Reply With Quote
munchin cuck doing a pot callin da kettle black, he live ina world where he make 300k a year n spends most of his time online talkin bout he dun know
People like you who get into conversations about things they are unfamiliar with often have their points overlooked. Most of the time that's intentional.
munchin cuck doing a pot callin da kettle black, he live ina world where he make 300k a year n spends most of his time online talkin bout he dun know
Your question is invalid. Try rephrasing it. Perhaps you should ask "why shouldn't semiautomatic weapons be banned?" to which I could actually answer, however you continue to ask hypothetical questions about legality when it's not a hypothetical. Why should guns be legal, that's an invalid question. Why should semiautos not be legal, that's a valid question. You didn't answer that. You're basically shifting the burden of proof.
Did you see that guy shoot 12 rounds in less than 3 seconds from a revolver? Your knowledge is worthless since you don't have a frame of reference.My knowledge of what rates are.
No, you're trying to tell me that semiauto weapons do this or that, they are dangerous, they should be banned, blah blah blah, but you don't know anything about the existing laws or semiautos. You just have a general, foggy idea that some exist and you want them changed because you are now frightened.I'm trying to lecture you? I was trying to have a discussion but was met with "you don't know anything about guns. I'm not here to educate." Then what are you here to do? Contribute so much by trying to belittle other people?
One anti-gun guy put it best (though unintentionally) when he said "I would feel much safer if guns were banned". The feeling of being safe does not equate to being safe. Those in that school felt safe until they realized they weren't safe. Guns are banned from schools.
Here's an idea, tell me what you think:
The media should be banned from reporting on these things until after a few days have gone by and the facts are clear. Sensationalism of these events fuels copycats and sets up the next attack. It's not an accident this guy dressed much like the guy in Aurora. It's no accident they both dressed much like the guy from "Rampage".
Let's re-examine the 1st Amendment. There's absolutely nothing good to come from all this shoddy reporting and sensationalism. It's akin to yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (no pun intended).
Next, let's ban violent video games. Why does a 12 year old need to spend all day and afternoon pretending to kill people? Why does he need to know all the different gun types and loadouts? Nothing good can possibly come from that. Racing games and strategy games that don't involve killing should be the only video games legal for release.
Let's also ban violent rap music or any music that invokes a theme of killing police officers, spouses or random people. No bragging about being a killer, having a gun or being a badass. All that should be illegal to produce.
Youtube should be shutdown. Videos of people sucker punching other people, ganging up and beating the out of some poor kid just to put it on WSHH or Youtube, that needs to be banned. The avenues for inciting and glorifying killing and violence need to be closed.
The 1st Amendment needs to be revisited. Once we do that, we can move on to the 2nd.
My question is valid. Perhaps instead of "legalization" I should have said "legality". You're trying to sound smart and it's only partially working. There is no burden of proof. I'm asking you for a justification for the legality of certain types of weapons. Valid.
I mean I don't think guns should really be that available to the public. The fact that non-automatic weapons can fire fast is also troubling. Guns are dangerous. Semi-automatic guns are very dangerous.Did you see that guy shoot 12 rounds in less than 3 seconds from a revolver? Your knowledge is worthless since you don't have a frame of reference.
No, you're trying to tell me that semiauto weapons do this or that, they are dangerous, they should be banned, blah blah blah, but you don't know anything about the existing laws or semiautos.I know they are very dangerous and that they are legal. What else should I know? Oh I forgot you don't like to lecture.
I'm not frightened. I'm mad that more people had to die because people like you are stubborn and selfish.You just have a general, foggy idea that some exist and you want them changed because you are now frightened.
Yeah they felt safe until someone USED A GUN ON THEM.One anti-gun guy put it best (though unintentionally) when he said "I would feel much safer if guns were banned". The feeling of being safe does not equate to being safe. Those in that school felt safe until they realized they weren't safe. Guns are banned from schools.
Sure I agree.Here's an idea, tell me what you think:
The media should be banned from reporting on these things until after a few days have gone by and the facts are clear. Sensationalism of these events fuels copycats and sets up the next attack. It's not an accident this guy dressed much like the guy in Aurora. It's no accident they both dressed much like the guy from "Rampage".
What would you do? Outlaw news?Let's re-examine the 1st Amendment. There's absolutely nothing good to come from all this shoddy reporting and sensationalism. It's akin to yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (no pun intended).
ahahaha slippery slope eh? Cool I figured you go down this route. My response to all of your let's ban [inset normal or benign activity] because it's associated with [insert crime] is this: Nothing else, aside from mental health, is a key issue in this. Guns and the lack of regulation on citizen ownership thereof is probably the most important of the two. You're on the losing side in this.Next, let's ban violent video games. Why does a 12 year old need to spend all day and afternoon pretending to kill people? Why does he need to know all the different gun types and loadouts? Nothing good can possibly come from that. Racing games and strategy games that don't involve killing should be the only video games legal for release.
How is the criminal going to acquire weapons if a law stops the legal commercialization of those weapons? He will have to look for weapons in the black market. But it won't be easy because these people will be hiding from the law. Also the prices would probably increase.
how do criminals commit crimes if they are against the law?
Wow you just completely missed the point. I already stated in more than one post that criminals doesn't care if a certain thing is illegal or not. And it has nothing to do with why it would be harder to commit certain crimes.
To play DA, drugs are illegal (in fact usa spends a lot of money in that regard) and it's very simple to acquire drugs.
But you are asking for a form of proof. Guns were never illegal in this country. If they were, then you'd have a good question when you ask "why should they be legal?".
Define "that available". You're getting into gun laws here so be careful. Guns are not dangerous. There are gun stores all over the USA that are very safe places to be. It's not dangerous to be around a police officer who's carrying a gun. Guns are inanimate, passive objects.I mean I don't think guns should really be that available to the public. The fact that non-automatic weapons can fire fast is also troubling. Guns are dangerous. Semi-automatic guns are very dangerous.
I need to know your age range. I've debated a guy who used similar misconceptions as you and it turned out he was 16 years old and knew nothing of the terms he was applying. A knife is far more dangerous than a gun. It's always loaded. You bump a knife you could get cut. You can bump a gun and nothing happens. Guns are instruments that enable the user to exert deadly force on a target of his/her choosing. It's the choosing part that's dangerous if it's done improperly, as was the case in Connecticut. Until you can level out your hyperbolic terminology, discussion with you on this is going to go no where it hasn't already gone.
If you want to voice an opinion on a subject, it's your responsibility to be knowledgeable on that subject else you come off looking like a naive, ignorant kid. That's your choice, but don't expect me to keep correcting you while you give your opinion on the matter, as obviously your opinion is worthless since you're ignorant of the facts. Imagine a jury that didn't get to hear the trial.
More hyperbole. If you had a point you'd probably not even know it.I'm not frightened. I'm mad that more people had to die because people like you are stubborn and selfish.
Exactly my point. Feeling safe isn't the same as being safe. The ability to respond to a threat instead of trying to hide from it, cowering under a table, is a big part of the 2nd Amendment's original intent. I am referring to the teachers, not the kids.Yeah they felt safe until someone USED A GUN ON THEM.
Only the dangerous stuff. It serves no purpose other than to draw attention to the network.Sure I agree.
What would you do? Outlaw news?
There's nothing benign about brainwashing children into thinking it's cool to kill people, and then giving them a hero like the Aurora guy to emulate. There are 20 dead kids who'd beg to differ with you if they could.ahahaha slippery slope eh? Cool I figured you go down this route. My response to all of your let's ban [inset normal or benign activity] because it's associated with [insert crime] is this: Nothing else, aside from mental health, is a key issue in this. Guns and the lack of regulation on citizen ownership thereof is probably the most important of the two. You're on the losing side in this.
I addressed this just fine. You want to use a trickle down gun ban. Bans are legalities only, and only those who remain within the confines of the law would be affected. You're claim is that after those people have been affected long enough, guns themselves would be harder and harder to acquire illegally. You're discounting the fact that a black market would spring up instantly. You're naive on many things with that argument, mostly that you don't even think that's the argument you're making but it is.
Give an example of something that's been banned in the USA that we could once easily acquire but now even criminals cannot easily acquire, something that's not a consumable.
truth bomb tbh. drugs are banned in most states but it's still not very hard to buy some drugs at a fair price. if legal gun sales are removed from the market then i'd see domestic gun production shrinking alot, and the real thugs can still buy imported weapons from black markets. the overall price would probably rise a bit due to the loss of domestically produced guns but that ain't compared to how much they can possibly harvest by robbing a bank using these guns imho
"at a fair price" I lmao
More of the same from gun advocates.
"Person behind a car is dangerous....criminals dont follow the law anyway....blah blah blah"
Isnt it bizarre that the mass murderers always use guns (instead of a car, knife, hammer etc) and never use the black market?
Gun advocates have to pretend to be complete morons. They PRETEND to actually believe that guns arent more inherently dangerous than other weapons.
DMC's does everything to avoid questions....usually by trying to point out that a statement you made about guns or gun ownership is incorrect.
But the truth is he just likes his guns and doesnt want to give them up. Only an idiot would believe that semi-auotmatics and larger magazines arent more dangerous or that banning them wouldnt make them harder to get.
Again, advocates have to pretend to be stupid because theyre too chicken to just admit that they simply dont want to give up their guns.
Mexico is a gargantuan, heavily populated third world country, rampant with third world problems. A huge, well-funded crime war involving millions of people and billions of dollars continues unabated within its borders. Civilian deaths were higher in 2011 in Mexico than in Afghanistan. Predictably, US border violence has increased to an all time high. And that very border exists, at its closest points, a mere couple hundred miles from me. Should someone living so close to a country crushed by economic struggle, consumed by drugs, and rife with violence as Mexico be denied the right to own certain types of weapons that these cutthroat could spare by the thousands? As long as Mexico is as dangerous of a place as it currently is, I have to stand for keeping Texas' gun laws the same or even relaxing then more. apply this rule the rest of the states bordering (by land) Mexico and/or any other bordering country. Other states could have very strict or no guns for all I care. A law like this wont stop every criminal from going crazy, but for what it's worth, Connecticut borders only other US states.
Maybe one day Mexico, and the world, will change dramatically. However, that day is not soon. I read articles before the election concerning Mexicans' opinions about both candidates' essential lack of a position on Mexico's penchant for on-going violence and general economic chaos. Without major American intervention, I don't see the struggle ending anytime soon.
Last edited by z0sa; 12-18-2012 at 10:06 PM.
If you're that concerned with the violence in Mexico, you should focus on ending the war on drugs, not limiting gun control. The main reason Mexico's violence doesn't end is because drug laws in this country, outside of a few states, have gotten more stringent than ever and we make Mexico's drug operations lucrative. Obama has been a bigger marijuana nazi than any president in recent memory.
Drugs have high demand, drugs are easier to traffic in small portions, and I imagine drugs aren't as expensive. I also think drugs are much more profitable since the drug users keep coming back for more.
Last edited by Fernando TD21; 12-18-2012 at 10:35 PM.
This shooter stole the guns from someone else...
The war on drugs should end, and I gladly lend my voice to that cause. I'm no Obama fan. I'm not particularly afraid of Mexico's drug war exploding onto my street, either. But I try to be a realist. I doubt the war on drugs - one of America's many highly overpriced wars - ends in the near future. I feel this way because even people on the left tend to support hard drugs being illegal. While arrests and funding might go down significantly if weed was legal, they would no doubt just ramp up the war against the other drugs. The war on drugs has no end.
Back on point, what scares me about Mexico isn't so much the firearms as their availability. It will always be easy to run guns from Mexico. Yet most Americans won't even dream of getting weapons on the black market. I am thoroughly against arming the terrorists, murderers, and criminals (including Americans) while we turn in our weapons.
That were bought legally.
This massacre doesnt happen if the shooter didnt have an assault rifle and semi-automatics available in his house.
Nice attempt though.
If his stupid mother wasn't a gun enthusiast and didn't buy guns , going to the school and shooting it up would not have happened. He probably would have killed his mother with a knife and it would have ended there.
Not by him...
Why are police officers called to deal with violence or suspected break-ins? Don't say "it's their job". Why is it their job? Why is the gun less dangerous when the police officer has it?
So given the known conditions, that people do indeed have guns and that some people are bat crazy, you choose to not protect yourself against these people and just hope all the guns disappear.
Good luck with that. I will protect myself, my family and my home.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions