Guns Debate

@Shig I never said guns were harmless, so don't be twisting my words.

@Jack I see wut chu u sayin.

well we dont know exactly how many people own guns but. its estimated around 90million- 110 million. 1/3rd of the country.

but

254.4 million cars. 32,885 car deaths

270 million guns. 8000 firearm muders

Dam_Noir wrote:

Cars are primarily used for transport.
Hands are primarily used for grasping and picking up objects.
Legs are primairly used for walking.
Bats are primarily used for sport.
Knifes are primarily used in food preparation but I agree they can be designed solely to be an offensive weapon. (That's why in the UK it's illegal to carry a knife in public with a blade longer than 3 inches due to the fact it could be used for that very reason)
Guns are primaily used for killing and maiming. Sporting reasons is nothing more than a mere by-product.

Irregardless of what really happened at the Pistorius household that day. IF what Oscar Pistorius claims is true and he believed an intruder was breaking into his house then his girlfriend wouldn't be dead if he: tried to jump into his car to run her over, tried to punch her to death, tried to kick her to death (granted Pistorius would struggle with this one), approached her with a bat intending to beat her to death and likewise regards a knife. As each of the above would give Pistorius a chance to positively identify the person he is attacking and even give him more time to fully think about his actions.

A gun can kill somebody instantly without the user even having to be anywhere near the target to make a postive ID, in turn this probably makes the user feel far less disconnected to what they are doing compared to any of the other reasons you've mentioned.

>Guns are primaily used for killing and maiming. Sporting reasons is nothing more than a mere by-product.

not in the US. 8000 out of 270million guns mayne.

>Knifes are primarily used in food preparation but I agree they can be designed solely to be an offensive weapon. (That's why in the UK it's illegal to carry a knife in public with a blade longer than 3 inches due to the fact it could be used for that very reason)

>offensive weapon

lol fucking nanny state




& im still waiting for what you want to do about it.

There is also another by product of guns.

Invading america becomes a lot harder considering the sheer amount of civilians with guns.

Anyways, I personally don't know what to make of the gun situation and how to solve it. It's too complicated.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

shigdig wrote:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

This is the 21st century, brah, I wouldn't worry about an invasion of a foreign Navy, I'd be more worried about nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. Not much guns can do about that.

do you even nuclear stalemate?

for example. if china were to invade California, would the US nuke china? of course not, wed get the same after a few minutes. wed have to fight them off the ol fashioned way & hope china doesn't get but hurt after loosing.

Why cant the US just do what Canadians have done for years? It makes thing so much simpler and you get less crime.

yeah right. you canadians have dumb gun laws.

& theres no crime in canada because its canada

shigdig wrote:

>Guns are primaily used for killing and maiming. Sporting reasons is nothing more than a mere by-product.

not in the US. 8000 out of 270million guns mayne.

>Knifes are primarily used in food preparation but I agree they can be designed solely to be an offensive weapon. (That's why in the UK it's illegal to carry a knife in public with a blade longer than 3 inches due to the fact it could be used for that very reason)

>offensive weapon

lol fucking nanny state



& im still waiting for what you want to do about it.

Are you actually suggesting guns were invented for sport? As I said before sporting reasons is nothing more than a by-product of the invention of firearms and that is a fact.

Before you come out with your usual 'nanny state' mantra, can you give me one good reason why anyone would need to carry a knife around with them in a town centre? Logic suggests anyone who does so most likely has ill intent so they can suffer the consequences of that.

Also when did I say I was going to do anything about guns in the U.S.? My last two posts were merely pointing out to yonny the difference between something that could cause harm and something that is specifically designed to cause harm and that was only because he blew the debate out of all proportion by saying ANYTHING that could possibly harm somebody should be banned. Besides the example I gave was regards Oscar Pistorius shooting his girlfriend in SOUTH AFRICA which believe it or not has nothing to do with the gun situation in the States so frankly I don't know why you keep banging on about what i'm going to do about it? Fucking dickhead...

You gaiz are missing the point. It's how do you stop or prevent mentally ill psychos from going on a rampage.

shigdig wrote:

& theres no crime in canada because its canada

Truly the most airtight argument I've ever seen in my entire life. I concede. Let guns rain from the heavens.

Dam_Noir wrote:

shigdig wrote:

>Guns are primaily used for killing and maiming. Sporting reasons is nothing more than a mere by-product.

not in the US. 8000 out of 270million guns mayne.

>Knifes are primarily used in food preparation but I agree they can be designed solely to be an offensive weapon. (That's why in the UK it's illegal to carry a knife in public with a blade longer than 3 inches due to the fact it could be used for that very reason)

>offensive weapon

lol fucking nanny state



& im still waiting for what you want to do about it.

Are you actually suggesting guns were invented for sport? As I said before sporting reasons is nothing more than a by-product of the invention of firearms and that is a fact.

Before you come out with your usual 'nanny state' mantra, can you give me one good reason why anyone would need to carry a knife around with them in a town centre? Logic suggests anyone who does so most likely has ill intent so they can suffer the consequences of that.

Also when did I say I was going to do anything about guns in the U.S.? My last two posts were merely pointing out to yonny the difference between something that could cause harm and something that is specifically designed to cause harm and that was only because he blew the debate out of all proportion by saying ANYTHING that could possibly harm somebody should be banned. Besides the example I gave was regards Oscar Pistorius shooting his girlfriend in SOUTH AFRICA which believe it or not has nothing to do with the gun situation in the States so frankly I don't know why you keep banging on about what i'm going to do about it? Fucking dickhead...

did i say they were invented for sport? i said they are PRIMARILY used for sport in the US. hence only 8000 fire arms out of 270million are used in murders. thats 0.002962962962962963 of all guns in america.


its not nanny state mantra. its true. why shouldn't you be able to carry a knife? are YOU going to stab someone? well are you noir? if no, then why shouldnt you be able to then? ive been carrying a knife for 3 years & i haven't stabbed anyone. of course, people who do want to stab people are going to carry one anyway.


well i was actually talking to cinemajack in that last line. but yeah, this is the gun debate. why would you post that story here & revive the thread if you didnt want to debate? Fucking dickhead....

bumping for news on the Gun debate in Murrika.


its over.



MMMMM. DELICIOUS LIBERAL TEARS.




cant wait for prices to go down.

Hyped for the next school shooting/massacre

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-school-killer-tj-lane-snuck-killer-shirt/story?id=18774193

haha i saw that. that guy is edgy as fuck. he told the parents of the victims that " the same hand that killed your children is now used to masterbait" or something along those lines.

LAWLS

his fellow inmates are going to love him.

Oh God I hope that little fruit gets his arse savaged in prison. Relentless torture by some diseased brute.

That guy isn't edgy as fuck and he isn't funny.

He is a bastard that needs to be deported to a North Korean prison.

http://news.sky.com/story/1068545/georgia-baby-buggy-shooting-two-arrested

Man this thread is becoming depressing....

This is Cody Wilson, founder and director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs, so-called "Wiki Weapons" suitable for 3D printing. Even before Sandy Hook, their “WikiWeapon” project was controversial, placing the group squarely at the intersection of emerging debates over the uses and abuses of both crowd funding and 3D printing. Within a week of the Newtown killings, 3D-model sharing website Thingiverse exercised a terms-of-service clause prohibiting content that “contributes to the creation of weapons,” in place since 2011, to remove a number of firearms-related models, including Guslick’s reinforced AR-15 lower receiver, from their site.In response, Defense Distributed created an online repository of the purged files called DEFCAD.

some of Defense Distributed's projects include:

AR-15 lower receivers (which cycled over 600 rounds without malfunction)



STANAG 4179 (AR15 compatible) 30 round magazines




Now, i know what you're thinking. "big deal shig, you cant print entire guns", and while that may be true, you dont need to build an entire gun.



this is an AR15 lower receiver & In the eyes of the ATF , this is the firearm. you can buy every other part of the the AR without a background check, except for the lower receiver.With a 3D printed lower receiver, you can bypass ANY type of background check whatsoever, and build a "naked gun". Just like in MGS4, a gun that the government (SOP) has no knowledge of its existence in any database or records. the legality of all of this you ask? Currently, building your own firearms is not illegal, as long as you do not sell or transfer them to anyone.


& while this technology is still in its infancy, 3D printers will only get cheaper, and materials will only get stronger. It might just make this gun control debate irrelevant in a couple of years.


more stuff on cody wilson and Defense Distributed:

VICE documentary:
https://youtu.be/DconsfGsXyA

interview with Alex Jones:
https://youtu.be/tL172NEH5fk

interview with Glen Beck:
https://youtu.be/b8qtJuOFbs4