guns and bullets

Hugh Freaking Dillon

no one is blaming guns alone. come on. but the message is clear: guns make it easier to kill faster and in larger volumes than without one.

just because I am from Canada does mean I cannot have an opinion. It's not strictly an American issue. Painting gun-control advocates as hating America is just bizarre.

unsung wrote:

I'm glad someone brought up Chicago. Since the ban was declared unconstitutional last June the murder rate has gone down.

Bans don't work.

This my last gun post on these forums because I'm no longer going to beat my head off the wall. Liberals fail to grasp the concept of addressing the reasons why someone would do this, instead they want to blame an inanimate object. Much like the VT shooter there were multiple signs this person was unstable and addressing that is the one and only real issue.

Gutting the 2nd Amendment would open up the entire Constitution for dismissal, another concept that is lost upon the left.

And to all of the foreigners that love to chime in on America with your hatred, I wish you all a good day.

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

Dude, you have got to be the most ignorant poster I have ever debated with. You have yet to bring in a single fact about gun control,

not true. i posted a link that shows that guns account for 16 times more deaths in the US than rest of the worlds 25 richest countries combined. clearly that stat wasn't in your favourites due to its damning statement of your countries ability to fire guns at each others faces.

the link was http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm just so you can bookmark it.

HeidiJam wrote:

you are generalizing everybody that owns a gun, and seem to think that the US is the worst country because of this random incident where the guilty party was a crazy nut. Things like this will happen whether there are guns or not... If we had socialized healthcare would you put the blame on the healthcare system for not detecting this mans mental illness and reporting it... You keep throwing the word fear out there as a fucking opinion, not as fact since you are NOT A GUN OWNER. You need to shut the fuck up because you do know know why any of us own a gun. I am not afraid anybody is going to steal my TV, I have my gun for Home Protection, since life is not a guarentee I would rather have all my options covered to protect my family from anything. Keep on generalizing and being opinionated about american. When you can list some facts about gun control maybe people here will take you seriously.

i'm not interested in being taken seriously by a gun fanatic... its akin to me writing for Elton John's acceptance regarding my love of heterosexual porn.

pandora

chime wrote:

pandora wrote:

What doesn't make sense to me is why some people in other countries must feel the need to judge and find fault with our basic rights given to us when our country was formed. Truly what business would it be of yours and why should it matter?
It is a matter of hate and passing judgement which you can see in some of the very crass posts.
Its not guns that are bad its people and some people use words as their weapons.

I don't think it's judgement ... I think it is caring. Seeing news of these events and feeling compassion and wanting to think of ways that something similar could be avoided in the future.

"Truly what business would it be of yours and why should it matter?" - would you prefer that the rest of the world didn't care? ... didn't feel that what had happened was a tragedy? ... that innocent Americans being killed didn't matter?

Because some people come from countries where more restrictive gun laws have been introduced they suggest this as a possible solution. It's not to judge those who own guns but to say could you not give up your guns if it would mean that this is less likely to happen in the future?

Burglaries will always happen but where a homeowner 'may' be armed will a criminal go unarmed? In a place where it is known that a homeowner is highly unlikely to be armed is there a possibility the criminal may go unarmed? ... does having a less armed general population lead to a less armed criminal population? ... I would think yes. But who knows.

The main thing is everyone thinks this is a tragedy. Lives have been lost that shouldn't have been lost.

Tragedies such as this will happen always until people stop hating. Has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with hate.
Every tragedy has its silver lining of love.
Empathy is the key, understanding each other, attempting to feel and even here, in a PJ love world, we see that is not happening.
What possible hope is there?

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

Someone who wants to get a gun to carry our evil acts will bottom line, get it, one way or another. They care not about the law. There will be illegal guns available forever... the danger from crazies is here to stay.

perhaps in your country that has some semblance of truth... but take for instance the Columbine kids... they used their mummys and daddys adult toys to do the shootings... if those spotty little fuckwits had lived in say, Glasgow, the murder capital of Europe and they had wanted to shoot up their school they would never ever have acquired the weapons... and i'll tell you why... weapons are in the hands of criminals here, and the last thing they would want is the police snooping around asking questions like "why did you sell 2 nerds from school a bag of guns?"

also, as the Columbine kids were clearly nerdier than a chess convention if they had found a gun dealer in Glasgow the dealer would have just robbed them of the money they had to buy the guns in the first place.

But these kids that shoot up places are on the fringes of society... the disenfranchised... they wouldnt have the first fucking clue where to acuire illegal guns... they could barely string a sentence together to speak to girls never mind approach a gang of black/asian/white guys on a rough end of town street corner to ask for a Glock.

Again a post based on opinion, why don't you quit posting until find some facts about gun control.

actually it was a post based on real life... how am i supposed to find a fact about nerd kids buying guns from hard people in a rough part of a town?

and whats with the stats requests.. do you write almanacs or something? stats can and have been used to prove all manner of arguments for both sides of things.

wolfamongwolves

pandora wrote:

Someone who wants to get a gun to carry our evil acts will bottom line, get it, one way or another. They care not about the law. There will be illegal guns available forever... the danger from crazies is here to stay.

I've already posted earlier why I don't think this argument holds water. It's a simple point, make it harder for people to get guns, there will be less crazies with guns. Yes, there will always be criminals with guns, but it's a logical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that therefore we should open the floodgates for anyone eho wants one to get one with ease. And it's the "with ease" thing that's the important part of this post, and my last one. It's also the one part you didn't address.

pandora wrote:

But taking away the rights of responsible people to own a gun is wrong.

What I said about this in my last post is in no way addressed by your answer. How do you define who is responsible? How do you guarantee that only those people can have them? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer: you can't. You can try, but only with more stringent gun laws. And that's my point.

None of which matters when you consider the question of whether it is worth such death, tragedy and suffering, just to have "the right" to bear arms. To me, the answer to that question is too self-evident to bother answering.

dunkman

i also find this 'right' thing to be amusing... in what way is it a right? someone wrote it down many many many many years ago and so it is? in that case it's my right to shoot a man from Yorkshire in the face with a bow and arrow if he approaches my castle wearing a mask... as that is a 'right' i have which was passed down over the centuries to people from my country.

oh wait... its silly, old and out-dated...

here's a thought... perhaps the 'right' to own a gun is silly and out-dated... 300+ years ago in a country that had no military structure it was probably quite important... but not now.

pandora

wolfamongwolves wrote:

pandora wrote:

Someone who wants to get a gun to carry our evil acts will bottom line, get it, one way or another. They care not about the law. There will be illegal guns available forever... the danger from crazies is here to stay.

I've already posted earlier why I don't think this argument holds water. It's a simple point, make it harder for people to get guns, there will be less crazies with guns. Yes, there will always be criminals with guns, but it's a logical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that therefore we should open the floodgates for anyone eho wants one to get one with ease. And it's the "with ease" thing that's the important part of this post, and my last one. It's also the one part you didn't address.

pandora wrote:

But taking away the rights of responsible people to own a gun is wrong.

What I said about this in my last post is in no way addressed by your answer. How do you define who is responsible? How do you guarantee that only those people can have them? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer: you can't. You can try, but only with more stringent gun laws. And that's my point.

None of which matters when you consider the question of whether it is worth such death, tragedy and suffering, just to have "the right" to bear arms. To me, the answer to that question is too self-evident to bother answering.

You know if some can't get a gun then it will be a bomb or a car driven into a crowd of people. If someone wants to kill because they hate there is no stopping them.
Taking guns away from peaceful law abiding people is not the answer to hate.

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

not true. i posted a link that shows that guns account for 16 times more deaths in the US than rest of the worlds 25 richest countries combined. clearly that stat wasn't in your favourites due to its damning statement of your countries ability to fire guns at each others faces.

the link was http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm just so you can bookmark it.,

See link of populations by country. You will see that the USA is 3rd in population. the next closest is Japan who is 10th. the us has 173,000,000 more people than Japan does. Nice try on your skew stats. You need to take into account population. Also, I would like some stats on gun control please...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population

BinauralJam

Bet ya this guy wishes he had a gun

fife

pandora wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

pandora wrote:

Someone who wants to get a gun to carry our evil acts will bottom line, get it, one way or another. They care not about the law. There will be illegal guns available forever... the danger from crazies is here to stay.

I've already posted earlier why I don't think this argument holds water. It's a simple point, make it harder for people to get guns, there will be less crazies with guns. Yes, there will always be criminals with guns, but it's a logical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that therefore we should open the floodgates for anyone eho wants one to get one with ease. And it's the "with ease" thing that's the important part of this post, and my last one. It's also the one part you didn't address.

pandora wrote:

But taking away the rights of responsible people to own a gun is wrong.

What I said about this in my last post is in no way addressed by your answer. How do you define who is responsible? How do you guarantee that only those people can have them? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer: you can't. You can try, but only with more stringent gun laws. And that's my point.

None of which matters when you consider the question of whether it is worth such death, tragedy and suffering, just to have "the right" to bear arms. To me, the answer to that question is too self-evident to bother answering.

You know if some can't get a gun then it will be a bomb or a car driven into a crowd of people. If someone wants to kill because they hate there is no stopping them.
Taking guns away from peaceful law abiding people is not the answer to hate.

I agree that it does still boil down to the person but restricting access to thinks that have no benefit to society is a good thing. I wrote this in another place. just because people might use bombs if guns are not available doesn't mean that we should allow people to carry bombs around.

fife

BinauralJam wrote:

Bet ya this guy wishes he had a gun

I bet ya more he wishes that the gunman didn't have one.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

You know if some can't get a gun then it will be a bomb or a car driven into a crowd of people. If someone wants to kill because they hate there is no stopping them.
Taking guns away from peaceful law abiding people is not the answer to hate.

that is such a tired and decrepit argument.

it is very very difficult to construct a working and efficient bomb... to buy the materials used for a bomb without garnering suspicion from the law... then it takes know how...

but the strangest thing about the car aspect is that its very very rigorously checked by officals isnt it? we have a driving test, tax on it, licence plates, certificates to say the car is road worthy, etc... and yet a guy who has been forced out of a college due to his mental state can then just buy a gun as if it were a loaf of bread? yet he probably had to more paperwork to own a car... which as we all know was designed to carry us around whereas a gun was designed for killing 9 year old girls.

BinauralJam

fife wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Bet ya this guy wishes he had a gun

I bet ya more he wishes that the gunman didn't have one.

Good Point

Blockhead

wolfamongwolves wrote:

pandora wrote:

Someone who wants to get a gun to carry our evil acts will bottom line, get it, one way or another. They care not about the law. There will be illegal guns available forever... the danger from crazies is here to stay.

I've already posted earlier why I don't think this argument holds water. It's a simple point, make it harder for people to get guns, there will be less crazies with guns. Yes, there will always be criminals with guns, but it's a logical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that therefore we should open the floodgates for anyone eho wants one to get one with ease. And it's the "with ease" thing that's the important part of this post, and my last one. It's also the one part you didn't address.

pandora wrote:

But taking away the rights of responsible people to own a gun is wrong.

What I said about this in my last post is in no way addressed by your answer. How do you define who is responsible? How do you guarantee that only those people can have them? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer: you can't. You can try, but only with more stringent gun laws. And that's my point.

None of which matters when you consider the question of whether it is worth such death, tragedy and suffering, just to have "the right" to bear arms. To me, the answer to that question is too self-evident to bother answering.

How do you define who is a responsible drive? How do you guarantee that only those people can have cars? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer you can't try, but only with more stringent driver liscense laws, and thats my point. You could do this with a many number of items, There are a million things out there that can kill people. Who do you deem is responsible to only have these things?

fife

BinauralJam wrote:

fife wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Bet ya this guy wishes he had a gun

I bet ya more he wishes that the gunman didn't have one.

Good Point

thanks,

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

perhaps in your country that has some semblance of truth... but take for instance the Columbine kids... they used their mummys and daddys adult toys to do the shootings... if those spotty little fuckwits had lived in say, Glasgow, the murder capital of Europe and they had wanted to shoot up their school they would never ever have acquired the weapons... and i'll tell you why... weapons are in the hands of criminals here, and the last thing they would want is the police snooping around asking questions like "why did you sell 2 nerds from school a bag of guns?"

also, as the Columbine kids were clearly nerdier than a chess convention if they had found a gun dealer in Glasgow the dealer would have just robbed them of the money they had to buy the guns in the first place.

But these kids that shoot up places are on the fringes of society... the disenfranchised... they wouldnt have the first fucking clue where to acuire illegal guns... they could barely string a sentence together to speak to girls never mind approach a gang of black/asian/white guys on a rough end of town street corner to ask for a Glock.

actually it was a post based on real life... how am i supposed to find a fact about nerd kids buying guns from hard people in a rough part of a town?

and whats with the stats requests.. do you write almanacs or something? stats can and have been used to prove all manner of arguments for both sides of things.[/quote]
Please show me link of nerds trying to buy guns and being turned down. How is your post based on real life if you have nothing to base it off of?

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

not true. i posted a link that shows that guns account for 16 times more deaths in the US than rest of the worlds 25 richest countries combined. clearly that stat wasn't in your favourites due to its damning statement of your countries ability to fire guns at each others faces.

the link was http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm just so you can bookmark it.,

See link of populations by country. You will see that the USA is 3rd in population. the next closest is Japan who is 10th. the us has 173,000,000 more people than Japan does. Nice try on your skew stats. You need to take into account population. Also, I would like some stats on gun control please...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population

sigh... the link clearly stated

* Per 100,000 children in each age group and for 1 year during 1990-1995.

its based on a per 100,000 population statistical analysis... not sheer fucking numbers of people.

pandora

fife wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

fife wrote:

I bet ya more he wishes that the gunman didn't have one.

Good Point

thanks,

You are assuming the crazy young man filled with hate would not carry out an evil plan without a gun. This is not the case.
He was on a mission.

pandora

fife wrote:

I agree that it does still boil down to the person but restricting access to thinks that have no benefit to society is a good thing. I wrote this in another place. just because people might use bombs if guns are not available doesn't mean that we should allow people to carry bombs around.

Well you can certainly buy everything legally to make a b word.
And you can not take away someones rights because some people are stupid or crazy ...this, in the case of guns.
It is our basic right to protect ourselves and should remain so.

fife

[
You are assuming the crazy young man filled with hate would not carry out an evil plan without a gun. This is not the case.
He was on a mission.[/quote]

your also assuming that if he didn't have east access to guns he would have used something else. if as someone said that he wanted to kill as many people as possible why didn't he use a bomb? why did he choose a gun? could it be because it was very easy for him to get as compared to a bomb.