Guns Debate

Final Boss, 5th Form **Stature** : 414

Toxicmaniac wrote:: The founding fathers also didn't mind owning slaves.

It's called evolution, we adapt ourselves to a more civilized future. Constitutions aren't infallible.

This.

Founding Father **Stature** : 264 **Playing** : Tu madre

I don't know if you guys watch Piers Morgan, but that fella got it right on his show in friday. I don't particularly like everything about the guy, but he took the words out of my mouth.

Guest

yet im the only one that actually provides a reasonable & realistic solution.

Razz

@toxic

you cannot morally condemn the act of owning an inanimate object, unlike slavery.

>the issue is that bad guys have guns so I need them too

thats not the entire reason. already said its a sport, tradition, etc.

>erotic obsession with guns

dont you dare bring funco-chan into this Razz

atleast you understand that laws wont change anything

@teck

piers morgan is such a faggot. he doesnt know shit about anything & just yells out buzzwords.

Mini-Boss **Stature** : 7 Equestria

Banning guns probably won't stop or fix anything in any real way. A psycho is going to murder someone anyway, if he can't get a gun then he uses some other means to do it (case and point, a man in China stabbed 22 people with a knife at about the same time as the shooting took place). Besides, there are 200 million guns in the US legally, and the money needed to collect them is not practical in the current Us economy and there would be a black market inflated with guns now. Even then, what most people seem to forget is that the US has a bad illegal immagration problem, and these people not only sell drugs. You can buy firearms from these guys that the government does not know about, and it is not unheard of for them to cross the border with AKs and storm a guy's house (I saw footage of that on the news once).

Toxicmaniac wrote:: It's called evolution, we adapt ourselves to a more civilized future. Constitutions aren't infallible.

While I can agree with the last part, as I don't think any law is infallible, I have objections to the first sentence. "Civilized" is a vague word and people are going to give you a different answer and can still be technically correct. If you ask me, society does not really "evolve" we still have scapegoats and are more then willing to accept them, for example. There is also that of all the government systems that have been used, I can't think of one that has not been abused. Also things like violence, irrational tendencies, and the like are human nature, they are not things you learn and accept or that can be trained out of you.

Founding Father **Stature** : 264 **Playing** : Tu madre

Azazel wrote:: A psycho is going to murder someone anyway, if he can't get a gun then he uses some other means to do it (case and point, a man in China stabbed 22 people with a knife at about the same time as the shooting took place).

The difference is, the man in China did not even manage to kill 1 person with the knife.

Subject: Re: Guns Debate Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:21 pm

Teckno wrote:

Azazel wrote:: A psycho is going to murder someone anyway, if he can't get a gun then he uses some other means to do it (case and point, a man in China stabbed 22 people with a knife at about the same time as the shooting took place).

The difference is, the man in China did not even manage to kill 1 person with the knife.

I think he meant that there is a possibility that you can do the same amount of damage with any other weapon that isn't a gun.

Guest

yeah if he wanted to he could of stabbed them in the head or heart.

children bones are easily penetrated

Boss **Stature** : 117 US

shigdig wrote:: yeah if he wanted to he could of stabbed them in the head or heart.

children bones are easily penetrated

I don't see the relevance in this. You could easily kill a child without any weapons. Please don't tell me you think a knife is as dangerous as a gun. If he had brought a knife sure he could have stabbed them in the heart, but the teacher's would have had a chance to fight back and children would had more opportunities to run away. And really a mass killing with a knife could probably only be accomplished at an elementary school. You bring a knife and go on a rampage anywhere else and there would be plenty of dudes willing to take you on.

Guest

Stigma wrote:

shigdig wrote:: yeah if he wanted to he could of stabbed them in the head or heart.

children bones are easily penetrated

I don't see the relevance in this. You could easily kill a child without any weapons. Please don't tell me you think a knife is as dangerous as a gun. If he had brought a knife sure he could have stabbed them in the heart, but the teacher's would have had a chance to fight back and children would had more opportunities to run away. And really a mass killing with a knife could probably only be accomplished at an elementary school. You bring a knife and go on a rampage anywhere else and there would be plenty of dudes willing to take you on.

yeah, im just saying if someone really wanted to.

Mini-Boss **Stature** : 7 Equestria

Not that they would not have a better chance, but I don't think people are going to jump at the chance to attack someone with a knife, especially if they are not mentally balanced. Again, you are probably going to have a better chance then if he had a gun, but the odds of the dude with the knife winning are still higher then the dude trying to fight him with his fists.

Boss **Stature** : 117 US

Azazel wrote:: Not that they would not have a better chance, but I don't think people are going to jump at the chance to attack someone with a knife, especially if they are not mentally balanced. Again, you are probably going to have a better chance then if he had a gun, but the odds of the dude with the knife winning are still higher then the dude trying to fight him with his fists.

A few weeks in martial arts and you learn how to disarm someone. Even if you don't have any sort of hand to hand combat training, you could always pick up a chair or another blunt object. Plus there would likely be several people attacking the guy with the knife. Not just that, but from the assailants perspective if would be pretty reckless to attack a large group of people with only a knife.

I'm not saying guns should be banned entirely, but there should be far more restrictions than there currently are. Not allowing someone to purchase a gun while they have someone who's mentally unstable in the household should be one of them.

Mini-Boss **Stature** : 7 Equestria

Stigma wrote:

Azazel wrote:: Not that they would not have a better chance, but I don't think people are going to jump at the chance to attack someone with a knife, especially if they are not mentally balanced. Again, you are probably going to have a better chance then if he had a gun, but the odds of the dude with the knife winning are still higher then the dude trying to fight him with his fists.

A few weeks in martial arts and you learn how to disarm someone. Even if you don't have any sort of hand to hand combat training, you could always pick up a chair or another blunt object. Plus there would likely be several people attacking the guy with the knife. Not just that, but from the assailants perspective if would be pretty reckless to attack a large group of people with only a knife.

I'm not saying guns should be banned entirely, but there should be far more restrictions than there currently are. Not allowing someone to purchase a gun while they have someone who's mentally unstable in the household should be one of them.

While I am not trying to actively nitpick, even though it will probably sound that way, disarming someone is not as easy as you see in a movie. Take a crescent kick (a more circular kick made to disarm someone by hitting their hand, wrist, or thumb with the force of a kick, ideally) for example, the attacker is not just going to let you disarm him whether you use that kick to do it or not, you are probably going to have to fight pretty hard for it.

Now you could bring up that if there is more then one person there, then they could help out, and subdue him faster, depending on his background, why he is doing what he is doing, how skilled he is with the weapon he has, ect. But even then you will find that people never seem to band together to take the guy down. For reference just look at the knife statistics for the UK, according to statistics you are twice as likely to be a knife crime victim in the UK then you are being a gun crime victim in the US. Yet I am not hearing stories of heroic bands of civilians gaining up on their attackers in the UK, I am sure they probably exist but they are probably in a very small minority too.

I find your last point about placing restrictions to be more agreeable, depend on the the restrictions, but could agree with restricting it from people who have a mentally unstable resident.

Subject: Re: Guns Debate Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:26 pm

Making Gun laws tougher will reduce mass killings and illegal gun usage.

http://uk.reuters.com/video/2012/12/19/australia-tough-gun-laws-stopped-mass-mu?videoId=239986628&videoChannel=1

Mini-Boss **Stature** : 7 Equestria

Franko, you are forgetting that Australia is not America. They don't have a pretty much open border that illegal things like guns can be smuggled in as easily, among other things. So it would do nothing to stop it because they can still get it off the black market and no gun laws are going to end the black market or the people who are determined enough to go on a mass killing spree.

Guest

^^^

this.

people keep saying how gun control works in all these places when they don't take into account the geographical differences , social differences , and amount of guns they had in the first place.

Mid-Boss **Stature** : 39 England

Azazel wrote:: Franko, you are forgetting that Australia is not America. They don't have a pretty much open border that illegal things like guns can be smuggled in as easily, among other things. So it would do nothing to stop it because they can still get it off the black market and no gun laws are going to end the black market or the people who are determined enough to go on a mass killing spree.

As a case in point Adam Lanza was trained to use a gun by his own mother by using her legally owned firearms.

Yet when the pro-gun parade say he obtained the guns illegally they practically infer that he infiltrated the black market and aquired them in a shady back alley deal. Whereas the truth is he just picked up something that was within his grasp the entire time.

Of course i'm not naive enough to believe any new gun laws in the U.S. would stop committed mass murderers such as someone like Anders Breivik, but i'm certain it would stop the Adam Lanza's of this world from carrying out such despicable acts. However on the other hand i'm certain the same outcome would of occurred if someone like Anders Breivik carried out the same attack at a youth camp in the U.S. despite the differences in the gun laws compared to Norway.

There is a clear distinction between the two examples i've provided, yet the pro-gun argument will always infer that every murder carried out with a firearm was simply inevitable and as a result the general population should also arm themselves and fight fire with fire. Yet at no point do these same people ever stop to think that perhaps some of these armed murderers are a byproduct of the gun filled society in which they live.

Mini-Boss **Stature** : 7 Equestria

I am not saying that Adam Lanza got them illegally, I am already aware of him getting the guns from his mother who got them legally.

However I do not think that they are a byproduct of the society they live in. Assuming I did not confuse what you actually met with what I am going to describe, I would say that a gun is an object, not an agent. The mere ownership or being in the presence of a firearm does not immediately over write your morality ect. Truth be told, America does have a large gun culture but they are not actively saying or encouraging you should go out and shoot up a school.

Also, while I do agree with Stigma's proposed idea of not allowing ownership if there is a legal resident who is mentally unstable, at least on the surface, I will point out that 93% of gun crimes were done with guns obtained illegally.

Sub-Boss **Stature** : 20 Heaven **Playing** : Sarcasm

TBH, this tragedy would have most likely happened with or without new gun laws. Its not a challenge to find a gun, even up here in Canada. In fact, recently in Nova Scotia a women was arrested for having a working AK-47 in her house.

Subject: Re: Guns Debate Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:43 pm

Watch this fool ^^

#3 He still thinks that other countries ''invade'' :awwyeah: This is not fucking 1940 !

The only way to solve this problem is with more guns. You can't change the US now, like Shig said no law will stop people. Mass killings will continue.

Guest

^^^

he said they act as a deterrent if that were to happen. which is true. i dont see the problem here.

Sub-Boss **Stature** : 40

I don't care if anyone has a gun as long as I have one as well.

Subject: Re: Guns Debate Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:57 pm

CleverCatchPhrase wrote:: I don't care if anyone has a gun as long as I have one as well.

Boss **Stature** : 117 US

Okay, for the people who want guns, I want to hear your solution for this problem.

Guns Debate - Page 2 Firearm-OECD-UN-data3

Some people say we need guns to defend against a tyrannical government. That makes no sense, wtf are some semi-automatic weapons going to do against the 9,500 tanks, 11,500 planes, 6,500 helicopters, etc. that the military has? If we were going to overthrow a tyrannical government in an uprising we would have to have the support of the military or foreign countries. No if's, why's, or but's about it.

Subject: Re: Guns Debate Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:54 pm

Think this puts it best.

Boss **Stature** : 117 US

That guy uses the same bullshit logic as as over other pro gun person. Guns are designed for killing. Cars are designed for transportation.

The second video is amusing. He claims that it's not his place to tell us what the founding fathers were thinking or what they would today but that's exactly what he's fucking doing. Let's say hypothetically everything he says is correct. He says it's to match citizens with the military. Should we make nuclear weapons, automatic weapons, and fighter planes available for civilians purchase? An ar-15 isn't going to do shit against a tank. You guys remember that one rebellion 150 year ago? The one that failed horrible? I think that about sums up the problem with a rebellion. As history has shown us and has recent events a successful rebellion is basically impossible without support from a foreign country. Even if guns were illegal they could still be obtained through foreign support or through military defectors.

As pointed out earlier the founding fathers thought it was okay to have slaves. The founding fathers were not all-knowing beings they were human and capable of mistakes and bias just like everyone else. Times change and ideals change. It's not like rebellion is only way to overthrow a Government. The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia is a great example of one. With the internet now the potential for a non-violent revolution is even greater.

» Not Much of a Debate Here
» Guns of Icarus Online
» Abortion Debate
» The Ant-Man Virus Debate
» DEBATE - X-Men VS Avengers