Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 16:39:54 GMT -5
Guns aren't dangerous. People are. So it would be okay for kids to play with guns? They're not dangerous or anything. What a stupid ass thing to say. I didn't mean it in that way, kids should never play with guns. I meant as if you give a normal person a gun they will just use it for self defence rather than be ridiculous with the weapon. If you have a bad person a gun, they would use it to go on a shooting spree or use it for other crimes. Or if you gave it to a child they could get injured and/or die. What I meant to say is guns can or can't be dangerous depending on who is or isn't using the weapon.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Sept 1, 2015 18:24:06 GMT -5
So it would be okay for kids to play with guns? They're not dangerous or anything. What a stupid ass thing to say. I didn't mean it in that way, kids should never play with guns. I meant as if you give a normal person a gun they will just use it for self defence rather than be ridiculous with the weapon. If you have a bad person a gun, they would use it to go on a shooting spree or use it for other crimes. Or if you gave it to a child they could get injured and/or die. What I meant to say is guns can or can't be dangerous depending on who is or isn't using the weapon. Which is why some of us don't want random kooks on the street to be able to arm themselves so easily. And I think some people have this cowboy mentality where they think they can save the day with their guns and heroics. It seems to be an American thing mostly. Too many action films and video games make them think they are something special behind the trigger. I wouldn't trust anybody with a gun except a cop/security guard/military, and even them I'm leery of. More guns just makes things worse, but the guys making profits from selling them don't give a damn. Just like the guys who don't care if there pollution kills the planet as long as they get paid. Thanks to everybody who's helping to destroy our world!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 21:01:13 GMT -5
I didn't mean it in that way, kids should never play with guns. I meant as if you give a normal person a gun they will just use it for self defence rather than be ridiculous with the weapon. If you have a bad person a gun, they would use it to go on a shooting spree or use it for other crimes. Or if you gave it to a child they could get injured and/or die. What I meant to say is guns can or can't be dangerous depending on who is or isn't using the weapon. Which is why some of us don't want random kooks on the street to be able to arm themselves so easily. And I think some people have this cowboy mentality where they think they can save the day with their guns and heroics. It seems to be an American thing mostly. Too many action films and video games make them think they are something special behind the trigger. I wouldn't trust anybody with a gun except a cop/security guard/military, and even them I'm leery of. More guns just makes things worse, but the guys making profits from selling them don't give a damn. Just like the guys who don't care if there pollution kills the planet as long as they get paid. Thanks to everybody who's helping to destroy our world! Your post has convinced me. I do agree with you now. Anyways, I REALLY hate people who who don't give a crap about the planet or animals and only care about money and themselves. Those are the two main problems in the world- Crime/Selfish people and Pollution/Global Warming. Hell, none of it will matter any more when you come to think about it, we"ll all be dead if we don't find a solution to all of this pollution and global warming.
|
|
|
Post by screech on Sept 1, 2015 21:18:37 GMT -5
I didn't mean it in that way, kids should never play with guns. I meant as if you give a normal person a gun they will just use it for self defence rather than be ridiculous with the weapon. If you have a bad person a gun, they would use it to go on a shooting spree or use it for other crimes. Or if you gave it to a child they could get injured and/or die. What I meant to say is guns can or can't be dangerous depending on who is or isn't using the weapon. Which is why some of us don't want random kooks on the street to be able to arm themselves so easily. And I think some people have this cowboy mentality where they think they can save the day with their guns and heroics. It seems to be an American thing mostly. Too many action films and video games make them think they are something special behind the trigger. I wouldn't trust anybody with a gun except a cop/security guard/military, and even them I'm leery of. More guns just makes things worse, but the guys making profits from selling them don't give a damn. Just like the guys who don't care if there pollution kills the planet as long as they get paid. Thanks to everybody who's helping to destroy our world! I understand your point about being worried more people will want to become armed thinking it's a heroic thing socially and they may not actually be prepared to be carrying that firearm responsibly. Conceal carry permits usually do require some sort of firearm training which I do understand could still be limited and not sufficient for a lot of people. It is a fact, however, that many crimes have been stopped by trained civilians, even high profile shootings such as the Oregon mall shooting and the Gabby Gifford shooting. I do agree with you though that a lot of people have that mentality and it could be alarming if carrying a gun became more popular because of a social trend rather than mostly being people who are properly trained and responsible. One aspect of the pro-gun movement that I can't stand are the radicals that walk around town with their semi-automatic rifles strapped on their backs thinking they're making some sort of statement lol.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Sept 1, 2015 21:29:43 GMT -5
Chocolate chip! And I agree, the world isnt evil...there are just evil people in the world. Banning guns just isnt going to stop that. My dad posted this (below) on his facebook. While I dont necessarily agree everyone needs religion, everyone needs to be taught morals and right from wrong now days. And this is 100% accurate. banning guns wont stop people from killing other people. I've agreed with most of the things you've said up until this point. I'm sure there are a lot of law abiding, life-respecting atheists who would take issue with that. I think some of you guys are getting so worked up you're not reading what I say. I clearly said above the post that I dont agree so much about the religious statement at the end. Its not about "finding God" as much as just finding some morals.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 1, 2015 21:47:09 GMT -5
I've agreed with most of the things you've said up until this point. I'm sure there are a lot of law abiding, life-respecting atheists who would take issue with that. I think some of you guys are getting so worked up you're not reading what I say. I clearly said above the post that I dont agree so much about the religious statement at the end. Its not about "finding God" as much as just finding some morals. Yeah, that's why I didnt intially fly off the handle when I saw that. Just gets very tiresome whenever society's ills are blamed on the godless (I'm talking to you Bill O'Reilly).
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Sept 1, 2015 22:02:47 GMT -5
I think some of you guys are getting so worked up you're not reading what I say. I clearly said above the post that I dont agree so much about the religious statement at the end. Its not about "finding God" as much as just finding some morals. Yeah, that's why I didnt intially fly off the handle when I saw that. Just gets very tiresome whenever society's ills are blamed on the godless (I'm talking to you Bill O'Reilly). I mean, Ive stated before in other threads, sure Im religious and I believe in God and IMO it can help make life easier for people but at the same time those beliefs are mine. I dont run door to door telling people to worship God or burn in hell. I dont force my opinions on people. If you want to believe, fine...if not...fine. My rule is as long as you dont offend me with what you say, I wont offend you with what I say.
|
|
RWF
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Feb 3, 2014 20:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 341
|
Post by RWF on Sept 2, 2015 1:28:01 GMT -5
Anyone who says "guns don't kill people, people do" is looking at things from a very idiotic perspective.
Guns, which can be bought anywhere in most parts of the country (and in lots of states with little to no supervision) are the most readily available lethal weapon known to man. A handgun is 10X more lethal than the sharpest knife or sword, the next most dangerous weapon. Handguns barely scratch the surface of what is available, since assault rifle bans were lifted. One person with an assault rifle can kill over a hundred people in a matter of minutes.
Yes bombs are more dangerous (to an extent) but bombs are harder to make, often fail and require precision targeting. It's actually MUCH easier to walk into a shopping mall and randomly spray bullets, than it is to walk into a shopping mall and blow the place up.
The whole notion that someone will "find a way", neglects the reality that the issue is the way that exists is far too convenient. The reason most of these people are able to carry out their heinous attacks is because they have easy access to guns. Would this guy have still done something without easy access to the gun? Possibly. Would he have managed to kill these two people and wound another? Very unlikely. He certainly couldn't have done what he did, with a knife. Maybe a trained and skilled assassin could have, but this was some loser who was only able to kill these people because he blindsided them point blank and fired as many bullets as he had in the chamber until they were dead.
GUNS are the reason these people are dead. Guns are the means by which they died. This is not a disputable fact. Literally any other means that this guy would have had readily available, would have had less of a chance of killing these people.
We need stringent gun control in this country. It's the single most important issue facing our generation. And until people wake up and actually address it, we will continue to see this spiral of death, mayhem and carnage as a result of guns.
For the record, Timothy McVeigh did use fertilizer to make a bomb... And guess what happened? Right after the government began tracking fertilizer sales, putting in place a variety of protection measures to prevent anyone from being able to do what he did. It wasn't that hard, it was literally a matter of enacting some control over the sales of fertilizer. Guess how many fertilizer bombs have been used to kill people since that time? If you guess ZERO, give yourself a cookie.
Somehow, we figured out that fertilizer could be dangerous and put restrictions on it. Since McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma, gun control has actually went down in record numbers. It's now easier to get a gun than it was then. And we've had HUNDREDS of mass shootings since the Oklahoma City bombing. Maybe we should you know, try and do the same stuff that prevented anymore fertilizer bomb attacks from happening, to guns?
Guns don't need to be banned. They need to be hard to get. There should be rigorous regulation on them. If there had been, we wouldn't have another pair of unnecessary deaths on our hands.
And yes, we need lots of other things, better mental health facilities, better healthcare, more reporting of warning signs, etc, but none of those things alone will decrease the amount of gun violence we see every day in this country... And all of them combined wouldn't stop even 1/10th of what stringent gun control would prevent.
It's literally JUST that simple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 7:03:23 GMT -5
I don't think we have a gun problem here in America. I think we have an information problem.
With cell phones, everyone has the Internet in their pocket 24/7. Cable TV has the world-wide-web to compete with. If you want to glue eyeballs to screens you're going to need the types of stories that captivate modern sensibilities.
Politics have become a team sport, and everyone loves sports. Sex and violence sells. Nothing is more important to us than our own lives, and mass-shooting stories deliver on all levels.
You have the political aspect: the gun debate, you've got the violence, and you've got the fear for your safety. Of course the media is going to run stories like these. People tune in for them.
It doesn't matter that statistically we're safer now than we ever have been. People are going to think guns are an issue as long as politics are divisive and ratings are more important than the truth. People like to argue. We should be thankful we've been given another opportunity to do just that.
Does anyone think this issue will ever be settled?
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 2, 2015 8:01:24 GMT -5
Does anyone think this issue will ever be settled? Short answer, no.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Sept 2, 2015 8:23:28 GMT -5
You can debate this all you want but if you take away the second amendment right it only stops law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms. Bottom line is it does not apply to criminals and never, ever will. They will still have all the guns and ammo they want. It will easily and readily be available to them. Nothing and I mean nothing will stop criminals from owning guns... ever. And I sure as hell do not want to live in a society where only criminals, insane people, police, military, government agencies and more will have firearms while I sit here totally defenseless.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Sept 2, 2015 8:29:56 GMT -5
Anyone who says "guns don't kill people, people do" is looking at things from a very idiotic perspective. Guns, which can be bought anywhere in most parts of the country (and in lots of states with little to no supervision) are the most readily available lethal weapon known to man. A handgun is 10X more lethal than the sharpest knife or sword, the next most dangerous weapon. Handguns barely scratch the surface of what is available, since assault rifle bans were lifted. One person with an assault rifle can kill over a hundred people in a matter of minutes. Yes bombs are more dangerous (to an extent) but bombs are harder to make, often fail and require precision targeting. It's actually MUCH easier to walk into a shopping mall and randomly spray bullets, than it is to walk into a shopping mall and blow the place up. The whole notion that someone will "find a way", neglects the reality that the issue is the way that exists is far too convenient. The reason most of these people are able to carry out their heinous attacks is because they have easy access to guns. Would this guy have still done something without easy access to the gun? Possibly. Would he have managed to kill these two people and wound another? Very unlikely. He certainly couldn't have done what he did, with a knife. Maybe a trained and skilled assassin could have, but this was some loser who was only able to kill these people because he blindsided them point blank and fired as many bullets as he had in the chamber until they were dead. GUNS are the reason these people are dead. Guns are the means by which they died. This is not a disputable fact. Literally any other means that this guy would have had readily available, would have had less of a chance of killing these people. We need stringent gun control in this country. It's the single most important issue facing our generation. And until people wake up and actually address it, we will continue to see this spiral of death, mayhem and carnage as a result of guns. For the record, Timothy McVeigh did use fertilizer to make a bomb... And guess what happened? Right after the government began tracking fertilizer sales, putting in place a variety of protection measures to prevent anyone from being able to do what he did. It wasn't that hard, it was literally a matter of enacting some control over the sales of fertilizer. Guess how many fertilizer bombs have been used to kill people since that time? If you guess ZERO, give yourself a cookie. Somehow, we figured out that fertilizer could be dangerous and put restrictions on it. Since McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma, gun control has actually went down in record numbers. It's now easier to get a gun than it was then. And we've had HUNDREDS of mass shootings since the Oklahoma City bombing. Maybe we should you know, try and do the same stuff that prevented anymore fertilizer bomb attacks from happening, to guns? Guns don't need to be banned. They need to be hard to get. There should be rigorous regulation on them. If there had been, we wouldn't have another pair of unnecessary deaths on our hands. And yes, we need lots of other things, better mental health facilities, better healthcare, more reporting of warning signs, etc, but none of those things alone will decrease the amount of gun violence we see every day in this country... And all of them combined wouldn't stop even 1/10th of what stringent gun control would prevent. It's literally JUST that simple. You do realize that NY, CA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws out there, and yet people die EVERY DAY from guns.. That's where your argument is flawed. Instead of blindly saying "we need more stringent gun control" why don't you elaborate on exactly what you're suggesting? For the record, "Assault weapons" have been highly regulated since 1968 with the GCA. And Civilian sales of those guns stopped after 1986. (pre-86 guns are still transferrable, but the cost is so high.) Under your theory of blaming guns, we'd need to regulate sales of cars, alcohol, tobacco and just about everything else since they would be the means to which someone dies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 9:49:44 GMT -5
Sorry guys but the world is guna get alot worse before it gets better.
Expect world war 3 in the next 30 or so years, there are many reasons it could kick off, resources, religion, nuclear etc.
As Einstein once said.. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 10:15:32 GMT -5
Gun control doesn't really fix the problem. The problem is people wanting to hurt other people. We should focus on fixing that. That's the real problem.
Some problems can't be fixed. That's another thing we should consider. We can't just stop all bad things from ever happening.
The gun debate is just another argument we use to divide ourselves. The gun debate itself is part of the problem because it helps create more bad feelings we have toward each other.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Sept 2, 2015 11:12:26 GMT -5
You can debate this all you want but if you take away the second amendment right it only stops law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms. Bottom line is it does not apply to criminals and never, ever will. They will still have all the guns and ammo they want. It will easily and readily be available to them. Nothing and I mean nothing will stop criminals from owning guns... ever. And I sure as hell do not want to live in a society where only criminals, insane people, police, military, government agencies and more will have firearms while I sit here totally defenseless. Why is it that in these debates, the pro-gun people always jump straight to banning guns? Very few people on the other side are taking about taking everyone's guns away. Nevermind the second amendment for a moment, the logistics of that would be nearly impossible. The "anti"gun side says something along the lines of "we need to make it more difficult for dangerous people to acquire guns." And the knee-jerk reaction to that is almost always "yeah well nobody better come for MY guns." No one is talking about that. No one in government wants to take your guns away.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Sept 2, 2015 11:21:14 GMT -5
Anyone who says "guns don't kill people, people do" is looking at things from a very idiotic perspective. Guns, which can be bought anywhere in most parts of the country (and in lots of states with little to no supervision) are the most readily available lethal weapon known to man. A handgun is 10X more lethal than the sharpest knife or sword, the next most dangerous weapon. Handguns barely scratch the surface of what is available, since assault rifle bans were lifted. One person with an assault rifle can kill over a hundred people in a matter of minutes. Yes bombs are more dangerous (to an extent) but bombs are harder to make, often fail and require precision targeting. It's actually MUCH easier to walk into a shopping mall and randomly spray bullets, than it is to walk into a shopping mall and blow the place up. The whole notion that someone will "find a way", neglects the reality that the issue is the way that exists is far too convenient. The reason most of these people are able to carry out their heinous attacks is because they have easy access to guns. Would this guy have still done something without easy access to the gun? Possibly. Would he have managed to kill these two people and wound another? Very unlikely. He certainly couldn't have done what he did, with a knife. Maybe a trained and skilled assassin could have, but this was some loser who was only able to kill these people because he blindsided them point blank and fired as many bullets as he had in the chamber until they were dead. GUNS are the reason these people are dead. Guns are the means by which they died. This is not a disputable fact. Literally any other means that this guy would have had readily available, would have had less of a chance of killing these people. We need stringent gun control in this country. It's the single most important issue facing our generation. And until people wake up and actually address it, we will continue to see this spiral of death, mayhem and carnage as a result of guns. For the record, Timothy McVeigh did use fertilizer to make a bomb... And guess what happened? Right after the government began tracking fertilizer sales, putting in place a variety of protection measures to prevent anyone from being able to do what he did. It wasn't that hard, it was literally a matter of enacting some control over the sales of fertilizer. Guess how many fertilizer bombs have been used to kill people since that time? If you guess ZERO, give yourself a cookie. Somehow, we figured out that fertilizer could be dangerous and put restrictions on it. Since McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma, gun control has actually went down in record numbers. It's now easier to get a gun than it was then. And we've had HUNDREDS of mass shootings since the Oklahoma City bombing. Maybe we should you know, try and do the same stuff that prevented anymore fertilizer bomb attacks from happening, to guns? Guns don't need to be banned. They need to be hard to get. There should be rigorous regulation on them. If there had been, we wouldn't have another pair of unnecessary deaths on our hands. And yes, we need lots of other things, better mental health facilities, better healthcare, more reporting of warning signs, etc, but none of those things alone will decrease the amount of gun violence we see every day in this country... And all of them combined wouldn't stop even 1/10th of what stringent gun control would prevent. It's literally JUST that simple. You do realize that NY, CA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws out there, and yet people die EVERY DAY from guns.. That's where your argument is flawed. Instead of blindly saying "we need more stringent gun control" why don't you elaborate on exactly what you're suggesting? For the record, "Assault weapons" have been highly regulated since 1968 with the GCA. And Civilian sales of those guns stopped after 1986. (pre-86 guns are still transferrable, but the cost is so high.) Under your theory of blaming guns, we'd need to regulate sales of cars, alcohol, tobacco and just about everything else since they would be the means to which someone dies. You can't look at gun control in American cities. Those cities are surrounded by nearly unfettered access to guns on all sides. I don't understand this argument. How can anyone be against preventing the mentally ill and other dangerous people from getting their hands on deadly weapons? I've been doing more research on this issue recently and it has caused me to reevaluate my position. But there are a couple equations I just can't get past: Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People + Guns = Violent Tragedy Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People - Guns = No Innocent Lives Taken
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Sept 2, 2015 17:25:41 GMT -5
You do realize that NY, CA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws out there, and yet people die EVERY DAY from guns.. That's where your argument is flawed. Instead of blindly saying "we need more stringent gun control" why don't you elaborate on exactly what you're suggesting? For the record, "Assault weapons" have been highly regulated since 1968 with the GCA. And Civilian sales of those guns stopped after 1986. (pre-86 guns are still transferrable, but the cost is so high.) Under your theory of blaming guns, we'd need to regulate sales of cars, alcohol, tobacco and just about everything else since they would be the means to which someone dies. You can't look at gun control in American cities. Those cities are surrounded by nearly unfettered access to guns on all sides. I don't understand this argument. How can anyone be against preventing the mentally ill and other dangerous people from getting their hands on deadly weapons? I've been doing more research on this issue recently and it has caused me to reevaluate my position. But there are a couple equations I just can't get past: Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People + Guns = Violent Tragedy Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People - Guns = No Innocent Lives Taken That's not true at all, and of the 3 places I listed, only one was a city, the rest were states. NY for instance, isn't bordered with states with nearly unfettered access to guns. NJ, CT both have pretty strict gun laws as does MD. Trafficking arms between states is also illegal, so I don't understand your point on how one state or city with the strictest gun control cannot be looked at. I didn't even mention the mentally ill. Though to that point, I'm for preventing the mentally ill not being able to access guns. However, there needs to be some standard. We can't just have some random doctor telling people that they can or cannot own a firearm. There would need to be standards set that if you do not meet those standards, you cannot attain a firearm. But with that, there will also need to be a process in which someone can re-attain their god given right. Taking guns out of the equation will not negate all violent crime committed with guns, there are still plenty of gangs, a huge black market for drugs and just all around bad people in the world. You can't save everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 21:38:20 GMT -5
You can't look at gun control in American cities. Those cities are surrounded by nearly unfettered access to guns on all sides. I don't understand this argument. How can anyone be against preventing the mentally ill and other dangerous people from getting their hands on deadly weapons? I've been doing more research on this issue recently and it has caused me to reevaluate my position. But there are a couple equations I just can't get past: Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People + Guns = Violent Tragedy Mentally Ill or Otherwise Dangerous People - Guns = No Innocent Lives Taken That's not true at all, and of the 3 places I listed, only one was a city, the rest were states. NY for instance, isn't bordered with states with nearly unfettered access to guns. NJ, CT both have pretty strict gun laws as does MD. Trafficking arms between states is also illegal, so I don't understand your point on how one state or city with the strictest gun control cannot be looked at. I didn't even mention the mentally ill. Though to that point, I'm for preventing the mentally ill not being able to access guns. However, there needs to be some standard. We can't just have some random doctor telling people that they can or cannot own a firearm. There would need to be standards set that if you do not meet those standards, you cannot attain a firearm. But with that, there will also need to be a process in which someone can re-attain their god given right. Taking guns out of the equation will not negate all violent crime committed with guns, there are still plenty of gangs, a huge black market for drugs and just all around bad people in the world. You can't save everyone. You didn't mention pa. I bought a 45 in 25 mins at cabelas. Just so happens to be the state where a lot of criminals from NY go for guns, drugs and what not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:52:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 22:54:22 GMT -5
You can debate this all you want but if you take away the second amendment right it only stops law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms. Bottom line is it does not apply to criminals and never, ever will. They will still have all the guns and ammo they want. It will easily and readily be available to them. Nothing and I mean nothing will stop criminals from owning guns... ever. And I sure as hell do not want to live in a society where only criminals, insane people, police, military, government agencies and more will have firearms while I sit here totally defenseless. A $1,000 gun in America is $30,000 in Australia. One of those prices seems more readily available than the other.
|
|