Another shooting, close to

[productionhead]

wickedfire is hilarious, someone just directly implied obama is going to be a dictator

the moment he tries that, 1M people will stampede the white house, all invited thru a FB event 30 minutes earlier

 

[MSTeacher]

Wow that is one hell of a leap in logic. More rhetoric I fear.

in case gun loons are wondering why people dont take you seriously - its shit like ^

As Dreamache pointed out the Obama reference is spurious, but otherwise, why? What about the relationship between gun control and genocide is difficult to take seriously? Do you really think these atrocities would have been anywhere close to their actual scale if they had been attempted on an armed population?

 

[Al_hk]

Worth 20 kids?

No one needs guns. Millions of people go without them and they're just fine. Millions of others go with them and they're fine too.

Armed populations are not victims of genocide, they don't get invaded, they can protect their property and exercise deadly force when necessary without relying on others, and they can hunt and kill their own food.

Like it or not gun ownership is a deeply routed part of American culture with its own pros and cons. Most of the reasoning behind gun ownership is from centuries back and is a response to life under precolonial and colonial monarchy. It's a symbol of personal power and a check against the power monopoly of government. It's the ability to bag a deer and feed your family without a local land baron raping your wife or confiscating a year's pay for stealing his property. It's a sign to other countries that you don't want to invade us because we're triggerhappy maniacs who will send you packing. It's a reflection of the idea that people are the government and the government should serve people, not the other way around.

Plus Americans are much more well equipped to deal with the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

So yeah, a few thousand firearm fatalities a year in exchange for that. You decide whether it's worth it.

Does it worth the loss of 20 American kids?

Seriously, if America is not invaded its mostly due to its location + nuclear arsenal + huge military forces.

Civilians are not a big deal, for a Russian or Chinese invasion.
In case of invasions, Chinese would use chemicals weapons, firing squad, extermination camps, organized starvation (As British did in Ireland, <<potato famine>>) and torture.

Your guns are useless against a full fledged invasion.

You lost in Iraq and lose in Afghanistan, because you bother yourself with human rights.

Chinese and Russian do not bother with human rights.:evil_laughter:

 

[mituozo]

yeah, let's ban guns, but let police and the state have them. sounds like a good idea, except if you consider history..

What about the UK? I wouldn't compare Tony Blair or David Cameron with Stalin, Hitler or Mao.

Didn't the UK and Australian crime rates actually go up after the gun bans?

Not in the UK. We have 1.2 homicides per 100k people per year, which is one of the lowest in the world. US is 4.2, Mexico 16.9, Honduras 91.6 (Honduras is the worst in the world).

We have one of the lowest gun crime rates, too. Even the standard police don't carry guns.

I feel safe without a gun, so far as last year there were less than 100 deaths caused by guns in the UK, which is a what, a 1 in 626,000 chance of me being shot and killed each year, and most of those are in cities. I'm more likely to die crashing my car, or slipping in the shower.

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 and to Germany's 0.21.

Taking guns away in the US can't be considered a solution in any sense though, as your culture around guns is very different to ours and some of the other relatively armless EU states that make it illegal to own guns. You have the most guns per capita in the entire world, and armed police, so it's just not feasible. There's something like almost 1 gun per person across the US. If you wanted any chance to disarm the populace, you'd have to disarm the police as a starter for 10.

If I lived in the US, I'd want guns, simply because literally everyone else & the police has them, so I'd feel it necessary in order to defend myself and my property. Fuck taking a knife into a gunfight.

 

[dchuk]

yeah, let's ban guns, but let police and the state have them. sounds like a good idea, except if you consider history..

this is one of the most fucked up images I've ever seen. Putting Obama in the same boat as the most prolific murderers in mankind's history (save for Genghis Khan) is just pandering bullshit.

The man might make mistakes but he is not a single bit evil, stop spreading shit like this it's just contributing to the ignorance of America.

 

[HappyCookie]

Criminals, by definition, do not abide by the law...

A law banning guns would only take guns out of the hands of non-criminals. How the fuck is that supposed to help?

Fucking spot on!
Ban guns so that the good guys can't even protect themselves.
And why the fuck would a criminal, who is cruel enough to kill little children, care about the "no guns" law? Really?

Also,

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Source : Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools | Libertarian Party

 

[dchuk]

Still valid:

More guns on the streets = more guns in the hands of people who will potentially also use them for good.

More guns at home = potentially safer household

there is no good use for a gun (in the sense of utility), the only use for them is to stop bad things from happening. The problem isn't the use of guns in America, it's the people causing the violence with the guns.

Guns provide absolutely no productive utility in society on their own, they are purely a means of harm and a means of protection if faced with harm. That's extremely different than using something for good.

If everyone owns a gun and gun violence actually goes down because of it, there's no other use for those guns at that point. It's not a true solution to the problem. Not to mention the Second Amendment was talking about how America needs a "well armed militia" because at that point we barely had a military and were in a war. As we have that part covered now, it's about time the Constitution is revised.

Kinda how the original Constitution allowed for the ownership of Blacks. Sometimes our founding fathers just got shit wrong.

 

[MSTeacher]

Your guns are useless against a full fledged invasion.

As my post noted, gun rights come from a different time in history.

Also, you're wrong.

You lost in Iraq and lose in Afghanistan, because you bother yourself with human rights.

We lost because there was nothing to win and if there was we were never supposed to win it.

War does not bother with human rights.

fixed.

 

[swiftmoney]

It baffles me how many people don't grasp this.. without guns how do you plan on protecting yourself when some nut comes in your house and wants to fuck up you and your family?

2 Reasons why your intruder would have a gun.

Easy accessible.
Because you have one.

What makes you think that someone wants to go in your house just to fuck up your family. If that was their aim, they would probably be successful anyway, regardless how heavily armed you are.

The aim should be to disarm the lunatics, not arm the whole population.

 

[productionhead]

THRO YO GATS IN DA AIR
IF YA JUST DON'T KEH

 

[dchuk]

2 Reasons why your intruder would have a gun.

Easy accessible.
Because you have one.

What makes you think that someone wants to go in your house just to fuck up your family. If that was their aim, they would probably be successful anyway, regardless how heavily armed you are.

The aim should be to disarm the lunatics, not arm the whole population.

even more so, the aim should be to treat the lunatics before they even feel compelled to go get guns AND make it infinitely harder to get guns.

I propose this idea: to get a gun, you have to pass a psychological screening, background check, and pass a citizenship test. If you can't pass the citizenship test, you both don't get the gun and are forced to leave this country.

That should readily take care of most of the guntoting redneck idiots in this country as I would imagine most of them can't pass a basic citizenship test. Killing all kinds of birds with one stone, it's the perfect honeypot.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

That should readily take care of most of the guntoting redneck idiots in this country as I would imagine most of them can't pass a basic citizenship test. Killing all kinds of birds with one stone, it's the perfect honeypot.

Except "guntoting redneck idiots" aren't the ones shooting up schools and theatres...

 

[MSTeacher]

2 Reasons why your intruder would have a gun.

Easy accessible.
Because you have one.

What makes you think that someone wants to go in your house just to fuck up your family. If that was their aim, they would probably be successful anyway, regardless how heavily armed you are.

The aim should be to disarm the lunatics, not arm the whole population.

Yeah. Except disarming lunatics is impossible. If you want to disarm the lunatics get them out of Wall Street and Washington.

You're right that most people don't want to just break in to your house and kill you. They want to rob you. So when I hear them snooping around downstairs and chamber a shell in my shotgun, that simple sound will almost certainly compel their peaceful and early departure.

And on the off chance that it is a crazy meth head or a serial killer, I'd rather have a gun in my hands than pass the time whistling by the phone waiting for the police to arrive. Knowing them they'd probably show up and shoot me and my dog just for good measure.

And again for what it's worth, even this train of thought has its own roots in history. There were no supermarkets or security systems back in the day. No cops, no neighborhood watch organizations, blah blah. Things were just different. When some poor thief wanted to steal your pig and slaughter it down the road, you fired a warning shot and scared him off. If he reached for a gun you shot him. And there are still places in this country where it basically still works that way.

 

[thunderlips]

remember when we used to post tits and ass?

 

[MSTeacher]

Guns provide absolutely no productive utility in society on their own, they are purely a means of harm and a means of protection if faced with harm. That's extremely different than using something for good.

I mostly agree, but I can think of a few families whose primary source of food every year is from wildlife that they hunt.

Not saying they wouldn't survive without it but a lot of people do feed themselves with wild game. Guns still have a social utility beyond human violence and defense.

 

[dchuk]

I mostly agree, but I can think of a few families whose primary source of food every year is from wildlife that they hunt.

Not saying they wouldn't survive without it but a lot of people do feed themselves with wild game. Guns still have a social utility beyond human violence and defense.

yeah I agree of course, but the percentage of the population who survive on hunted game in America is so small it's not even worth discussing.

My point was more that Suzie Homemaker doesn't need a GAT in her Coach purse while waiting in line at CVS.

 

[dmnEPC]

there is no good use for a gun (in the sense of utility), the only use for them is to stop bad things from happening. The problem isn't the use of guns in America, it's the people causing the violence with the guns.

Guns provide absolutely no productive utility in society on their own, they are purely a means of harm and a means of protection if faced with harm. That's extremely different than using something for good.

If everyone owns a gun and gun violence actually goes down because of it, there's no other use for those guns at that point. It's not a true solution to the problem. Not to mention the Second Amendment was talking about how America needs a "well armed militia" because at that point we barely had a military and were in a war. As we have that part covered now, it's about time the Constitution is revised.

Kinda how the original Constitution allowed for the ownership of Blacks. Sometimes our founding fathers just got shit wrong.

I realize these recent events have been very traumatic for many people. And I'm sure have touched off a nerve with you, and I can respect that

This country has millions of people who have been brought up to respect firearms. We don't all keep them because we live in fear of criminals or the government. Firearms bring families together. They teach children respect and sportsmanship. To say that the only purpose is to harm or prevent harm is crazy. The thought of using a firearm to harm or prevent harm rarely even crosses the minds of millions of law abiding gun enthusiasts.

Just because you live near an environment where people regularly do harm with firearms does not mean that everyone does. Crime will continue no matter what. Take away the guns and the weapon will simply change. The right to keep and bare arms was not a mistake. Thinking we need more laws to add to the nearly 20,000 local, state, federal, & international laws and regulations we are expected to follow, is the real mistake

 

[sixthcutuan]

I mostly agree, but I can think of a few families whose primary source of food every year is from wildlife that they hunt.

Not saying they wouldn't survive without it but a lot of people do feed themselves with wild game. Guns still have a social utility beyond human violence and defense.

Same over here in Scotland (hell the north is covered in Stags) yet we still have laws to cope with this. We also don't have guns completely banned. For instance some of my friends have shotgun licenses and a few shotguns at home, back when I was at high-school we used to regularly shoot semi-automatic and automatic rifles, machine guns, smoke grenades etc. You are full able to take a trip out and do shooting tournaments etc. But handguns are a big no no and the current controls on the other guns are pretty rigorous and take quite a bit of time. Oh and I would feel far more comfortable if the person breaking into my house didn't have a gun, even if that meant I didn't either.

Oh and earlier I wasn't saying poverty was the only reason, I just personally believe that greater poverty is usually likely to lead to greater crime rates (guns or not).

 

[Andrey]

this is one of the most fucked up images I've ever seen. Putting Obama in the same boat as the most prolific murderers in mankind's history (save for Genghis Khan) is just pandering bullshit.

The man might make mistakes but he is not a single bit evil, stop spreading shit like this it's just contributing to the ignorance of America.

lol bro you need some mushrooms to get your thinking straight. Do you really believe the shit you say?

PM grindstone.

 

[dchuk]

I realize these recent events have been very traumatic for many people. And I'm sure have touched off a nerve with you, and I can respect that

This country has millions of people who have been brought up to respect firearms. We don't all keep them because we live in fear of criminals or the government. Firearms bring families together. They teach children respect and sportsmanship. To say that the only purpose is to harm or prevent harm is crazy. The thought of using a firearm to harm or prevent harm rarely even crosses the minds of millions of law abiding gun enthusiasts.

Just because you live near an environment where people regularly do harm with firearms does not mean that everyone does. Crime will continue no matter what. Take away the guns and the weapon will simply change. The right to keep and bare arms was not a mistake. Thinking we need more laws to add to the nearly 20,000 local, state, federal, & international laws and regulations we are expected to follow, is the real mistake

I am respectful and love my family and have shot a gun once in my life. You can learn respect and love just as easily from playing organized sports as a child.

Again, there is no productive use for guns in society. They are only weapons.