I have said here that I have no problem with background checks to make sure that responsible people are the ones that have guns and not felons or mentally ill people. We could prevent many of these shootings by keeping firearms out of the hands of people that are batshit crazy and don't need to get their hands on them. And I am a card-carrying NRA member, gun owner, and unabated apologist for the 2nd Amendment. 

That being said, it keeps going back to we already have laws on the books, those need to be enforced first and foremost. We're seeing that in many of the cases of these shootings, the enforcement was lax and people keep slipping through the cracks when it comes to being able to get their hands on guns. If you took care of that first, a lot of these tragedies could be averted. Putting more laws on the books is just frivolous when you're not enforcing the ones already there. 

The problem though is that we have people who just automatically think that banning guns is the only answer. They are unwilling to listen to any other answer other than, "Just give us the guns and we will all be fine." They are unwilling to listen to any other possibility. Giving up my guns will never be an option.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> The problem though is that we have people who just automatically think that banning guns is the only answer. They are unwilling to listen to any other answer other than, "Just give us the guns and we will all be fine." They are unwilling to listen to any other possibility. Giving up my guns will never be an option.


So you're criticising people for not being willing to listen to possible solutions and then ending your sentance by saying that you refuse to listen to a possible solution.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you have to be kidding me. So you are one of those conspiracy theorist . I guess you believe all that BS Jesse Ventura and his buddy (his name escapes me) say, like about how Obama is a Reptilian alien right.
> 
> The graphic is a fact and of course you are going to claim you think its bullshit because it proves you wrong and shows how better gun control means less gun violence..
> 
> ...


I never claimed that Obama was a reptilian or anything like that now your putting words in my mouth though I live near Chicago and have spent some time up in Montana (my brother lives there) and I just don't believe your graphs that's all

If you watch the local news or are even in Chicago especially the south side or west side you know its pretty damn bad and I know the number is per 100,000 though I'm sorry I just don't take your graphs or the media all that seriously 

not to mention I find it very hard to believe that Maryland is so low on the list as well but all in all I'm just not buying it

if someone wants to break into my house and harm me or my family well I've glad I got an alarm system and a few guns to protect myself


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> I never claimed that Obama was a reptilian or anything like that now your putting words in my mouth though I live near Chicago and have spent some time up in Montana (my brother lives there) and I just don't believe your graphs that's all
> 
> If you watch the local news or are even in Chicago especially the south side or west side you know its pretty damn bad and I know the number is per 100,000 though I'm sorry I just don't take your graphs or the media all that seriously
> 
> ...


You do know that IL is more than just Chicago right? IL has over 12m people living in it. That is the 5th most in the country. The stats are not only about Chicago its about the whole state. I just love when people are wrong and then choose it ignore the facts and claim they don't believe the facts LOL


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

yeahbaby! said:


> The sad thing is at the end of the day it's all about money. The gun companies stand to lose immeasurable profits if gun restrictions are brought, so their lobbyists work overtime to influence congress under the guise of freedom and the 2nd amendment.


only a few gun companies are making any type of profit now and days

Colt relies on government contracts and barely sell to the civilian market and that's one of the biggest in the world

H&K, one of the biggest gun makers in Europe, is damn near broke after failed prototype after failed prototype 

Most sales are secondhand or stockpile and the "powerful" gun producers are all tied up in military production 

There is basically no money in guns right now


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know that IL is more than just Chicago right? IL has over 12m people living in it. That is the 5th most in the country. The stats are not only about Chicago its about the whole state. I just love when people are wrong and then choose it ignore the facts and claim they don't believe the facts LOL



Chicago has more residents then the rest of Illinois combined so I win you lose LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I'm right your wrong end of story


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> Chicago has more residents then the rest of Illinois combined so I win you lose LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> 
> I'm right your wrong end of story


What are you talking about. Chicago has a resident population of 2.7m, the whole state of IL has a population of 12.8m. 

So 2m is more than 10m?

At this point, it seems like you are just a troll or just not that smart. Not point in debating with you anymore. You don't even know what you are talking about.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> What are you talking about. Chicago has a resident population of 2.7m, the whole state of IL has a population of 12.8m.
> 
> So 2m is more than 10m?
> 
> At this point, it seems like you are just a troll or just not that smart. Not point in debating with you anymore. You don't even know what you are talking about.


I believe his point is that per 100000 statistics favor states with larger populations

if you have 10 and 1 is a murder you could say that 10% of them are murderers but if you have 1,000,000 people and 10,000 are murderers you say that the second group has fer less murderers statistically even though they have far more individually


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> What are you talking about. Chicago has a resident population of 2.7m, the whole state of IL has a population of 12.8m.
> 
> So 2m is more than 10m?
> 
> At this point, it seems like you are just a troll or just not that smart. Not point in debating with you anymore. You don't even know what you are talking about.


You and your bull shit internet statistics

One of these days your or someone you love is unfortunately going to find out that what I'm saying is 100 percent accurate


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> You and your bull shit internet statistics
> 
> One of these days your or someone you love is unfortunately going to find out that what I'm saying is 100 percent accurate


They are not internet statics. They came from the law center to prevent gun violence , CDC, and the NRA.

You can also easily verify any of these stats. All the stats back up what you are saying is WRONG. If you were right you could easily show and find evidence to back up your claim which you have not done.

You just say nope don't believe the facts, just like creationist do with evolution.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> They are not internet statics. They came from the law center to prevent gun violence , CDC, and the NRA.
> 
> You can also easily verify any of these stats. All the stats back up what you are saying is WRONG. If you were right you could easily show and find evidence to back up your claim which you have not done.
> 
> You just say nope don't believe the facts, just like creationist do with evolution.


What's evolution? :x:x:x:x

though in all seriousness I just don't believe your graphs and I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture here


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> What's evolution? :x:x:x:x
> 
> though in all seriousness I just don't believe your graphs and I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture here


How am i not looking at the bigger picture

The bigger picture is simple. More gun control = less gun related deaths. Every country that has stronger gun control and most states in the US that have stronger gun control have proven this.

So tell me how all those are wrong? You still have not done so.

if you don't want to agree with the US stats, look at Australia . They proved it. Oh but I guess you don't believe those stats either right


----------



## Undertakerowns (Jan 3, 2012)

From a person who actually has empathy for the victims- Why should I as citizen have to 

1. buy a gun
2. learn how to shoot
3. get a permit
4. then carry the gun in public at all times in order to feel safe. 

These kids go to college to get an education and are KILLED. Something has to do be done. I saw someone twitter say something like "The day we thought it was ok for children to die was the end of the gun debate"

I should not be killed because I'm a bystander. I have the right to move freely in public without having to worry about someone killing me. 

Do nothing is not an option anymore. So the people who are for guns what do you suggest we do? To those who are anti gun what do you suggest we do about the black market that will continue if guns are banned?


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> How am i not looking at the bigger picture
> 
> The bigger picture is simple. More gun control = less gun related deaths. Every country that has stronger gun control and most states in the US that have stronger gun control have proven this.
> 
> ...


probably not no though like I explained in the other thread I don't think you see the big picture here


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> probably not no though like I explained in the other thread I don't think you see the big picture here


I already answered your flawed logic in the other thread.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> I already answered your flawed logic in the other thread.



no you didn't and I'm done here


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> no you didn't and I'm done here


Of course I did, I destroyed your argument. You claimed stricter gun laws would violate peoples 2nd amendment rights, and I refuted that by asking, if the states like MA the have strict gun laws are they having their 2nd amendment rights violated.

Of course they are not. How are states with strict gun laws violating the 2nd amendment?


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

The libturds never want to disarm the state. The libturd "elites" never want to give up their own armed security. The libturds will never disarm private citizens. Ever.


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course I did, I destroyed your argument. You claimed stricter gun laws would violate peoples 2nd amendment rights, and I refuted that by asking, if the states like MA the have strict gun laws are they having their 2nd amendment rights violated.
> 
> Of course they are not. How are states with strict gun laws violating the 2nd amendment?



Yeah keep making shit up that I never said that and I never said they were violating the 2nd amendment you're something else you know that hahaha


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> Yeah keep making shit up that I never said that and I never said they were violating the 2nd amendment you're something else you know that hahaha


Here is your quote.



polar bear said:


> I'm right your wrong you're not even looking at the big picture
> 
> the 2nd amendment was made to prevent a rogue tyrannical government
> 
> sometimes to save a million people you got to kill a thousand if that makes sense



So tell me again how you were not taking about defending the 2nd amendment ?

How is making a stricter gun laws (like they have in MA or CA) in states that have lenient gun laws?

How is that a tyrannical government ?


----------



## polar bear (Jul 29, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Here is your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What ? I don't get what you're even getting at here ? I never said Masschusetts or Calfornia were violating the 2nd amendment I have not once said that 

Ok so here's what I said and what I stand by

The number of school shooting deaths would go down if there was an armed police officer or 2 in the schools 

I don't trust the media or the government 

I think your graphs or charts or whatever are full of shit


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

polar bear said:


> What ? I don't get what you're even getting at here ? I never said Masschusetts or Calfornia were violating the 2nd amendment I have not once said that
> 
> Ok so here's what I said and what I stand by
> 
> ...


If you don't think Masschusetts or Calfornia were violating the 2nd amendment then why are you implying, making stricter gun control would be violating the 2nd amendment? You said we need to protect the 2nd amendment.

So how is making stricter gun laws in those laxed states a problem them? 

You do know how many schools in the US there are right and you know how huge some colleges and schools are right?

Two police wouldn't be able to cover most schools. Where are you going to find all those armed guards?

Also school shootings are a very small percentage of all mass shootings. Its much easier and would bring down gun violence much more by making stricter gun laws.

Your idea is a terrible idea and wouldnt work.

Also only 13% of all mass shootings are in gun free zones. The answer is not add more guns, its give stricter gun control.

You just keep proving how ignorant you are by not believing the charts which are FACTS.

There is no point in debating someone that doesn't deal in facts. If you want to claim the are not correct then show evidence to refute those facts.

But of course you cant do that.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> How does strict gun control violate the second Amendment? You cant be serious. So all the states in the US that have strict gun control like MA where I live, we are having our 2nd amendment rights violated ? LOL
> 
> It sure does not feel like it to anyone that lives here.
> 
> ...


The 2nd Amendment was written to limit federal power. Until the 14th Amendment was passed states couldn't. It wasn't until 2010 that the Supreme Court expressly incorporated the 2nd Amendment. So in theory there could be all sorts of laws that states have passed that violate the 2nd Amendment and that hasn't been decided. 

But I wasn't saying that what certain states did now was unconstitutional. I was just trying to say that there is a line that cannot be crossed with gun regulation. And I would also imagine that a court would look at the issue a lot more severely if the law was passed at the federal level. I don't know where that line is. But if you start restricting the right to own guns for too many people there could be a problem.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

The definition of "mass shooting" does not mean only incidents like Oregon, but anywhere multiple people were shot, so a gang drive by of rivals on the corner of thugville counts as a "mass shooting"

I also mentioned that those graphs you provided were bullshit as they only provide info in a snap shot. It doesn't show if there had been an increase or decrease in gun violence in those states which have granted conceal carry. I provided actual graphs by an actually government run website and not some liberal run one pretending to be official. Also those graphs don't take into account quality of life as a factor, probably why Hawaii is great but Alaska blows. Also poverty levels also coincide with higher crime rates, and the states where there is lower poverty top those lists.

There're hundreds of graphs depicting a major decline in gun violence since the 90s, and even though there is a correlation to the increase of gun ownership which would suggest that armed citizens has reduced gun violence, it doesn't mean more guns will fix shit like these "mass shootings"

Funny over the past few weeks I read some articles, one where a guy raped, with a stick, and slit his teacher in the throat with a box cutter. One where a guy used a hatchet and ripped out his mother's heart. And another one I believed that involved a machete. In all these articles, everyone blamed the offender and claimed the guy as a nut, never mentioning the weapons. Mental health is a big issue, and people being responsible for their own damn actions and quit placing the blame somewhere else will help, you can take away or make guns harder to get, but it isn't gonna stop some batshit crazy asshole from doing what these guys did.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

FITZ said:


> The 2nd Amendment was written to limit federal power. Until the 14th Amendment was passed states couldn't. It wasn't until 2010 that the Supreme Court expressly incorporated the 2nd Amendment. So in theory there could be all sorts of laws that states have passed that violate the 2nd Amendment and that hasn't been decided.
> 
> But I wasn't saying that what certain states did now was unconstitutional. I was just trying to say that there is a line that cannot be crossed with gun regulation. And I would also imagine that a court would look at the issue a lot more severely if the law was passed at the federal level. I don't know where that line is. But if you start restricting the right to own guns for too many people there could be a problem.


I agree there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to gun regulation. But if all the states in the country for example followed CA gun regulations (which are the strictest in the country the last time I checked) that wouldn't be cross that line.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

HardKoR said:


> The definition of "mass shooting" does not mean only incidents like Oregon, but anywhere multiple people were shot, so a gang drive by of rivals on the corner of thugville counts as a "mass shooting"
> 
> I also mentioned that those graphs you provided were bullshit as they only provide info in a snap shot. It doesn't show if there had been an increase or decrease in gun violence in those states which have granted conceal carry. I provided actual graphs by an actually government run website and not some liberal run one pretending to be official. Also those graphs don't take into account quality of life as a factor, probably why Hawaii is great but Alaska blows. Also poverty levels also coincide with higher crime rates, and the states where there is lower poverty top those lists.
> 
> ...



Mass shootings are an incident in which someone with gun injuries and/or kills 4 or more people. Of course a drive by that kills or injuries 4 or more is a mass shooting but those are not usually reported.
Imagine if those kinds of incidents were reported like school shootings? Maybe there would be more calls for better gun regulation.

You do know you are making a case for better gun control when pointing this out right LOL. Gun violence is gun violence. It does not matter what kind a drive by or a school shooting
Both are just as bad as each other but the school shootings get more press. All kinds of mass shootings should get the same kind of press but they don't.

I don't even know what the point you are trying to make here. Its actually a point against the pro gun crowd, I just think its funny you think it's one for the pro gun crowd.

The US accounts for 33% of the worlds gun violence but only has 5% of the worlds population, that is all you really need to know that the US needs better gun regulations.

Even if you want to claim gun violence is down, the US is still one of the worst in the world and it should be much lower and would be with better gun regulations.

As for your laughable analogy those other guys killing or injuring people with box cutters, sticks or knives, once those weapons start killing as many people as guns do then we can talk not to mention there are not nearly the amount of mass killings with those weapons than there are for guns.

the graphs are not bullshit. Keep claiming that because you cant accept the truth. I already mentioned in another post with stats (and even mentioned in this) as a perfect example about how much gun violence went down after stricter gun control. But of course people like you ignore those stats as well.

But here are the stats for AUS once again since you wanted examples of pre and post gun regulation.

In the 7 years that followed the gun regulations in AUS the gun suicide rate dropped by 57%, and the gun homocide rate when down 42% (and that is not even counting just the people injured).

So if you cut those rates in the USA you really don't think that would save thousands of lives? And that is not just a snap shot, its based on 7 years before and 7 years after AUS got better gun regulations. So YOU ARE WRONG, JUST ACCEPT IT. 


I just love how gun nuts have to ignore stats and making terrible analogies to try to defend guns when you just make yourselves look even worse .


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> In the 7 years that followed the gun regulations in AUS the gun suicide rate dropped by 57%, and the gun homocide rate when down 42% (and that is not even counting just the people injured).


Of course the gun suicide rate went down. If someone wants to commit suicide they'll find another way. You're ignoring how many lives are saved by people having guns for self defence. Also ignoring the increase in violent crime for countries with strict gun control. Violent crime is huge here in the UK. We're not even allowed to carry a knife. Easy pickings for criminals.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> I agree there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to gun regulation. But if all the states in the country for example followed CA gun regulations (which are the strictest in the country the last time I checked) that wouldn't be cross that line.


Maybe? The 2nd Amendment has only applied to states for like 5 years. All of their restrictive laws are being challenged. And based on the _McDonald_ case in 2010 a gun law has pass "strict scrutiny." 

"To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest." 

Meaning if there is some way that the same interest (in this case gun safety) can met with a less restrictive means the lawmakers have to take the less restrictive path. 

The California gun laws are currently being litigated in federal courts right now (and that takes a while). I think that we're going to see another Supreme Court decision on gun control in the next couple of years. Their ruling in McDonald left some questions to be answered and it's a controversial issue in the US now. So I think they are going to make a ruling. 

And if that ruling goes in line with the McDonald case I think we could see less nation wide gun control on the state level. 

That's just speculation on my part I'll admit. And I will admit that for WrestlingForum purposes I only use google and wikipedia for my information (I use WestLaw enough in school). 

But just from a brief look it isn't 100% clear that the gun laws in California are constitutional.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> Of course the gun suicide rate went down. If someone wants to commit suicide they'll find another way. You're ignoring how many lives are saved by people having guns for self defence. Also ignoring the increase in violent crime for countries with strict gun control. Violent crime is huge here in the UK. We're not even allowed to carry a knife. Easy pickings for criminals.


The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries. All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves, but ignore the facts.

As for the surge for this year in violent crimes, it went up this year but it was down for the the past 20 years between 1995-2014, and the UK didn't just last year add strict gun control. 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/index.html

Also here is a fact . In 2013/14, there were 7,709 offences in which firearms were involved, a 5% decrease compared with 2012/13. Offences involving knives or sharp instruments fell by 2% between 2012/13 and 2013/14 (to 25,972). These falls follow reductions seen in a number of previous years.

So its bullshit that all the people that have gun violence , will just find other weapons. A small percent may, but the majority of them won't. The stats back that up.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

FITZ said:


> Maybe? The 2nd Amendment has only applied to states for like 5 years. All of their restrictive laws are being challenged. And based on the _McDonald_ case in 2010 a gun law has pass "strict scrutiny."
> 
> "To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest."
> 
> ...


The courts will decide if California are constitutional or not but looking at it, they are not. But of course the gun companies and REPs will be pressing the supreme court to claim they are not. 

If the courts do claim they are unconstitutional and make the gun laws in CA less strict, then CA has a pike in gun violence, which they will based on facts, its going to be a disaster. 

There is no need to have a conceal gun permit and even if they do, they should have a good reason to and should also have training on that gun. You down want some idiot that doesn't know how to use the gun having a concealed gun. Like that idiot lady who shot at shop lifters in a home depot parking lot. 

You really want more idiots like that running around with guns? A stray bullet could have killed someone or injured them. Not to mention guns are supposed to be for self defense not shooting at shop lifters who are driving away in a parking lot.

Also its fine about just using google and WIKI, that is all I use.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo (Feb 3, 2008)

birthday_massacre said:


> The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries. All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves, but ignore the facts.
> 
> As for the surge for this year in violent crimes, it went up this year but it was down for the the past 20 years between 1995-2014, and the UK didn't just last year add strict gun control.
> 
> ...


You do realize that guns that have stopped potential crimes are usually not reported?

What about the large proportion of gun crime that has been committed as a result of people that wouldn't get approved a gun in the first place?

You think in the ghettos they still won't get guns?

Banning guns is not only a clear breach of our personal liberty, but it also entrenches to much power in the hands of the lawless and monopolizes firearm violence with the state, whom we all know doesn't always make the best decisions.

Good rules are already in place, they just need enforcing correctly.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> The courts will decide if California are constitutional or not but looking at it, they are not. But of course the gun companies and REPs will be pressing the supreme court to claim they are not.
> 
> If the courts do claim they are unconstitutional and make the gun laws in CA less strict, then CA has a pike in gun violence, which they will based on facts, its going to be a disaster.
> 
> ...


he's describing the state of the law and you're asking him what he wants.

That's not an argument.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

fergieska said:


> So you're criticising people for not being willing to listen to possible solutions and then ending your sentance by saying that you refuse to listen to a possible solution.


Just those who think that the only solution is to ban all guns. 

We have gun control laws on the books, they just need to be more properly enforced. I have no problem with background checks being done in all cases of gun sales, I want to make 100% sure that the people who are getting their hands on firearms are of sound mind to be able to do so. 

There are plenty of other alternatives out there rather than the gratuitous "We don't need guns" crowd who are really the intolerant ones in this argument.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries.


Yes it increased.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]!OpenDocument

In 1997 the standardised suicide death rate was 14.6 per 100,000 persons, *the highest rate recorded since 1971*. The 1998 rate of 14.3 reflects a decline of 40 deaths from 1997.



birthday_massacre said:


> All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves, but ignore the facts.


Yes they did. Suicide increased and most moved to hanging or carbon monoxide gas as their method. Don't ignore the facts. :eva2












birthday_massacre said:


> As for the surge for this year in violent crimes, it went up this year but it was down for the the past 20 years between 1995-2014, and the UK didn't just last year add strict gun control.
> 
> http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/index.html


You can't trust UK stats at all. Whoever is in government at the time finds ways to lower them so they look good. Kind of like your unemployment rate in America. Right now there is a victim cap at 5. So if I beat someone up 20 times only 5 are counted as crimes.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> Just those who think that the only solution is to ban all guns.
> 
> We have gun control laws on the books, they just need to be more properly enforced. I have no problem with background checks being done in all cases of gun sales, I want to make 100% sure that the people who are getting their hands on firearms are of sound mind to be able to do so.
> 
> There are plenty of other alternatives out there rather than the gratuitous "We don't need guns" crowd who are really the intolerant ones in this argument.


Is there actually a "ban all guns" crowd that you speak off?

You see a lot of examples of the UK or Austrailia and neither country has banned guns they just have strict gun regulations.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

People there are over 100,000,000 million illegal guns in America alone. What are gun bans going to do? The cat is already out of the bag, deal with it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Muerte al fascismo said:


> You do realize that guns that have stopped potential crimes are usually not reported?
> 
> What about the large proportion of gun crime that has been committed as a result of people that wouldn't get approved a gun in the first place?
> 
> ...


There is a very small percentage of crimes that are stopped because of guns there are way more deaths because of guns. The bad far out weights the good. 

here is a heart warming story of how guns "save lives" from home invasions.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-san-antonio-man-mistakenly-shoots-kills-wife/

A man heard noises from down stairs while he slept. He got up with his shot gun and shot the "intruder" but OH it was really his wife.
He shot her dead.

This happens way more often then someone with a gun stopping a crime. 

The ghettos won't get guns as easily and gun violence will drop just like in Australia. Stop ignoring the facts. 

And why do people like you keep using the straw man about banning guns? Gun control doesn't mean you are banning guns. Its means stricter gun control.

Good rules are not in place in all states that is the problem. That is why the states with the most relaxed gun laws tend to have the most gun violence.

Its not working the stats back up its not working in those states. All the gun pro gun regulation people are asking for is to have the same gun regulations in the states that have the least gun violence in the ones that have the least gun regulations. 

You really think that is too much to ask? Last time I checked guns were not banned in those states.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> Yes it increased.
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]!OpenDocument
> 
> ...


Oh so now you believe stats because they one year backs up what you think.

Also you do know those numbers don't back up your POV right, since the hanging numbers went way up, way more than the gun suicides went down. 

Also suicide rates in AUS have been on a decline since then. In 2009 it was down to 14.9 per 10,000, by 2011 that number was down to 9.9. Which is LOWER than before the gun laws changed. 

UK stats now always cant be reliable , really? So you are going to ignore even more stats that back up gun control works LOL
But of course you believe stats that backed up what you think for one year but I guess you don't believe the decline stats that show how suicide rates have been going down in AUS.

You have zero credibility.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so now you believe stats because they one year backs up what you think.


No I don't but you do, so I'm playing along. :smile2:



birthday_massacre said:


> Also you do know those numbers don't back up your POV right, since the hanging numbers went way up, way more than the gun suicides went down.


What? They took away their guns and suicides went up. They had no guns so they chose another option and hung themselves. This is the opposite to what you have been saying. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Also suicide rates in AUS have been on a decline since then. In 2009 it was down to 14.9 per 10,000, by 2011 that number was down to 9.9. Which is LOWER than before the gun laws changed.


Good but I'm not sure why you attribute that to gun control. Suicide in 97 was at it's highest since 71 with no access to guns.



birthday_massacre said:


> UK stats now always cant be reliable , really? So you are going to ignore even more stats that back up gun control works LOL


Google uk violent crime statistics victim cap. 



birthday_massacre said:


> But of course you believe stats that backed up what you think for one year but I guess you don't believe the *decline stats that show how suicide rates have been going down in AUS.
> *


What has that got to do with gun control? It was at it's highest when there were no guns. fpalm


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

fergieska said:


> Is there actually a "ban all guns" crowd that you speak off?
> 
> You see a lot of examples of the UK or Austrailia and neither country has banned guns they just have strict gun regulations.


Having regulations is one thing, but there is such a thing as having such stringent gun regulations that it is practically impossible to be able to possess a firearm. That's what you have in countries like Australia or in cities in the US such as New York and Chicago. In Australia, you have to show a genuine reason to own one, and it can't include personal protection. In other nations like Iran, Japan, China, and North Korea, firearms are pretty much forbidden to the general population unless you serve in the military. 

There is a group of people out there that say the simple solution is to "ban all guns". It's one thing to make sure people that are not mentally stable don't get their hands on firearms. I'm all for that. Yet, they want to go after people like me, a responsible gun owner who uses guns for hunting and personal protection. I can assure you I'm not going into a McDonalds and going crazy because I didn't get my Egg McMuffin done right. I understand what the consequences could be and what would be at stake if there was ever a situation where I had to shoot in order to protect myself or my family. 

However, to that small yet vocal group, it doesn't matter to them. They want to take them away, period. Here are a couple of articles that speak to this point, even though they were done right after Sandy Hook The one on the Daily Kos site especially irritates me. That guy shows an absolute unwillingness to look at other options, those are the type of people to which I say, "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers." 

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> What has that got to do with gun control? It was at it's highest when there were no guns. fpalm



There were still guns in Australia when the suicide rate spiked, but its not back down. You act like there were zero guns. The laws in Australia in that year and now are still the same and the suicide rate is back down now. 



You are just trolling, and I'm done with you. for good. No one can be this ignorant. Unless you are.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> Having regulations is one thing, but there is such a thing as having such stringent gun regulations that it is practically impossible to be able to possess a firearm. That's what you have in countries like Australia or in cities in the US such as New York and Chicago. In Australia, you have to show a genuine reason to own one, and it can't include personal protection. In other nations like Iran, Japan, China, and North Korea, firearms are pretty much forbidden to the general population unless you serve in the military.
> 
> There is a group of people out there that say the simple solution is to "ban all guns". It's one thing to make sure people that are not mentally stable don't get their hands on firearms. I'm all for that. Yet, they want to go after people like me, a responsible gun owner who uses guns for hunting and personal protection. I can assure you I'm not going into a McDonalds and going crazy because I didn't get my Egg McMuffin done right. I understand what the consequences could be and what would be at stake if there was ever a situation where I had to shoot in order to protect myself or my family.
> 
> ...


NY is 4th on the list for least gun deaths per 100,000 people, so their gun laws WORK. If that is too strong for there, there is always MA which are not as strict as NY but are still strict and MA is 2nd. So if you want to go with a state to meeting in the middle then go with MA. 

There is a reason why the states with stricter gun laws have few gun deaths.

Also no one has ever said to ban all guns in the US, but they should ban semi automatic rifles for example. There is no reason for those kind of guns for "protection". 
Handguns are fine.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

The problem with the gun control debate is that people who want stricter regulations know nothing about guns and seem proud that they are not some type of "dumb *******" so they try to ban the stupidest shit and it gets shot down

Handguns are far more dangerous than rifles because of concealability and semi auto rifles tend to have far less killing power than a bolt action

In fact the average user would be better off trying to massacre with a bolt action as it slows down fire rate for more accurate shooting and most people can't handle repeat fire anyways 

Most gun control is focused on "assault weapons" and dumbass attachments that look scary but lower performance than actually trying to solve the problem 

Joe Biden said instead of semi autos people should just buy a double barrel shotgun and told his wife to just dump both barrels out of her window to scare off intruders in an attack. That is an extremely dangerous and stupid move and goes against all forms of gun safety yet he is the one deciding what is and is not allowed and almost seems proud that he know very little


----------



## Natecore (Sep 16, 2013)

blackholeson said:


> People there are over 100,000,000 million illegal guns in America alone. What are gun bans going to do? The cat is already out of the bag, deal with it.


Well they're dealing with it by making peaceful, nonviolent individuals criminals.

The only way to enforce gun laws is to empower those with a monopoly on force to have guns. How's that for irony?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> Having regulations is one thing, but there is such a thing as having such stringent gun regulations that it is practically impossible to be able to possess a firearm. That's what you have in countries like Australia or in cities in the US such as New York and Chicago. In Australia, you have to show a genuine reason to own one, and it can't include personal protection. In other nations like Iran, Japan, China, and North Korea, firearms are pretty much forbidden to the general population unless you serve in the military.
> 
> There is a group of people out there that say the simple solution is to "ban all guns". It's one thing to make sure people that are not mentally stable don't get their hands on firearms. I'm all for that. Yet, they want to go after people like me, a responsible gun owner who uses guns for hunting and personal protection. I can assure you I'm not going into a McDonalds and going crazy because I didn't get my Egg McMuffin done right. I understand what the consequences could be and what would be at stake if there was ever a situation where I had to shoot in order to protect myself or my family.
> 
> ...


So you admit this group of 'ban all guns' ideology is in the minority, yet you still use it as the basis of your argument?

And how can you blame people for reacting that way anyway after the Sandy Hook shooting where fucking innocent kids were killed using this gun that the fuckwit got from his mother?












Would you or would you not support the ban of this sort of gun to the general public? Because the bottom line is: Your right to own these sorts of guns (even as a responsible gun owner) is NOT as important as the prospect of saving lives from incidents like this in future.

And spare me any 'mentally ill' stuff it's a red herring.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

yeahbaby! said:


> So you admit this group of 'ban all guns' ideology is in the minority, yet you still use it as the basis of your argument?
> 
> And how can you blame people for reacting that way anyway after the Sandy Hook shooting where fucking innocent kids were killed using this gun that the fuckwit got from his mother?
> 
> ...


People don't need assault rifles. Fair enough. 

Yes, I understand why people were upset in the wake of Sandy Hook, it was a horrible tragedy. However, more and more it is the abrasive minority that seems to get what they want because they scream about it. A few kids feel left out, so they ban Halloween and Christmas from schools. People get upset when we pray, so prayer in public is banned. And so on.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> People don't need assault rifles. Fair enough.
> 
> Yes, I understand why people were upset in the wake of Sandy Hook, it was a horrible tragedy. However, more and more it is the abrasive minority that seems to get what they want because they scream about it. A few kids feel left out, so they ban Halloween and Christmas from schools. People get upset when we pray, so prayer in public is banned. And so on.


Or the vocal minority are the ones that actually make sense and are correct. 

Might does not make it right.

Also religion in pubic schools, and having a religious holiday forced upon , are both against the constitution. You really think people would be ok with pubic schools having Muslim holidays pushed onto non-muslim kids. 

The reason halloween was "banned' because its a pagen holiday and christians didn't like that, they claimed its a holiday celebrating satan. Some other religions also cannot celibate it due to religious beliefs so they are left out. 

As for people getting upset when christians pray in public, that is funny because when Muslims pray in public or at a beach , people freak out.

Christmas only want their religion to be allowed but no one else.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

birthday_massacre said:


> Or the vocal minority are the ones that actually make sense and are correct.
> 
> Might does not make it right.
> 
> ...


My mother is a Catholic, and she went to a public school that actually closed on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the Passover due to the huge number of Jewish students. My grandparents didn't make a fuss. Personally, I don't care who prays or believes, and I feel everyone should be included. 

By the way, the origins of Halloween have Christian ties. In the 8th century, Pope Gregory III declared November 1 All Saint's Day. The night before became All Hallows Eve, and originally that day was to honor the dead. Families went around asking for food, and were given it in exchange for praying for the dead of the other family. 

As for the issue of gun ownership, I am tired of people that shit on responsible gun owners because of dumbasses that pack heat. Yes, there are dumb people that don't need to own weapons, but the idea of banning everyone from having a gun is absurd. Politicians aren't touching that, as the day they tried to pass such legislation in this country would be the day they commit career suicide. 

Again, the solution is to enforce the rules already on the books, and make sure that you run sufficient background checks for people to show they have the capacity to own a gun.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> Again, the solution is to enforce the rules already on the books, and make sure that you run sufficient background checks for people to show they have the capacity to own a gun.


It's not the fucking solution are you blind? The rules aren't working. I don't mean to be disrespectful to you but I can't believe you have such a casual 'solution' when your country has a new horrific mass shooting making the news every 6 weeks or less! I'm from Australia, and from the outside looking in it looks textbook insane that there seems to be no change to any gun laws despite tragedy after tragedy.

The rules already on the books aren't enough. Don't you think police are already overworked trying to enforce those rules along with everything else?

Yes have background checks up the arse, but ban these fucking rambo style guns that have no basis in hunting or reasonable self defence.

When you have such a dire situation, then the good people have to sacrifice some of their freedoms because of the bad, because the alternative is to condemn more innocent people to their deaths. It's unfortunate for the people who play by the rules, but it's nothing new.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

Anark said:


> guns should be banned, no because freedom
> 
> etc
> 
> ...


Sure, but where do you stand? 
Banning or Freedom?
I'm Team Freedom myself. Not because I'm about _everything _"Murica" but because of the concept of freedom in America.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Sure, but where do you stand?
> Banning or Freedom?
> I'm Team Freedom myself. Not because I'm about _everything _"Murica" but because of the concept of freedom in America.


This is why Americans are considered stupid by most other nations. You didn't invent freedom and you are not even close to being the only country that has it. You also don't need access to assault rifles in order to be free, in the same way that you don't need access to high explosives in order to be free.

Guns are hella fun though, so I understand wanting one or ten.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

freedom was invented by mel gibson btw


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

Anark said:


> This is why Americans are considered stupid by most other nations. You didn't invent freedom and you are not even close to being the only country that has it. You also don't need access to assault rifles in order to be free, in the same way that you don't need access to high explosives in order to be free.
> 
> Guns are hella fun though, so I understand wanting one or ten.


The reason Americans are considered stupid by other countries is because all to often, there are just poor representations of Americans. 

"You didn't invent freedom". Okay this use of "You" is a generalization already. Don't feel the need to talk down to me just because I am an American, as if I am the exact same as the representation you have in your head. It's like typecasting the IWC. Americans too, are NOT a hive mind. Now if you're discussing pure nationalists, then maybe you're getting closer to that, sure.

As far as needing access to assault rifles to be "free", true that is not necessary for "freedom" but it is a valid topic of debate when it comes to *equal freedoms *(plural). I personally, would like equal freedoms as are given to the police and military, to defend myself and my family. It has nothing to do with being a stereotypical gun nut who wants 500 assault rifles. For me, it's purely about wanting to protect those nearest to me in the event that the police AREN'T there when I need them.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> There were still guns in Australia when the suicide rate spiked, but its not back down.


The spike was due to hangings and carbon monxide gas but you already know that.











birthday_massacre said:


> You act like there were zero guns. The laws in Australia in that year and now are still the same and the suicide rate is back down now.


You posted this


> The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries. *All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves*, but ignore the facts.


The stats prove you wrong. Suicide increased with more hangings.



birthday_massacre said:


> The laws in Australia in that year and now are still the same and the suicide rate is back down now.


It's 2015. What's the suicide rate now got to do with guns? The suicide rate was at high levels years after gun control.

From the world health organisation 









The suicide rate higher in 2000 than 95 (and still rising at that time).



birthday_massacre said:


> You are just trolling, and I'm done with you. for good. No one can be this ignorant. Unless you are.


You've been proven wrong. I accept your resignation. :supercena


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Anark said:


> This is why Americans are considered stupid by most other nations.


The stupidity of Americans is exaggerated by way of them being the richest. So it's more like a reaction to their stupidity in line with their wealth as opposed to any absolute.

The general population of most countries can be considered 'stupid' as well.



> You also don't need access to assault rifles in order to be free, in the same way that you don't need access to high explosives in order to be free.


This really depends on the definition of freedom used. For instance, certain countries in the middle east have bans on alcohol. Do you need alcohol to be free?

If we're discussing the freedom to own assault rifles or explosives, then that too is part of being free.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> The spike was due to hangings and carbon monxide gas but you already know that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love how you ignore the faces once again.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/3309.0Media Release12010

The suicide rate in Australia has decreased by 17% over the past decade, from 12.7 to 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

I love how you end at 2000 and cant even give the most recent stats because you know it shows how you are wrong.

Just keep ignore the stats.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> My mother is a Catholic, and she went to a public school that actually closed on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the Passover due to the huge number of Jewish students. My grandparents didn't make a fuss. Personally, I don't care who prays or believes, and I feel everyone should be included.
> 
> By the way, the origins of Halloween have Christian ties. In the 8th century, Pope Gregory III declared November 1 All Saint's Day. The night before became All Hallows Eve, and originally that day was to honor the dead. Families went around asking for food, and were given it in exchange for praying for the dead of the other family.
> 
> ...


Like I said, you really think if they had a Muslim pray in public schools that people wouldn't freak out about it? Of course they would. There is no pray in public schools, its against the constitution. And of course back in those days no one had a problem with it because a huge number of those students were Jewish and they got days off from school. But if it was a muslim thing, everyone would have been up in arms over it.

There is a reason why there is a thing called separation of church and state. You can pray all you want in the privacy of your own home, but you cant in schools. And you say you want to include everyone , what if kids started bringing satanist things into school, and praying to santan, you really think Christians would be ok with that?

The origin of halloween was Pagen/ Celtic (Celtic festival of Samhain) but the Christianity, stole it like they steal everything else (like Christmas and Easter). 

The responsible gun owners will still get their guns with stricter gun control. Its not giving them to the idiots who are not responsible with guns. 

But you really need to stop with this straw man argument, that pro gun restriction crowd is about banning all guns. No one is saying that. 

The answer is simple, take the states with the strictest gun laws and that have the lowest gun violence and apply those to all states. 

The gun laws should be the same for all states, its stupid they are different for each state.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said, you really think if they had a Muslim pray in public schools that people wouldn't freak out about it? Of course they would. There is no pray in public schools, its against the constitution. And of course back in those days no one had a problem with it because a huge number of those students were Jewish and they got days off from school. But if it was a muslim thing, everyone would have been up in arms over it.
> 
> There is a reason why there is a thing called separation of church and state. You can pray all you want in the privacy of your own home, but you cant in schools. And you say you want to include everyone , what if kids started bringing satanist things into school, and praying to santan, you really think Christians would be ok with that?
> 
> ...


There is nothing wrong with praying to Santans, they are beautiful


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> The courts will decide if California are constitutional or not but looking at it, they are not. But of course the gun companies and REPs will be pressing the supreme court to claim they are not.
> 
> If the courts do claim they are unconstitutional and make the gun laws in CA less strict, then CA has a pike in gun violence, which they will based on facts, its going to be a disaster.
> 
> ...


I don't want crazy people running around with guns but I can't support most gun control. I know there is debate about what the 2nd Amendment really means but I have a hard time reading it as saying anything other than "the federal government can't disarm the people." The 14th Amendment forces the states to also follow the 2nd Amendment. 

I think the Constitution is really important and I'm really against the idea of the government passing laws that violate it. Because if you can pass and enforce laws that go against one Amendment there isn't much stopping the government from passing and enforcing laws that violate other ones. 

There are a lot of negatives that come with a lot of the things granted in the Constitution. Killers get let off the hook because of a warrant-less search or improper questioning. Towns have to deal with the KKK parading down main street. 

And when guns are a guaranteed right the cost of that freedom is that people are going to shoot each other with them.

I really don't like the idea of there being a lot of really dangerous weapons in the hands of just about anyone. But until the Constitution is changed I think it is the guaranteed right of just about anyone to own a really dangerous weapon.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

FITZ said:


> I don't want crazy people running around with guns but I can't support most gun control. I know there is debate about what the 2nd Amendment really means but I have a hard time reading it as saying anything other than "the federal government can't disarm the people." The 14th Amendment forces the states to also follow the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> I think the Constitution is really important and I'm really against the idea of the government passing laws that violate it. Because if you can pass and enforce laws that go against one Amendment there isn't much stopping the government from passing and enforcing laws that violate other ones.
> 
> ...



More gun control does not violated the 2nd amendment. Its just getting the states that have laxed control on par to the ones that have stricter gun control.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

FITZ said:


> I don't want crazy people running around with guns but I can't support most gun control. I know there is debate about what the 2nd Amendment really means but I have a hard time reading it as saying anything other than "the federal government can't disarm the people." The 14th Amendment forces the states to also follow the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> I think the Constitution is really important and I'm really against the idea of the government passing laws that violate it. Because if you can pass and enforce laws that go against one Amendment there isn't much stopping the government from passing and enforcing laws that violate other ones.
> 
> ...


In this current climate of regular mass shootings which are in large part due to high gun availability in a volatile US society, you are condemning more innocent people to die with your attitude bottom line.

How many more people have to die?

Edit: The above may be a touch OTT on reflection but you get my point. The constitution is not as important as real innocent people dying right here and now.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

yeahbaby! said:


> In this current climate of regular mass shootings which are in large part due to high gun availability in a volatile US society, you are condemning more innocent people to die with your attitude bottom line.
> 
> How many more people have to die?
> 
> Edit: The above may be a touch OTT on reflection but you get my point. The constitution is not as important as real innocent people dying right here and now.


The constitution was made to counter that mind set

The idea was that government could not just make hasty laws based on current events like they could under a monarchy where a king could ban shit that was causing a problem over nigh because it was a hot topic


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

yeahbaby! said:


> It's not the fucking solution are you blind? The rules aren't working. I don't mean to be disrespectful to you but I can't believe you have such a casual 'solution' when your country has a new horrific mass shooting making the news every 6 weeks or less! I'm from Australia, and from the outside looking in it looks textbook insane that there seems to be no change to any gun laws despite tragedy after tragedy.
> 
> The rules already on the books aren't enough. Don't you think police are already overworked trying to enforce those rules along with everything else?
> 
> ...





yeahbaby! said:


> In this current climate of regular mass shootings which are in large part due to high gun availability in a volatile US society, you are condemning more innocent people to die with your attitude bottom line.
> 
> How many more people have to die?
> 
> Edit: The above may be a touch OTT on reflection but you get my point. The constitution is not as important as real innocent people dying right here and now.


I don't think you are being disrespectful, but the one thing that separates you and me is that my civil rights and the Constitution (in spite of the fact many of the people in my government seem to use it for toilet paper) are non-negotiable. I am completely unwilling to forfeit any of my rights, because the truth is that something will come along tomorrow when they want me to give away another right, just a little. Perhaps I am being stubborn, but that's how I feel. The problem the United States has right now is that people say "The Constitution is not that important." It is the law of the land here and should be treated as such. 

Anyway...there is major lax in enforcement of the gun control laws already on the books. Per mic.com site...In 2009, the FBI reported 71,000 cases where people deliberately falsified their background checks (which is a federal crime) to purchase firearms. Less than 1 percent of those cases, a total of 71, were prosecuted. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is grossly underfunded, it was set up with the idea of being able to get timely information on the status of people who look to purchase. These are examples of the current laws in our country not being adequately enforced when it comes to gun crime. 

My heart goes out to people who have lost loved ones from these tragedies, and I hope the people who committed these heinous crimes are going to rot in hell. At the same time, to ask me to give up any of my rights, even for something like this, is a slippery slope I'm unwilling to slide down. There are plenty of other options in between the two ends to look at.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you ignore the faces once again.
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/3309.0Media Release12010
> 
> ...


In 1999 the Australian government launched the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. The decline has nothing to do with guns and you know it. If there was *ANY* truth to what you say then suicide would have declined following Australian gun control. Instead it continued to rise for years until the government stepped in.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> In 1999 the Australian government launched the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. The decline has nothing to do with guns and you know it. If there was *ANY* truth to what you say then suicide would have declined following Australian gun control. Instead it continued to rise for years until the government stepped in.


The spike had nothing to do with guns either, that is the point. But keep missing the point like you have been the whole thread. 

Gun deaths did go down LOL Now if hanging deaths just went up the number of gun deaths went down you would have a point but it went WAY up, so hanging deaths would have gone way up regardless of they put in the gun control anyways. The suicide rate by hanging was already on the increase in Australia before better gun control took place. Suicide was up across the board, it went up 6 points in men, , you failed to point of (of course) how it suicide went down all together for some. . You also ignore how poisoning went down, so you can easily add that group to the hanging too. 

The fact is better gun control causes less gun suicides and less gun violence. Pretend its not true all you want.




BruiserKC said:


> I don't think you are being disrespectful, but the one thing that separates you and me is that my civil rights and the Constitution (in spite of the fact many of the people in my government seem to use it for toilet paper) are non-negotiable. I am completely unwilling to forfeit any of my rights, because the truth is that something will come along tomorrow when they want me to give away another right, just a little. Perhaps I am being stubborn, but that's how I feel. The problem the United States has right now is that people say "The Constitution is not that important." It is the law of the land here and should be treated as such.
> 
> Anyway...there is major lax in enforcement of the gun control laws already on the books. Per mic.com site...In 2009, the FBI reported 71,000 cases where people deliberately falsified their background checks (which is a federal crime) to purchase firearms. Less than 1 percent of those cases, a total of 71, were prosecuted. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is grossly underfunded, it was set up with the idea of being able to get timely information on the status of people who look to purchase. These are examples of the current laws in our country not being adequately enforced when it comes to gun crime.
> 
> My heart goes out to people who have lost loved ones from these tragedies, and I hope the people who committed these heinous crimes are going to rot in hell. At the same time, to ask me to give up any of my rights, even for something like this, is a slippery slope I'm unwilling to slide down. There are plenty of other options in between the two ends to look at.


Your straw man argument is getting old. Stricter gun laws don't mean you are losing your civil or constitutional rights. You need to stop watching fox news and listening to conspiracy theorist that claim this. Their scare tactics are working on you. 

Also, hypothetical , so you are going to tell me, that if someone said if all guns were banned, there would never be any kind of violence (guns, bombs, physical etc) in the US ever again, you really wouldn't give up your gun rights then ?


----------



## markoutsmarkout (Dec 30, 2014)

yeahbaby! said:


> In this current climate of regular mass shootings which are in large part due to high gun availability in a volatile US society, you are condemning more innocent people to die with your attitude bottom line.


Stop trying to guilt trip. Nobody falls for that crap.



> How many more people have to die?


Think of the children! More emotional appeal. Blah blah.



> The constitution is not as important as real innocent people dying right here and now.


This is one of the craziest things I've read and shows that you are incapable of thinking rationally about firearms.


----------



## markoutsmarkout (Dec 30, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> The spike had nothing to do with guns either, that is the point. But keep missing the point like you have been the whole thread.
> 
> Gun deaths did go down LOL Now if hanging deaths just went up the number of gun deaths went down you would have a point but it went WAY up, so hanging deaths would have gone way up regardless of they put in the gun control anyways. The suicide rate by hanging was already on the increase in Australia before better gun control took place. Suicide was up across the board, it went up 6 points in men, , you failed to point of (of course) how it suicide went down all together for some. . You also ignore how poisoning went down, so you can easily add that group to the hanging too.
> 
> ...


T-think of the children!

Ban swimming pools too! And cars! Especially cars! And cigarettes! And alcohol! And knives! And rocks! And fists!

WE NEED TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DYING


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> The spike had nothing to do with guns either, that is the point. But keep missing the point like you have been the whole thread.


You're missing the point. This is what I said.



> Of course the gun suicide rate went down. *If someone wants to commit suicide they'll find another way.* You're ignoring how many lives are saved by people having guns for self defence. Also ignoring the increase in violent crime for countries with strict gun control. Violent crime is huge here in the UK. We're not even allowed to carry a knife. Easy pickings for criminals.


The statistics prove this with people moving to hangings primarily.

Your reply


> The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries. *All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves*, but ignore the facts.


Do you still stand by that after seeing the statistics? You admit below that hangings went way up.



birthday_massacre said:


> Gun deaths did go down LOL Now if hanging deaths just went up the number of gun deaths went down you would have a point but it went WAY up, so hanging deaths would have gone way up regardless of they put in the gun control anyways.


So you are basing your argument on hanging increased TOO much? lmao 
So everyone just took a liking to hangings all of a sudden?



birthday_massacre said:


> The fact is better gun control causes *less gun suicides* and less gun violence. Pretend its not true all you want.


That's the key here. Less gun suicides. Not suicides.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> Now *if hanging deaths just went up the number of gun deaths went down you would have a point* but it went WAY up, so hanging deaths would have gone way up regardless of they put in the gun control anyways.


clutching at straws.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Better gun control to prevent suicide is a pretty shit argument 

If I really wanted to off myself I have about 15 things within arm's reach that I could use let alone something like climb on my roof and jump off head first which I would only need a ladder for


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> More gun control does not violated the 2nd amendment. Its just getting the states that have laxed control on par to the ones that have stricter gun control.


But it might. I made a big long post in this thread that you responded to saying how it could violate the 2nd Amendment. You completely disregarded everything I said. 

The 2nd Amendment applies to the states as of 2010. There is litigation in courts right now challenging state gun laws. Those laws have to pass strict scrutiny. Meaning they have to be as minimally restrictive as possible. So if there is a gun control law designed at keeping guns away from dangerous people and you could keep guns away in a less restrictive manner from dangerous people the state must use the less restrictive manner. 



yeahbaby! said:


> In this current climate of regular mass shootings which are in large part due to high gun availability in a volatile US society, you are condemning more innocent people to die with your attitude bottom line.
> 
> How many more people have to die?
> 
> Edit: The above may be a touch OTT on reflection but you get my point. *The constitution is not as important as real innocent people dying right here and now*.


I don't agree with that statement at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> You're missing the point. This is what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ALL the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't kill themselves in other ways. You have never proven that.


Did SOME, yes of course but not ALL. That stats don't prove the ones that didn't get guns killed themselves. You still have not backed that up.
Like I said, suicide by hanging was already on the rise, and went up way more than the guns went down. 

If the number of gun suicides that went down went up the exactly amount for hanging then you could have a case but it went up WAY MORE. 
Yes everyone seemed to take like to hanging. Even if you want to claim that all the people that would have killed themselves with a gun hanged themselves, take those numbers out and hanging still increased, so yes people took a liking to hanging. 

If you want to show the amount of people that would have killed themselves with a gun but switched to hanging, you need to show the people that hanged themselves , that used to have a gun but had it taken away by the new law. Then you will have the real number.

You still keep proving you have no clue about stats. 




Memento Mori said:


> clutching at straws.


No, thats not clutching at straws its a FACT and how stats work.




FITZ said:


> But it might. I made a big long post in this thread that you responded to saying how it could violate the 2nd Amendment. You completely disregarded everything I said.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment applies to the states as of 2010. There is litigation in courts right now challenging state gun laws. Those laws have to pass strict scrutiny. Meaning they have to be as minimally restrictive as possible. So if there is a gun control law designed at keeping guns away from dangerous people and you could keep guns away in a less restrictive manner from dangerous people the state must use the less restrictive manner.


If a gun laws violates the 2nd amendment , it wont pass and will be rejected. its a simple as that. You brought up CA. Its in courts now, like you said, to see if some of their laws violated the 2nd amendment, fi they do (which gets don't BTW), then they will have to be changed. But of course the NRA gives billions to the GOVT, so we ll see if the GOVT appeases them or not by changing the law.

Most states with strict gun laws are not claimed to be violating the 2nd amendment. Those are the models to follow. 

The fact is the stats with no to little gun relegation needs stricter regulation. 

Its no coincidence the states with the best gun regulations have less gun violence and mass shootings then the ones with the least restrictive gun control laws.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

birthday_massacre said:


> Your straw man argument is getting old. Stricter gun laws don't mean you are losing your civil or constitutional rights. You need to stop watching fox news and listening to conspiracy theorist that claim this. Their scare tactics are working on you.
> 
> Also, hypothetical , so you are going to tell me, that if someone said if all guns were banned, there would never be any kind of violence (guns, bombs, physical etc) in the US ever again, you really wouldn't give up your gun rights then ?


The straw man argument is still reality. As for if I was told that we would never have violence ever if we gave up our guns, I'd get down on my hands and knees and thank God...then hide my guns as inevitably someone will break the code.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> No, thats not clutching at straws its a FACT and how stats work.


there's this place called hypothetica, where there are 100 gun murders every year.

They ban guns and the total murder toll lowers by 120. By your logic, banning guns have nothing to do with this reduction because it didn't lower by exactly 100.

Is this the gist of it?


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> ALL the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't kill themselves in other ways. You have never proven that.
> 
> 
> Did SOME, yes of course but not ALL. That stats don't prove the ones that didn't get guns killed themselves. You still have not backed that up.
> ...


The second amendment basically means "the government can not make any laws that has anything to do with gun control" doing it at state level was a loophole 

It was made to counter England's laws where the kings and government had a habit of disarming groups they wanted to persecute

In fact until very recently almost all gun control was used to keep guns out of the hands of groups the states wanted to persecute


----------



## markoutsmarkout (Dec 30, 2014)

I still don't understand why liberals don't want innocent people such as the elderly to be able to defend themselves. Pretty messed up to be honest.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Memento Mori said:


> there's this place called hypothetica, where there are 100 gun murders every year.
> 
> They ban guns and the total murder toll lowers by 120. By your logic, banning guns have nothing to do with this reduction because it didn't lower by exactly 100.
> 
> Is this the gist of it?


Your logic does not even make sense since that isn't even the same analogy I made. Nice try though.

If you really want to see how many gun suicides moved over to hanging, you need to take the average increase of hanging deaths over the three years prior to the stricter gun laws, then subtract that from the 1998 totals and see what you are left with. Then you can compare that to the drop in fire arm deaths. Those are the numbers you want to compare. Not what the rates were 10 years ago then in 1998. 

the funny thing in that chart dazzler posted he failed to posts what he first line of the study said.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]!OpenDocument

In 1997 the standardised suicide death rate was 14.6 per 100,000 persons, the highest rate recorded since 1971. The 1998 rate of 14.3 reflects a decline of 40 deaths from 1997.

Pretty funny there were 40 less suicide deaths but of course dazzle ignored that.

So you can easily conclude that the stricter gun laws saved at least 40 lives.

checkmate.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> ALL the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't kill themselves in other ways. You have never proven that.


The stats prove EXACTLY that! Removing access to guns lowered gun suicides. The difference was *more than* made up with a rise in hangings.



birthday_massacre said:


> Did SOME, yes of course but not ALL. That stats don't prove the ones that didn't get guns killed themselves. You still have not backed that up.
> Like I said, suicide by hanging was already on the rise, and went up way more than the guns went down.


You admit below it was *more* than the reduction in gun suicide! We only have the stats to go by unless you can talk to the dead.



birthday_massacre said:


> If the number of gun suicides that went down went up the exactly amount for hanging then you could have a case but it went up WAY MORE.


You can't be serious. 




birthday_massacre said:


> Yes everyone seemed to take like to hanging. Even if you want to claim that all the people that would have killed themselves with a gun hanged themselves, take those numbers out and hanging still increased, so yes people took a liking to hanging.


So it's all just a big coincidence. Hanging was the new fad. WOW!



birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to show the amount of people that would have killed themselves with a gun but switched to hanging, you need to show the people that hanged themselves , that used to have a gun but had it taken away by the new law. Then you will have the real number.


What does that prove? If there's no gun control you can get a gun the day you commit suicide. It doesn't even have to be your own gun.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> the funny thing in that chart dazzler posted he failed to posts what he first line of the study said.
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]!OpenDocument
> 
> ...


You're just outright lying now! fpalm
People can check the post here.

40 deaths is a small decrease from a record year since 71 (0.3). 1998 was still way up from the previous years.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> The stats prove EXACTLY that! Removing access to guns lowered gun suicides. The difference was *more than* made up with a rise in hangings.
> 
> 
> You admit below it was *more* than the reduction in gun suicide! We only have the stats to go by unless you can talk to the dead.
> ...


hanging were already on the rise before gun control kicked in. So why was hanging on the rise before gun control , explain that one? OH it was the new fad.
That is why i said you need to look at the numbers for the previous year compared to the year after gun control kicked in, so you can see how many more hangings there were the year after gun control.

But keep ignoring that fact. You still keep proving you don't know anything about how stats work.



The Dazzler said:


> You're just outright lying now! fpalm
> People can check the post here.
> 
> 40 deaths is a small decrease from a record year since 71 (0.3). 1998 was still way up from the previous years.


The fact is there were 40 less suicides the year AFTER gun control kicked in. 

And the other thing you keep ignoring is, suicide in general was on the rise already before gun control kicked in, and the year after , it went DOWN.

Show the hanging stats for the year before gun control, then the year after.

those are the numbers you want to look at , not 20 years before when hanging was already on the rise. But you wont do that will you.

Ill do it for you










OH look at that hanging was already on the rise in 1993, then in 1995 it spiked at a sharp increase even before they got stricter on gun laws.

So tell me again how hanging wasn't the new fad for suicide when by 1998 it was already on a increase.


----------



## MKCS (Oct 17, 2015)

Very sad story.


----------



## Undertakerowns (Jan 3, 2012)

You know I saw Bill Maher talking about this and he said it all comes down to one thing :blue balls. These mass shooters can't get girlfriends and no one will fuck them so they get guns to compensate for being seen as less than a man. A Gun is an equalizer. 


I agree although it might be more than just not getting laid- it's about be felt like you are social outcast and accumulated frustration. 

Those saying that we need to focus on background checks and mental health need to realise that isn't the problem. These people aren't crazy they are pissed, and they act on their built up rage. This is where easy gun access becomes an issue. Instead of getting help or telling their parents(seen as wimpy thing to do) they handle it themselves permanently, using a gun. 



You guys remember in school there was that one kid that was always picked on. I use to say jokingly "Ya'll better be nice because when he shoots up the school he'll remember every face that was making fun of him"- there was a little bit of truth in that though. 


Those saying we need to focus on mental health and not on guns are delusional, because if that were the case, 85 percent of the murderers in prison should be receiving mental health treatment not prison sentences. 

Also there are a lot of people who have mental health problems that don't go around killing people. 

I am getting tired of people giving these mass shooters excuses as if humans aren't capable of doing fucked up shit. HELLO SLAVERY, HOLOCAUST, GENOCIDE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS, GENOCIDE IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES ETC...

What about crimes of passion? Are these people mentally ill?

Also if you are conservative and are using mental health as an excuse against gun law legislation you are going against your own ideology. Conservatives vehemently attacked liberals for advocating drug treatment and mental health services for criminals. So now that people are thinking about taking your guns you're all of sudden for mental health treatment?

Bad people(which could be anyone giving the right circumstances) who have access to guns is what kills people. 


But the hard question is how do we control illegal gun activity or prevent people from getting guns?


----------



## Elly Elephant (Sep 27, 2015)

Undertakerowns said:


> You know I saw Bill Maher talking about this and he said it all comes down to one thing :blue balls. These mass shooters can't get girlfriends and no one will fuck them so they get guns to compensate for being seen as less than a man. A Gun is an equalizer.
> 
> 
> I agree although it might be more than just not getting laid- it's about be felt like you are social outcast and accumulated frustration.
> ...


congrats you're one of the last people on planet earth with a heart, soul, conscience and common sense...

you're prize is to spend the rest of your days surrounded by mouth breathers who think ''murder is funny'' as long as it doesn't happen to them......

seriously though, thanks so much for posting this, you get it, you truly do, if only the ''smart'' people in power thought this way.... alot of people would still be alive.....:serious:


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

As much as one hates to say this, you can't prevent bad people from obtaining guns. It's a sad and unfortunate truth. All we can do as a society is to build a positive, tolerant, generation that understands the difficulties of life. There is no turning back at this point when it comes to gun violence. In fact I see it getting worse from here on in.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blackholeson said:


> As much as one hates to say this, you can't prevent bad people from obtaining guns. It's a sad and unfortunate truth. All we can do as a society is to build a positive, tolerant, generation that understands the difficulties of life. There is no turning back at this point when it comes to gun violence. In fact I see it getting worse from here on in.


Yes you can, and at he very least you can make it much more difficult. The problem now is, not every state has the same gun laws, so in IL where they have strict gun laws, all the criminals have to do is illegally get them from Indiana (WHICH THEY DO), and boom its easy.

But if every state had the same strict gun laws that wouldn't happen less and less and it would be much more difficult for that to take place.

"A study released last year by the city found that almost 60 percent of guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes were first bought in states — like neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin — that do not require background checks for Internet or gun show sales."

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chi...ng-an-illegal-gun-every-75-minutes-this-year/


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> The fact is there were 40 less suicides the year AFTER gun control kicked in.


40 less suicides in 1998. Excluding 97 it was still a record year back to 71. This was after gun control kicked in as you say.



birthday_massacre said:


> And the other thing you keep ignoring is, suicide in general was on the rise already before gun control kicked in, and the year after , it went DOWN.


Again only 40 deaths (0.3) from the highest year since 1971.



birthday_massacre said:


> OH look at that hanging was already on the rise in 1993, then in 1995 it spiked at a sharp increase even before they got stricter on gun laws.
> 
> So tell me again how hanging wasn't the new fad for suicide when by 1998 it was already on a increase.


I couldn't find recent stats for method used. Good job. (Y)

Yeah looks like hanging was on the rise. But it goes way up after gun control. The graph shows gun suicides were on the decrease before gun control. Hangings went up as the gun suicides decreased. It proves the point. If someone wants to commit suicide they will. They'll use any method they can. Banning guns to prevent suicide is stupid.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The Dazzler said:


> 40 less suicides in 1998. Excluding 97 it was still a record year back to 71. This was after gun control kicked in as you say.
> 
> 
> Again only 40 deaths (0.3) from the highest year since 1971.
> ...


You love to try to compare suicide rates between a 20 year span, that is not how it works.
That is why you need to compare it year ever year, and it was ON the RISE. And the year after gun control IT WENT DOWN by 40 deaths.

So gun control did save lives. And it was more than 40 since hangings were already on their way up. 

And hanging don't go way up after gun control kicked in, it was already on that trajectory. 

You don't even know how to read a graph. Have you ever taken a stats class before? Clearly you have not.

I also love how you are trying to use the straw man that gun control is only to prevent suicide. Its to prevent all gun deaths, more of which are mass shootings or just shootings in general. 

you have been totally destroyed in this argument. I am done for good.


----------



## The Dazzler (Mar 26, 2007)

birthday_massacre said:


> You love to try to compare suicide rates between a 20 year span, that is not how it works.


I'm not comparing it to 20 years ago. It's comparing it to EVERY year since 1971.



birthday_massacre said:


> And hanging don't go way up after gun control kicked in, it was already on that trajectory.


But it kept going up.



birthday_massacre said:


> I also love how you are trying to use the straw man that gun control is only to prevent suicide. Its to prevent all gun deaths, more of which are mass shootings or just shootings in general.


Below is what I have a problem with.



Me said:


> *Of course the gun suicide rate went down. If someone wants to commit suicide they'll find another way.* You're ignoring how many lives are saved by people having guns for self defence. Also ignoring the increase in violent crime for countries with strict gun control. Violent crime is huge here in the UK. We're not even allowed to carry a knife. Easy pickings for criminals.





You said:


> *The suicide rate didn't stay the same in those countries. All the people that were killing themselves with guns didn't choose to kill themselves another way, most of them just didn't kill themselves*, but ignore the facts.


Please look at your graph. You'll see gun suicides declining since 1986 as hangings increased. All the stats prove you're wrong.


----------

