TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gun Control in America
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story.

are all the NRA apologists retarded? how easy is it to acquire or steal guns in a society where you can buy one at your local kmart?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow only the authorities access to firearms

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN did you even read that page? [quote]Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states. Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.

The real question here is did you even read what YOU quoted. Next.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN not at all true. the actual process for killing someone with a firearm is "clean" compared to bashing their skull in with a hammer. it is also far far easier to do. if they were relatively similar you'd still have armies using hammers

Great, so now we talking about military operations instead of acts of passion as murders are typically considered.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN irrelevant. theres no way in hell he wouldve been able to knife or stab or bash 30 people.

I knew you would say something asinine. The entire point is that this is such a limited act that it borders on being entirely unimportant outside of the context of lives lost. Again, people should worry more about being struck by lightning than having someone like this around them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, just my opinion you reckon? how can you possibly argue that the greatet number of guns in any population has no effect on those guns being misused or misappropriate? who's being asinine? lets go back to that page you gave me shall we?

It's called statistics. Almost 60% of those deaths are suicides.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN looks like i was right, huh?

Actually, you would have realized you were wrong if you had any sort of reading comprehension. The rules are the result.

Again.

quote:

Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.

Meaning that if people want the guns they don't care about what laws they break to get them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if you had even bothered to read that page you would realise how silly youre sounding. in a federal system its useless to debate a state v state situation, where (as already noted) one can simply go elsewhere to purchase your weapons.

You're going to have the balls to call me out on reading when you don't even read what you quoted?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN now, the illegal trade is going to be there NOW, because you've had access to such weapons for a long period of time. i have already posted elsewhere that america has fvcked itself. its a lost cause. again, your notion that more guns around does not mean more misuse is ridiculously illogical.

Yes, we're so fucked because we have guns. We're so fucked that we're still one of the best places in the world to take up residence.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, because you know heaps of people with guns that are responsible then its a non-issue! wtf? your reasoning makes NO sense. there are plenty of law-abiding people with ready-access to firearms, that one day decide theyre NOT going to be law-abiding. how many kids have accessed daddy's locked cabinet and then shot up their school? how much more often does this happen in the US than any other comparable country?

You still lack the ability to see the overall issue. These occurrences are so rare and limited that they are almost entirely unimportant to any kind of debate about this subject. However, people such as yourself are the reason why these instances are used to start the debate.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dumbest analogy ever. the difference being that cars serve a purpose OTHER THAN killing other drivers. the handgun is designed for killing people. it serves no other useful purpose.

Actually, it's a rather insightful analogy. In either instance you have a person operating a machine. One was designed to be a transportation answer to what comes after the horse, and the other was the modern replacement to the bow and arrow. In both cases when used improperly the results are going to be disastrous.

This brings back into play the real issue. The operator. You have responsible ones, and irresponsible ones. Either way shit happens. The only way to stop it is to take all of them away, but no one is saying anything about taking our cars away despite them causing more fatalities than guns. I don't see anything happening about people talking on their phones while driving either, but that's just as bad.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN are all the NRA apologists retarded? how easy is it to acquire or steal guns in a society where you can buy one at your local kmart?

How easy is it to kill someone using your bare hands if you want to? Shit, what about the little girl in Japan using a box knife to kill one of her classmates. Take guns away and people just revert back to other methods. The point is that anti-gun people are typically lacking in foresight and want to blame the problem on a machine and not on the operator.

And you lump all of us in as NRA nuts and call us retarded. You didn't even read what you quoted twice!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow only the authorities access to firearms

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Great, so now we talking about military operations instead of acts of passion as murders are typically considered.

no, just pointing out that comparing a hammer to a handgun or assault rifle is inherently silly.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 I knew you would say something asinine. The entire point is that this is such a limited act that it borders on being entirely unimportant outside of the context of lives lost. Again, people should worry more about being struck by lightning than having someone like this around them.

but im not just talking about recent events. just general, average day-to-day murder. and murder is far easier (in numerous ways) with a firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 It's called statistics. Almost 60% of those deaths are suicides.

if you say so. admittedly old, but from the same department

quote:

In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Meaning that if people want the guns they don't care about what laws they break to get them.

see, this is where your selective emphasis is just ridiculous. yes, i know criminals are going to go get guns. what you're not accepting, and which is blatantly obvious, is that they are far easier to obtain by criminals in a society that has a lot of guns floating around. you keep focusing on demand instead of supply.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 You're going to have the balls to call me out on reading when you don't even read what you quoted?

i read what you quoted, you just like to be select on what you think a quote means. its painfully obvious that if you have lax gun-control laws in one state, bad people will go there to get what they want and your country makes it profoundly easy for them to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Yes, we're so fucked because we have guns. We're so fucked that we're still one of the best places in the world to take up residence.

according to whom? let's not bring out the stats on how far behind the US is in important areas according to OECD. certainly nothing to be proud of for the richest nation on earth. and for the record, i didnt say the US is fvcked, i said the US is fvcked when it comes to gun control. no matter what you try to do now.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 You still lack the ability to see the overall issue. These occurrences are so rare and limited that they are almost entirely unimportant to any kind of debate about this subject. However, people such as yourself are the reason why these instances are used to start the debate.

no, youre the one failing to acknowledge that the easy access to weapons is part of the problem of both mass shootings as well as general criminal activity. you have the highest rate of gun-related murder THAN ANY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. if thats not related to the gun-toting american society, explain to me why its that way.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Actually, it's a rather insightful analogy. In either instance you have a person operating a machine. One was designed to be a transportation answer to what comes after the horse, and the other was the modern replacement to the bow and arrow. In both cases when used improperly the results are going to be disastrous.

but theres no need for the "bow and arrow" in modern society. we have professional outfits that now use their bows to protect us. the reason why we might need our own weapons is because the rest of society is flooded with easy to obtain tools designed principally for murder. i dont have faith in the average person to hold that kind of power in their hands, because the average, even "law-abiding" citizen is an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 This brings back into play the real issue. The operator. You have responsible ones, and irresponsible ones. Either way shit happens. The only way to stop it is to take all of them away, but no one is saying anything about taking our cars away despite them causing more fatalities than guns. I don't see anything happening about people talking on their phones while driving either, but that's just as bad.

the difference being that people know that driving is dangerous, and accept that risk when they head onto the road. suffice it to say thousands of people have no doubt been caught by surprise by their gun-toting murderer.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 How easy is it to kill someone using your bare hands if you want to? Shit, what about the little girl in Japan using a box knife to kill one of her classmates. Take guns away and people just revert back to other methods. The point is that anti-gun people are typically lacking in foresight and want to blame the problem on a machine and not on the operator. And you lump all of us in as NRA nuts and call us retarded. You didn't even read what you quoted twice!

far far harder to kill anyone with your bare hands than it is with a firearm. far harder also to accidentally kill someone with your bare hands.

yes, people might revert back to other methods, and all other methods are less lethal.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Callaghan you're retarded. There are 300 million people in the U.S.. If one every year does something like what happened at VT that is 1 person out of 300,000,000 taking this sort of action. The odds of getting struck by lightning are higher than the odds of someone doing something like this. Saying that we're all gun crazy paranoid hillbillies is about as stereotypical and wrong as me saying Aussies are a bunch of redneck outback hiking, fosters drinking, surfers. And just for good measure, many of the cities in the U.S. with the most strict gun control laws are the same cities that have the highest rate of gun related violence. Just like we keep saying, you take guns away from the innocent and you're only leaving them less protected. None of this in anyway means I'm for everyone owning whatever they want, but making assumptions like you are is the sign of ignorance. "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

And there is over one billion people in China and when do you ever see this happen there?

I'm not even bothering with this thread. I'm going to stick to the stance I've taken on gun control. Which is low calibre rifles and shotguns are legal to the public subject to psycological and criminal tests. Everything else should be left to the cops and military.

Yes I'm streotyping you people, but it's the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals.

It's a dicussion I'm not even bothering pursueing any longer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan Yes I'm streotyping you be people but its the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals.

You "People" what is that supposed to mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan And there is over one billion people in China and when do you ever see this happen there? I'm not even bothering with this thread. I'm going to stick to the stance I've taken on gun control. Which is low calibre rifles and shotguns are legal to the public subject to psycological and criminal tests. Everything else should be left to the cops and military. Yes I'm streotyping you people, but it's the fact everyone cries on about protecting themselves from criminals. It's a dicussion I'm not even bothering pursueing any longer.

China is a communist dictatorship. Even if it did happen they would censor the media.

And btw, did you notice that one of the weapons used in the VT shooting was a low caliber rifle, a .22? And how exactly are you going to define low caliber? An M-16 shoots a .223 caliber bullet, thats only .003 bigger than a .22 rimfire.

And I have a 12 gauge shotgun that holds eight 3" magnum rounds that I could fuck up a lot of people with. Only takes about 7 or 8 seconds to fully reload that thing, only a second to drop a single shell in the chamber, and its a hell of a lot more destructive at close range than my "evil" CAR-15 military style rifle that shoots .223

No matter how bad you want them to, no gun control laws are ever going to keep you safe.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Are all the anti-gun nuts here stupid or something? Criminals don't legally aquire their firearms. End of story.

Mark it on the calendar; I'm agreeing with shaolin_Z on this one...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN far far harder to kill anyone with your bare hands than it is with a firearm. far harder also to accidentally kill someone with your bare hands. yes, people might revert back to other methods, and all other methods are less lethal.

Which once again brings up the point that if people want to kill someone they're going to regardless of the methods they use. This means your argument is totally devoid of meaning. Your only concern in this entire matter is that lives are being lost, and all of us keep pointing out to you that no matter what you do lives are going to be taken.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

We have here a mortality number of almost 2.4 million in 2004. In the last numbers I can find (2005) the deaths due to firearms were around 30,000. So we can assume a similar number with a slight increase to 32,000 maybe, for fun. That's a massive 1.3% of all deaths in the U.S. Then you account for the part of that 32,000 which were most likely suicides based off the average overall for 2005 which was 58% which leaves ruffly 13,440 homicides. Thats an even more impressive .56% of all deaths in the U.S.

So what's that again about us being so fucked cause we have guns?

Just for fun, 27% of the deaths were from heart diseases, so maybe you should say we're fucked cause we have Big Mac's instead of guns.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Which once again brings up the point that if people want to kill someone they're going to regardless of the methods they use. This means your argument is totally devoid of meaning. Your only concern in this entire matter is that lives are being lost, and all of us keep pointing out to you that no matter what you do lives are going to be taken.

fine then. by that line of reasoning it would be perfectly acceptable to give people their own personal nuclear weapons

guns dont kill people, people kill people. with guns.

obligatory at this point, i apologize for my lack of taste

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN guns dont kill people, kids that listen to heavy metal that emo music, play Role playing games computer games and wear black, kill people. with guns.

fixed

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith fixed

lol, oh no!

play computer games? check.
play role playing games? check.
listen to heavy music? check.
love guns? check.
hate going to work, and hate my co-workers? check.

it could be me next!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, oh no! play computer games? check. play role playing games? check. listen to heavy music? check. love guns? check. hate going to work, and hate my co-workers? check. it could be me next!

Forwards post to the authorities his mom...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fine then. by that line of reasoning it would be perfectly acceptable to give people their own personal nuclear weapons guns dont kill people, people kill people. with guns.

Actually, no. The cost would be astronomical, and the effects on our environment would be pretty bad.

You're right though. People do kill people. With guns, home utensils, tools, knives, their bare hands, cars, all kinds of stuff really. Out of all of those people do it the most with cars. Sometimes cars and guns.

how come it is in the american constitution that you have the right to bear arms? is that because of the way the country was founded? why can't you change it? is it that necessary for the country to function?

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Which once again brings up the point that if people want to kill someone they're going to regardless of the methods they use. This means your argument is totally devoid of meaning. Your only concern in this entire matter is that lives are being lost, and all of us keep pointing out to you that no matter what you do lives are going to be taken.

well maybe, but if you wake up one day, everything has gotten to you, you snap, you go to uni and you find that bitch that broke your heart, you fill up with rage and you.....run over and try to strangle her, or hit her with a hammer, or stab her, you will probably find that it is pretty tough, maybe you won't be able to kill her, maybe a whole bunch of people will jump on you and stop you, maybe in the middle of it you'll think it was a bad decision.

if you do that with a gun, its all over a lot sooner, you could quickly turn around and shoot someone else, people will be screaming and running away, maybe less people or nobody will jump on you, you could just keep on going.

if i really wanted to kill someone and only had a hammer or my hands then yes i could probably do it. however it would be a lot harder for me to go on a "hammer spree" and kill 30 people then myself with said hammer or hands.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt We should loosen gun laws. If everybody in society was potentially strapped, criminals would be scared shitless, and robberies would drop to almost 0% When you ban guns, only criminals will have them. You are giving them a field day.

That's definitely how it worked in Washington, D.C.

quote:

Originally posted by Philby how come it is in the american constitution that you have the right to bear arms? is that because of the way the country was founded? why can't you change it? is it that necessary for the country to function?

It's written into the constitution, which after over 200 years is still in effect, it's extremely hard to change it. You need an absolute majority of like 2/3, not 51-49% votes. Those votes definately don't exist in the USA. It's so easy, I plan on buying an semi-auto Romanian AK-47 from the internet for like 400$, have it shipped to a gun dealer.

Anyways, the amendmant talks about militias being able to defend themselves against an oppresive government. It's about the power of the people being manifested in an armed citizenry which is much much harder to oppress.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It's written into the constitution, which after over 200 years is still in effect, it's extremely hard to change it. You need an absolute majority of like 2/3, not 51-49% votes. Those votes definately don't exist in the USA. It's so easy, I plan on buying an semi-auto Romanian AK-47 from the internet for like 400$, have it shipped to a gun dealer. Anyways, the amendmant talks about militias being able to defend themselves against an oppresive government. It's about the power of the people being manifested in an armed citizenry which is much much harder to oppress.

You should spend the extra money and get a 9mm converted AR-15. It's more reliable, much more accurate and you can take it to just about any shooting range in the U.S. 9mm bullets are very cheap so you'd probably save in the long run!

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You should spend the extra money and get a 9mm converted AR-15. It's more reliable, much more accurate and you can take it to just about any shooting range in the U.S. 9mm bullets are very cheap so you'd probably save in the long run!

How much are they? Internet or gun shop?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How much are they? Internet or gun shop?

About a grand. I haven't looked online but I know you can get one at your local gun shop after the routine background check, waiting period, etc. (at least here in MD)

I am definitely against gun control

I support limited restrictions on gun ownership, but not any kind of outright ban.

That said, I will not support any politician who opposes gun control measures on constitutional grounds. Any such individual is either ignorant of the constitution, or willing to intentionally ignore its actual full language in favor of selectively chosen sentence fragments. Neither is acceptable in an elected official.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.