Gun Control - My Easy And Final Point On The Matter

[Aim64C]

But all the other things you named serve other purposes; guns can only kill, they can't butter bread, take you to work, or kill weeds.

And why do people buy 8-cylinder cars with ultralight frames?

Certainly not to drive within the speed limit down the highway or avoid making a school bus 'explode' on impact with a 200 mph missile.

Why are car companies allowed to manufacture and sell vehicles designed to clearly go at least double the speed limits established in any state?

Firearms can do something other than kill. To say a firearm can only kill is to say that each time the trigger is pulled - one person dies.

I can tell you from experience... when Admin is out doing their weapon qualifications, the safest place to be is right behind the paper target that is supposed to represent what they are trying to kill. If the firearm were this magical killing weapon - even Admin would have a snowball's chance in hell at legitimately qualifying on their weapons.

By the way... your internet connection? Clearly designed to seed torrents and your computer act as a sizable peer-to-peer node in the exchange of illegal files. We're going to have to fine you $800, require you to register as a pirate, and notify all distributors of intellectual property that you are a registered pirate when you make a purchase. Oh, and we're confiscating your computer.

 

[Aim64C]

I'm sorry but I kinda disagree with you...I'm using simple logic here yes there's no way it'll stop things but its likely that casualties would be reduced. Saw a clip with a dude who pretty much came by a courthouse and mowed down a crap load of people officers came and got ploughed down as well...now had the guy NOT have a high powered firearm they would have taken him down easily its freakin' common sense and people REFUSE to admit these simple things.

It's not the government's job to prevent crime or the loss of life.

None of the firearms that have been used in the types of crimes you describe have been acquired by the assailant legally.

The laws in place worked. None of them got a firearm through the legal process.

The reality is that the firearm you describe is obscenely common in the U.S. There's easily one AR-15 series rifle for every twenty citizens.

Secondly - lets say I decide I'm pissed I wanna go shoot up somewhere if it takes little to no effort for me to get an automatic assault rifle (i know some didn't use this just making a point) then its easy for me to cross that thresh-hold into crazy land. However if I knew I couldn't get my hands on one yes I might try something else but there's also the distinct possibility since I cannot get to the weapon my plans will pretty much be scrapped, it is a deterrent to some crazies - not all...still some crazies can easily mean a few hundred lives saved

I really don't see the problem. If someone goes crazy - I put two in his chest, close the distance, and put one between the eyes.

The reality is that while these firearms are common - they are not exactly cheap. They represent a considerable investment of cash resources (the bare-bones models costing as much as many premium appliances). Get into the more fancy models, and you're into used car range and touching on some of the cheaper new cars before you know what happened.

That, and it takes money to fire those weapons. Ammunition isn't cheap. You can blow $300 at the range before you know what happened.

Since most people prone to such outwardly destructive behaviors don't have the financial resources to sink into these "high powered weapons" nor the money to feed them much in the way of ammunition - they are never a very valid concern as being firearm owners.

When one of them gets a hold of a higher-end firearm; they've always gone through someone else. They've borrowed it, stolen it, or found it laying around.

Thirdly - to those supporting it as good home defense...I often laugh at how silly their reasons are...yes a guy sees you with an automatic rifle he will assuredly shit himself (leaving you with the problem of cleaning that up after lol) but seriously let's be realistic...let's say someone's coming in your home right...no no let me be ridiculous...lets say four people are 'invading' your home <sarcasm starts here>cuz we all know four people breaking into a house is a popular thing rather than one or two <end sarcasm> anyway so four people break into your home...why in God's sweet name are you gonna need a weapon that shoots 30 and upwards for four dudes....reality is this...if you pop off one shot they either already running, dead, shot, on the floor already or if they have a gun returning fire...if it is the latter 9 plus shots can solve the problem - most cases they're in the first list of options running. My point is its unnecessary overkill where a normal firearm would do just fine and people refuse to admit it...There are RARE cases where I can agree and I do mean RARE cases like a guy who is threatened by an entire gang or a group but really how common is this?? Why can't people admit they just freakin' find these guns are awesome and that's the truth of why people want them...I hate the America and their guns stereotype but of late I really wonder *smh*

How many calories do you need in that soda? Do you realize the burden you're placing upon the tax payer? The government, in all its goodness, decided to try and make healthcare affordable to the nation - and it can't, because you all are drinking soda, enjoying salad dressing, and frying chicken.

I'm an expert qualified marksman. I will probably not need 30 rounds.

However, that's quite irrelevant. If I want 60 people dead, and am limited to 10 round magazines... I'll reload six times instead of two. The operation is committed to muscle memory and is a minor inconvenience. It won't change the prognosis for the people involved or the responding police.

Finally - I understand the plight of those who make a living from selling guns legally and those who use firearms competitively but the way I see it simple common sense prevails for me...

How can you claim to have common sense in regards to this issue if you've received no formal firearms training or experience?

If I had to be in two rooms - one with a guy with an automatic rifle and one with a normal hand gun...tell me honestly -- which room you think would have more survivors hmm? orrr...which room do you think has a better chance of escape/ survival. Unless the person is a freakin' marksman my money's on the room with the hand gun since kills will be based on his reaction time and not coverage. How can people not see something as simple as this?

Honestly, I wish they did sell automatic rifles in the U.S. It would reduce casualty rates.

Automatic fire is to give idiots an erection while they waste ammunition. Semi-automatic fire forces a pause long enough to reset the sear tied to the trigger mechanism - which forces the shooter to pause and continue acquiring the target.

Those with enough experience and control to use full-auto fire in a practical manner are going to leave a wake of bodies, no matter what trigger-group you give their weapon.... and those are the types of people who usually want to be left alone; not the type to go have violent outbursts in the middle of town square.

The fact is - I'd rather go up against a rifle in close quarters. A handgun is far more difficult to pin down in a grapple. You can do it - but it's squirrely. When you have a rifle as your primary weapon - you try and keep potential threats outside of about five meters. If I can - I'm posting at a corner and punishing him severely if he doesn't properly pie it.

Handgun? Taking my chances, pulling out a pocket knife, and berzerking it. Unless I'm armed, myself - then I'm going to lecture his dead body about how annoyed I am with its presence.

Unless you're in the gaza where an ambush can happen on the drop of a dime or dodging rockets - high powered guns like these shouldn't be available to the general public...that's just my opinion on this whole gun thing.

Unfortunately, opinions don't have to be registered and approved by a central regulating authority.

 

[Anorien16]

Then we need People Control Laws!!!!!!

 

[Darthlawsuit]

But all the other things you named serve other purposes; guns can only kill, they can't butter bread, take you to work, or kill weeds.

Really? I cannot shoot at the ground infront of someone to scare them and prevent having to shoot anything?

You can use a gun to simply scare people and prevent bloodshed if you wish. You however seem to prefer shooting to kill, which is still a very valid option.

I also agree with the phrase that guns do not kill people, people kill people. I do think however that people who own guns should put them out of reach and out of sight of their children if they have any. It may sound obvious to some, but to others some try to teach their 7 year old how to shoot a gun and end up getting killed themselves. Sad stuff, but it happens.

That is literally gun safety 101. Many people need to educate themselves on how to use a gun just as someone learns how to follow the rules of the road. However some dumbasses do not follow these rules and then do not teach their kids about guns so they instead learn about guns from hollywood, these situations never turn out well. Education = Safety

Knives can be used as weapons, they can also be used to prepare meals.

Baseball bats can be used as weapons, they can also be used to hit a baseball.

Hammers can be used as weapons, they can also be used to build houses.

Guns can be used as weapons, they can also be used..-wait, no. They're just weapons.

Guns are used (as a weapon) for hunting. Guns are used (as a weapon) for protection. Guns are used (as a weapon) for survival. The only time you're not using a gun as a weapon is if you're just collecting guns, and in that case the only reason it's not being used as a weapon is because it's not being used at all - it's just sitting on a shelf or something.

The fact is, guns ARE weapons, which is why they're so good at what they're meant to do - kill. It's much easier to kill a group of people when you're standing back firing at them that it is if you run at them with a steak knife. Yes, murder will always exist, but it would be much more difficult to kill people (especially on a larger scale) without guns. Average Joe couldn't go into a school and kill 27 people with a knife - he'd easily be taken down and disarmed.

Nukes are designed for mass murder yet they stopped WW3 and saved billions of lives. Things are not as black and white as you wish them to be. Guns are a weapon but so are all those other objects you listed. Even if they have another use they are still weapons. When used properly none of those things are dangerous. When used improperly everything there is a danger to someone else.

Oh and Ammonia/Bleach can be used to make a form of mustard gas and are found in every school in America. When are we going to stop giving children access to chemical weapons? Someone could kill hundreds by putting it in the ventilation systems that are left unguarded. The most dangerous things that normal people can get are chemicals and explosives and they are given away without checks of any sort.

What's your point? A guy managed to kill a bunch of people with a knife, yes. I didn't say it's impossible, it's just far less likely to happen.

For every story you find of somebody killing a large group of people using only a knife, I'm sure you could find two similar stories where the killer has a gun instead.

The most dangerous mass killings are committed by explosives and chemicals.

looked at the link....so would you say large scale knife killings are common? you think you can compare it to shootings in anyway? yes you'll find the one or two that got successful but again common sense should prevail a dude with a knife is easily stopped compared to a dude with a gun...why do u think there's the saying 'u don't bring a knife to a gun fight'...geez...also I'm pretty sure I could run away from a guy with a knife...good luck doing that with a gun though.

Guess what? Criminals do not obey the law so banning guns would not prevent them from obtaining guns. The criminals would still have guns and the citizens of this country would be at their mercy. Look at Mexico, they have VERY strict gun control and they are in the middle of a drug war with well armed cartels. I should remind you those cartels were also armed by our government who you are putting your faith into for gun control.

 

[Booker]

Knives can be used as weapons, they can also be used to prepare meals.

Baseball bats can be used as weapons, they can also be used to hit a baseball.

Hammers can be used as weapons, they can also be used to build houses.

Guns can be used as weapons, they can also be used..-wait, no. They're just weapons.

Guns are used (as a weapon) for hunting. Guns are used (as a weapon) for protection. Guns are used (as a weapon) for survival. The only time you're not using a gun as a weapon is if you're just collecting guns, and in that case the only reason it's not being used as a weapon is because it's not being used at all - it's just sitting on a shelf or something.

The fact is, guns ARE weapons, which is why they're so good at what they're meant to do - kill. It's much easier to kill a group of people when you're standing back firing at them that it is if you run at them with a steak knife. Yes, murder will always exist, but it would be much more difficult to kill people (especially on a larger scale) without guns. Average Joe couldn't go into a school and kill 27 people with a knife - he'd easily be taken down and disarmed.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Two terrorists managed to hijack an entire plane full of people armed with box cutters. This "easily disarmed" theory of yours hold no water, when the evidence shows us otherwise.

 

[Booker]

I have a better idea...lets not outlaw stuff where there's a chance to kill - lets make the dangerous stuff easily available - Grenades, landmines and RPGs? sell 'em over the counter...remember people kill people its not the items...so we should sell that stuff, hell give 'em to some kids too. I mean why not they won't hurt no one they can go by the mountain an fire off a couple of shots and have fun ...hell why stop there - if I'm responsible enough gimme a nuke I'll only blow it up in test sites far far away promise. Yes there are the 'nice lil kids that fire at the mountain' but not everyone is nice lil kids hence you don't allow them to have access to RPGs, cuz you're gonna have a town with lots of body parts -- if you can understand the analogy I painted its as easy as this...normal guns I can tolerate to a point when its properly managed - high powered firearms are the RPGs that you cant risk screwed up kids getting.

Not giving children guns is just common sense, so I don't get where you're coming from there. We don't leave children alone with small legos.

Do you realize what you're saying? You lost all credibility as soon as you said make the dangerous stuff "easily available". Guns are by no means "easily available". There's paperwork, licensing, and typically they ask you questions on your background of weapons. Guns that are "easy" to obtain (I.E. hunting rifles, shotguns) arn't suited for killing large groups of people. A murder that was done with a rifle or a shotgun typically could have been performes also with a knife or some sort of trauma weapon.

Also, the nukes thing is absolutely ridiculous. Giving us weapons that can literally end the world is soooooo far on the other side of the spectrum. Learn to debate please.

 

[YowYan]

Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns

You must be registered for see images

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

 

[Booker]

Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns

You must be registered for see images

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

Well, guess we can't make descisions for ourselves. Let's give the government complete control over our lives and have them run everything.

Hell, why not make a global currency too?

smh

 

[YowYan]

Well, guess we can't make descisions for ourselves. Let's give the government complete control over our lives and have them run everything.

Hell, why not make a global currency too?

smh

That's exactly their plan obviously ;p

 

[Booker]

That's exactly their plan obviously ;p

Well I exaggerated, but still. It's ridiculous.

 

[YowYan]

Well I exaggerated, but still. It's ridiculous.

You didn't even exaggerate on the matter as you were spot on xD

 

[Booker]

You didn't even exaggerate on the matter as you were spot on xD

Well in the end that's all they want to do really... Politicians are power hungry people, they want to run everyone's lives because they think they're important.

For instance, I don't recall the exact battle or general, but in the Vietnam War some general (MacArthur?) wanted to use a certain manuveur but he got orders from Washington to do nearly the EXACT opposite. MacArthur's strategy, which most likely would have met little resistance, was changed to a bunch of politician's strategy from Washington (who know nothing about war, strategy, or tactical manuevering, mind you) in which they met heavy opposition and many Americans were killed.

 

[Mitarashi]

The thing is, guns are made for a reason. To kill/maim/wound. We don't NEED them.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

The thing is, guns are made for a reason. To kill/maim/wound. We don't NEED them.

Don't forget to avoid conflict. Many times if you point a gun at someone they back off without trouble.

They also serve as an equalizer. Many times criminals work out and they are stronger than the average citizen. If you own a gun you are suddenly an equal to the criminals. A pregant mother could defend herself against Arnold schwarzenegger in his prime. Without the gun she wouldn't be able to defend herself and would be raped/killed then tossed at the side of the road, yet another unsolved homicide (So very sad D.

So what is your alternative to guns for defense? You have to know how to use a knife for it to be effective and most average citizens don't train with a knife, criminals do so they have the advantage. In unarmed combat most criminals beat most citizens. Or are you just banning stuff hoping everything magically works out?

 

[sanninuto]

well, i guess i agree with you dude

 

[Aim64C]

Well in the end that's all they want to do really... Politicians are power hungry people, they want to run everyone's lives because they think they're important.

For instance, I don't recall the exact battle or general, but in the Vietnam War some general (MacArthur?) wanted to use a certain manuveur but he got orders from Washington to do nearly the EXACT opposite. MacArthur's strategy, which most likely would have met little resistance, was changed to a bunch of politician's strategy from Washington (who know nothing about war, strategy, or tactical manuevering, mind you) in which they met heavy opposition and many Americans were killed.

Vietnam was a cluster****.

Because it was merely a 'policing action' - we couldn't actually do what needed to be done - go in and wipe out enemy command and control. The NVA supported, heavily the VC.

Of course - the NVA was backed almost directly by Russia - which is why the politicians were absolutely horrified at the concept of actually going on the offensive (because it led to global annihilation during the Korean war... wait...).

The fact of the matter is that Russia was using two intermediary proxies during that conflict. They supported China - who in turn directly backed the NVA and VC (You'll find no official admission that I'm aware of - and any official documents about it would still be classified - but our guys found Chinese mixed in with the forces of the NVA and VC on a regular basis). Russia was using the event to train China (and, sort of, North Vietnam) in the proper use of military equipment. They would send military advisors down to set up surface to air missile installations, aid in the training of military and special operatives, etc.

This led to some really stupid policies. Our aircraft would know where a surface-to-air missile site was being set up. They would be denied clearance to attack it because some Russian advisor was there; even though they flew right over it and could have nipped it in the bud. Then, we'd lose a couple aircraft to the thing the next day.

If that wasn't bad enough... there was a time where there were, what became coined, "no-shoot days." The VC didn't abide by this, of course, being an insurgent force. But the NVA did, and we did. We'd watch them roll artillery pieces into place or set up mortar positions... but couldn't shoot at them until they started raining hell on our bases the -second- the 'no shoot day' was over.

More than a few people lost their careers for disobeying such blatant stupidity.

That's not to say we didn't ever do what was necessary. A large number of documents pertaining to unofficial missions are still heavily classified and may still be denied under an FOI request. Most of the names on the Vietnam Memorial were lost on these missions - either captured or killed. There's a reason the POW-MIA flag was created and is often passionately flown by Vietnam vets... as of 2006 - Budhist and other missionaries who had been liberated from Vietnamese prison facilities were still telling of how they were nursed back to health by American POWs after being caputured.

Anyway - point is - the Feds haven't done much to recover these people because of politics. These missions 'didn't officially happen.' Where documents exist on them - it was usually as investigations into the actions of officers rather than structured mission reports; collections of maintenance logs that create 'paper work ghosts' alluding to unsanctioned combat operations and losses. When they were captured - their uniform would have been bare; no name-tape, in some cases. No dog tags, no flag, nothing; they were Legion, for all intents and purposes.

If we had entered the war to win - we would have been able to do so. Support for South Vietnamese independence was still fairly high. ... As the war drew on, however, people got tired of it. That region has very tight-knit family and social connections. The way they saw it - they were fighting family... and many began to feel that the only reason they were continuing the fight is because we were still there. They'd lost their will to be independent - the economic system and sovereignty weren't important to them, any more.

Which is why the VC only got stronger as time went on. They were able to gain more membership from South Vietnam, with a population that only wanted the fighting to stop - and the simplest way they could see to do that was to convince the foreigners to leave. With the NVA being backed by China - there was no way to wear down the NVA through a policing action. Had it merely been the NVA - they would have broken within a couple years and been unable to put any meaningful presure on the South.

But that wasn't the case, and the war was mostly fought by politicians who were scared of angering the Russians and triggering a larger scale conflict (wouldn't have happened). Or... perhaps worse - they were trying to 'bleed' Russia's resources (though I would say that was a failure - whatever Russia invested into that war, we matched ten fold and were not 'winning').

Which is partly why I think we need to have firearms. If the people 'in chargeof us' can so royally **** up the simple task of killing people and smashing hostile industry... why, in God's name, do we want them running the education, health care, and numerous other systems?

There are, obviously, people who are going to be stupid enough to live by their diction and enforce it. There will come a time, if we don't get things under control, that we will need to point a firearm at those zealots and tell them to move along before bad things happen.

 

[Itachi Minato]

The thing is, guns are made for a reason. To kill/maim/wound. We don't NEED them.

All that would happen is that the criminals would still have them and innocent citizens would not. Do people actually think making guns illegal is going to stop anything??? Its really not. The only solution is get rid of all guns and dont make anymore. Obviously that is not going to happen.

 

[ghostsoldier3]

Not giving children guns is just common sense, so I don't get where you're coming from there. We don't leave children alone with small legos.

Do you realize what you're saying? You lost all credibility as soon as you said make the dangerous stuff "easily available". Guns are by no means "easily available". There's paperwork, licensing, and typically they ask you questions on your background of weapons. Guns that are "easy" to obtain (I.E. hunting rifles, shotguns) arn't suited for killing large groups of people. A murder that was done with a rifle or a shotgun typically could have been performes also with a knife or some sort of trauma weapon.

Also, the nukes thing is absolutely ridiculous. Giving us weapons that can literally end the world is soooooo far on the other side of the spectrum. Learn to debate please.

*sigh* as I thought you took EVERYTHING overly literal inclusive of the children thing, guess I shouldn't have said it like that, my bad. Children in this sense means people in general which is why I said there were the good kids and the bad kids - responsible gun owners shoot at the mountain, meaning they use it to protect themselves effectively or for other recreational uses etc - the bad kids do the killin' etc... I flipped the script for a simple reason to show that if a high powered item gets in irresponsible hands (bad kids -_-..people) it can wreak havoc, so I just went to an overboard level to raise that point, as to whether I can debate or not I know I can whether or not you are able to see the validity in my statements. I see very simple factual reasonings that many ignore. There was a dude who had some somewhat decent responses allbeit he was a -gung ho put two in your chest-type who knew the ins and outs of guns hence putting him in a minority rather than a majority category. He had some discrepancies and honestly I just didn't wanna go in depth with him and waste the little time I have these days. I've realised that most pro guns cannot answer certain things rationally or to be more accurate, honestly - If I ask someone which is more dangerous, a man pointing a gun vs a man pointing a knife 9 times out of 10 they say the guy with the knife which in a unique circumstance could be plausible but realistically it is not...It's this BS that I can't stand and as a very results makes it harder to sympathize with their very cause...Now I don't know if you would answer in a similar fashion but I've heard that response time and time again. Anyone who is a logical thinker can see that yes a gun is a decent form of protection (hand gun at least) but having high powered ones has a high probability of causing more harm than good. As I said I'd only subscribe to something like that if one is in a unique environment where it's clearly justified and needed - I've wasted enough time so I gotta go sleep (don't mean wasted time on you or anything) just I know at the end of the day my views here or yours aint changing crap lol

 

[Aim64C]

*sigh* as I thought you took EVERYTHING overly literal inclusive of the children thing, guess I shouldn't have said it like that, my bad.

... Honestly, I can work with "children" and other such analogies if it means you would use the return key.

I see very simple factual reasonings that many ignore. There was a dude who had some somewhat decent responses allbeit he was a -gung ho put two in your chest-type who knew the ins and outs of guns hence putting him in a minority rather than a majority category.

That'd be me!

Be careful, it won't be much longer until you need to spell out my name to keep me from figuring out that you're talking about me.

Anyway - what makes you think I represent the minority of firearm owners?

A lot of handgun owners? Yeah - I represent the minority. But I do represent the majority of rifle owners - the weapons you seem to be so avidly against.

Most of the firearm related crime in this country is caused by handguns. The overwhelming majority, in fact. Please see this table:

You must be registered for see links

In 2010 - rifles account for 358 out of 8775 total firearm homicides; with handguns accounting for 6009.

That's about 4.1% of firearm homicides - or 2.7% of -all- homicides.

Even if you were to take the ridiculous extreme of adding all uspecified firearm casualties to rifles (because that sounds reasonable) - you would only be looking at 26.2%.

Despite the popularity of rifles and the fact that the "assault weapons ban" has come to an end - firearm related homicide has been declining steadily for the past decade despite firearm ownership percentages being relatively unchanged.

If there is any kind of correlation - it is that the smaller, more transportable and concealable firearms correlate with higher homicide rates when compared the larger, bulkier, and more powerful rifles and shotguns.

He had some discrepancies and honestly I just didn't wanna go in depth with him and waste the little time I have these days.

Oh, but your time is invaluable to me.

I've realised that most pro guns cannot answer certain things rationally or to be more accurate, honestly - If I ask someone which is more dangerous, a man pointing a gun vs a man pointing a knife 9 times out of 10 they say the guy with the knife which in a unique circumstance could be plausible but realistically it is not...

What are you talking about?

"A guy in a room?"

The dude isn't sneaking an M-249 into a board meeting. If he's carrying one of those "fearsome rifles" - he's blatantly pulling it out of a vehicle, walking a couple dozen meters, kicking in the door, and causing problems. If there's enough people with concealed carry permits around, the guy should be so full of holes that he never hits the ground.

The only type of firearm you're going to encounter in that mysterious "a gunman poofed into existence in the box you happen to be in" scenario is someone who happens to be carrying a handgun. Perhaps he has a concealed carry - perhaps he doesn't. If you've said something recently to piss him off - have fun with that. If he's a disgruntled employee or customer... assume there's going to be random violence. If he's looking for his girlfriend - she'd better not be with you. You get the picture.

Most firearm related homicides consist of the victim and assailant confirmed to know each other - and it usually involves some kind of argument.

In a lot of the other cases - it's stray fire from gangs or the occasional casualty from a gang war.

You must be registered for see links

The type of "I'm just going to start shooting people because I'm angry!" violence is quite rare. Single shooter, multiple victim shootings are quite rare:

You must be registered for see links

It's this BS that I can't stand and as a very results makes it harder to sympathize with their very cause...

There's your problem. This isn't an argument of 'cause.'

This is a discussion of right and wrong - of correct and incorrect... of practical and impractical.

You're the alien, here. It is 'us' who must gain sympathy for your cause, not the other way around. This, alone, is telling of how "not a problem" our firearms are.

If our firearms were -really- such a big problem, you wouldn't dare mention it, because your walls aren't thick enough to stop 7.62mm nato rounds. If these weapons were truly the problem - and if the mentality of "we want our firearms" was truly destructive to this country - there wouldn't BE any coherent voice speaking out against firearms... because we'd have put an end to you 'tards decades ago.

And keep in mind that we reserve the -capability- to.

Now I don't know if you would answer in a similar fashion but I've heard that response time and time again. Anyone who is a logical thinker can see that yes a gun is a decent form of protection (hand gun at least) but having high powered ones has a high probability of causing more harm than good.

Any reasonable person can see that the statistics directly contradict this assertion.

And any reasonable person would review the statistics and relevant facts before deciding to join a cause that goes in direct violation to the founding principles of our nation.

As I said I'd only subscribe to something like that if one is in a unique environment where it's clearly justified and needed - I've wasted enough time so I gotta go sleep (don't mean wasted time on you or anything) just I know at the end of the day my views here or yours aint changing crap lol

At this rate - the ignorance displayed by yourself and a lot of other people is going to get many others killed.

Hopefully - your stupidity is self-containing, and when the people in my state say: "**** off, we're keeping our firearms rights intact" - you don't send any sorry saps in to say otherwise - or people like myself will ship them back to you in a pine-wood box. I don't think I can draw the line in the sand any more firmly.

I'm not going to go "take back New York" if they decide to get rid of firearms. I think it's stupid - but it's not my home, and New York can decide how it wants to live. Try to force that on me - and there will be problems. I don't care how many are against me on the issue.

*calmly pushes a table over*

See what happens when you make me angry?

 

[Darthlawsuit]

All that would happen is that the criminals would still have them and innocent citizens would not. Do people actually think making guns illegal is going to stop anything??? Its really not. The only solution is get rid of all guns and dont make anymore. Obviously that is not going to happen.

Well now you can use a 3D printer to print guns so even if we stopped making them criminals would just start gun printing factories and make a fortune on guns. It would be like prohibition but with guns <_<;;

The military also loses gun shipments daily and have "no idea" where they go.