Printable View
When animals are going extinct from frivolous trophies and furs and shit, hunting is a complete insult to third-world countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
What the **** are you talking about? "Uh yah, if you shoot a gun for fun at target practice sites, you totally need to have one for yourself." Huge logical leap there. Guns should not be hobbies.
So in the USA, what animals are on the verge of extinction thanks to hunting?
You're taking one very tiny part of hunting (trophy hunting to extinction) and totally ignoring all the other types there are, some of which i listed earlier.
Lol@ hunting an insult to 3rd world countries, you are just making this stuff up off your head! I think the massive percentage of obese americans is more an insult than people who hunt!
Why shouldn't shooting be a hobby? You do know it's an olypmic sport, competitions held all over the world, even the uk with one of the most strict firearms laws of anywhere has many gun clubs for target shooting, its one of the very few ways you are legally allowed to own a rifle over here.
The Olympics is retarded, then; how the **** is some fatass Joe Schmuck shooting a gun a sport?
Hunting is mostly frivolous killing to sate the gun nuts' appetite for needless killing. And how often does anyone really hunt for sustenance? I highly doubt it's all that common. Mountain men aren't so prominent.
Here's an article that sort of talks about the gunman's motives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/friends-of-gunmans-mother-his-first-victim-recall-her-as-generous.html?_r=0
@steviej & other gun lobbyist
this is an example of what happens when a mad man DOES NOT have access to guns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910
equally sad but the damage is less
You're just making massive assumptions without any knowledge on the subject at all. You have a misguided view and come to some strange conclusions without any evidence or facts. No objective reasoning whatsoever, just pure speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You should apply to work for fox news!
Lol@ the olympics is retarded, well someone is definitely retarded and it's not the olympics...
Have a look here:Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfg789 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12462/Shipman-joins-list-worlds-worst-serial-killers.html
I don't think a single one of these used a firearm.
No gun unfortunately doesn't mean a low body count.
I read the link about that adam guy, i don't know what the law surrounding gun posession is in that state but here in the uk any firearm or shotgun has to be kept in a police approved locked cabinet to which only the licence holder has access to.
Adam should not have had unsupervised access to those firearms.
It also seemed he was failed on many levels by the state leading up to that, is school not complusary? Where was the help for his learning difficulties? It seems there were a lot of factors that led up to his actions on that day :(
perhaps you misread my point - loose firearms laws like those in the US result in these mass killings which usually occur within 24 hours. nothing to do with serial killers over a longer period of time. you are in the uk ? so are you saying you like to have liberal gun laws like they do in the US ?Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The uk is an example of gun restriction gone too far. Personally i'd like to see a balance somewhere between what we have and what some states have.
The licencing arrangement we have i think is ok, requires plenty of checks, references, doctors report etc.
However the restrictions on what guns you can have are far to severe and you cannot use them for self defence - even in your home!
I don't think CC or OC should be allowed over here though, that would be too much of a culture shock, lol.
I won't turn this into a rant about how rediculous some of our restrictons are...shotgun barrel lengths etc etc...
Hmm, that's like saying lets make drugs legal because it is only 'criminals' that carry/take them so it would be easier if they were legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I stand by my opinion that carrying a weapon/firearm should continue to be illegal in the uk, if gun laws are relaxed then it will mean police being armed which I do not agree with, especially as our police have very limited protection in law (prosecuted for accidents while on blue light runs, the suspension that automatically comes when a firearms officer discharges his weapon etc etc) and not forgetting the general hatred of police by many in this country.
Using your logic. Can you explain why they do not have this scenerio you paint in Briton where guns are illegal or at the very least very, very difficult to be approved to own?Quote:
Fact is, guns can be used for defense or offense. You remove the right to carry guns, all you are doing is removing the defensive portion. Guess what? The guys you are worried about will still be carrying them. Good luck trying to reason with a psycho carrying an automatic.
Because they teach their mentally ill son's how to use them and the leave them out for them to mass kill.Quote:
Tell me why reasonable, responsible citizens with permits shouldn't have them and I'll concede the point. It's really that simple.
How many times does this avoidable tragedy have to happen in your country before the fanatics for the right to bear arms realize that you are looking more and more like deranged individuals to so many other countries of the world? Bear your damn arms but re-write the rules for gods sakes.
We're all entitled to our opinions however; It's beyond incomprehensible and unconscionable (to me at least) that anyone would have this right-to-bear argument after what's just happened. Please have some respect for those who have just lost their little babies.
Here is an interactive map about gun control in the US. In most states, there is basically none. Funny enough though, CT actually is on the upper level of US gun laws.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CT/
The wacko nutjobs on a survivalist forum I visit are saying that this was done by the government to get legislation for gun control!!!!!!
And has nobody else noted the irony - people flocking to church after this massacre? Where was their god when the loony was killing those children then?
It's all good, Westboro Baptist has this covered, they're going to go to the funerals to spread the word of God.... :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Boisdevie [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You don't win an argument by saying the other person is making assumptions or strange conclusions without evidence or facts or objective reasoning or just pure speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
My point about the Olympics being retarded is, you shouldn't use the Olympics as a defense of gun control. That's completely stupid.
How about you try making real points instead of saying I haven't?
Actually, it is not insensitive at all; when bad things happen, it's good and fair to have a dialogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Excellent from Obamas spokesmouth. Not the time to talk about gun control. I'd say is was the perfect time to talk about gun control. Only Obama has not got the guts to take on the gun loving loonies. He's on a second term. What exactly does he have to lose because he'll never stand for election again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
A change in gun control will likely change nothing. Fighting the constitutional right to bear arms is an impossible task, and regulating them won't keep them out of the hands of people who really want to get them. It may have changed things in Connecticut, but remember the guns he used were all correctly registered by his mother, background checks were all passed. The only breakdown by her was making them accessible to him while in the house, and that is her fault, not the governments.
True but I highly doubt these middle class moms who buy guns are really going to go to the black market to get a gun if they were banned. I have a hunch that most of the recent massacres weren't by impoverished loonies but middle-class dweebs (this kid, look at that hair and that face; ****ing looney; VT, loony Asian guy, Columbine, dork gaming overenthusiast nutjobs). They all lived in middle-class areas. I don't see why the common person needs a gun.
Yeah, I wonder how they're going to ascribe this as fitting into "God's greater plan" or whatever BS. "Yeah, children were massacred and not just shot once but twice each to inflict more pain JUST so our community can get together." LOL at religious logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boisdevie [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I didn't say we shouldn't have a dialogue, I'm saying that *I* find it disrespectful and insensitive to those who have lost their children to be touting. I wouldn't want to read the spew coming from right-to-own fanatacs right now. Particularily those with arguments that are illogical and based on paranoia. I've never seen any citzens from other *free* countries rant about government takeover and "Escape From New York" type paranoia like I've seen from right-to-own die hard Americans. Why are all of you so paranoid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Too soon to be dialoguing right to own IMNSHO. No one but another diehard will see their point.
Then don't read it, that simple. There's no such thing as "too soon" in a nation where we laugh at 9/11, the Holocaust or Darfur or some shit.
Kinda ironic then that she was the first one to be killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerby [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
it's not simple at all, LR As I said, we all have a right to our opinions. I've read it.. It's too late to say "don't read it" after the fact. How does one not read something before they even know what it's going to say?
Further: If the government enacted laws to restrict ordinary citizens from owning automatic weapons, then she would never have been able to obtain the types of weapons she ownd (legally). I think that most ordinary citizens would not know who to meet to obtain them illegally.
THANK YOU. But no, Stevewhatshisface thinks legislation shouldn't be passed to fight any crime because "I'ma little bitch; crime is impossible to stop so why do anything to try? wah"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
From what I've read there were no automatic firearms used, only semi-auto.
LR, should fat people ban spoons because they use them to shovel food into their mouth, therefore it's the spoons fault that allows them to eat so much food?
The issue is the person behind the gun, not the gun itself. Banning guns is like giving pain killers for a brain tumour. Sure you can't feel the pain, but the tumour is still there. Spend money on mental health provisions, education etc. Sort the root of the problem rather than disguising the symptom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
We have plenty of shootings, almost all by scum having gang war with each other with innocents in the middle or robberies/muggings and the occasional random act of killing for no reason. There has been a couple of high profile cases where a legally owned firearm was used in self defence where burglars broke into someones house and the homeowner shot them. In my opinion this should be a legitimate reason for owning guns.
We have a ridiculously high issue with knife crime as well. It's not the tool, it's the person behind it that's the problem.
But you have no argument, you just repeat the same thing over and over, ignoring virtually all the answers and points i give you because you read with blinkers on. Not much point having a discussion with you if you don't listen to the other side of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It's like you don't know how to put your point across, you're full of opinion but unable to express it coherently.
Food and guns are not analogous; as far as I know, dispensing food to citizens doesn't require background checks and trying not to allow the insane to have possession of food. Not comparable at all. That's just an argument some dumb high school'er would use in a mock debate in history class or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviej [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
And you're trying to curry favor by painting me as some illogical guy who isn't conceding on your points and ignoring the other side when that isn't the case. You're also using dishonest tactics.
So the 5 times every year guns are used as defense is justification of stupid mass to possess guns and continue killing in schools or spouses in lovers' quarrels or shooting former bosses because their dumbasses got fired? Amount of times guns used as defense, yearly: like, 10. Times guns are used to flat out murder: like 30k in the U.S.
Anyways... Everybody has to admit, if this kids mother had her weapons locked in a safe, or even better, didn't have them AT ALL, this kiddo would just continue to be a weird kiddo, not a mass baby killer. Because seriously, who would sell him a gun ( let's say if it was illegal in US ). A gang ? They would kick his butt for asking them such a question in the best case scenario. They would probably take him as a snitch. Just look at this boy.
So even if criminals have access to guns. It's not those who take them and go to a mall or a school and play call of duty. They use their guns for their business or defence. By giving easier access to guns for EVERYONE, we give opportunity to people like this young boy, to take a gun and just go crazy shit and bring his imagination into reality.
Nearly 90% of crimes are actually away from the home, which means guns as defense which are already rare as it is can only take place a majority of the times out in places where a concealed weapon would be illegal.
So what, do we now allow everyone to have a permit to carry guns in public? I can just imagine the thousands of daily shootings "out of self-defense." Yeah; "He was talking shit about me at school so I shot him at a bus stop in self-defense" or "That skateboarder nearly hit me; I had to shoot him to stop him from raping me."
Point is, most Americans are too stupid to use or possess a gun properly. Hell, the founding fathers knew the country would become so stupid and implemented a system to prevent stupid Americans from voting stupidly.
Most of your argument has been illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Again, you just make things up and throw them around like they are facts. '5 times a year guns are used in defence' In the next sentence it's '10'.
Have a quick look at this, despite its obvious pro-gun stance it does make a good point about the lack of media coverage over defensive use of firearms. http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1174/October-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
My point with the spoon analogy -It's the person who is responsible for their actions. It's easy enough to use a simple answer to a deceptively complex situation 'ban guns!!' Are guns the problem, or is it the lack of social healthcare provision for mentally ill/those with depression etc etc.
Of course, one of those solutions would involve examining the cause of the rot in american society, the other just sugar coats over it.
As for your '30k gun murders' It's less than 1/3 of that. How many of those are gang/criminal related?
Statistics for the USA aren't exactly simple either - numbers vary a lot from state to state, poverty, population, urban etc all have an effect.
Again, another reason why your points lack validity - you make things up.
To try move this on slightly - Some changes are needed in my opinion. Gun registration should be mandatory. Here in the UK, the police know at any moment where every registered firearm should be. As soon as you buy or sell a gun both parties have to inform their local firearms dept of the fact, giving the details of the gun and serial numbers.
This works very well in stopping legitimate licence holders from supplying weapons illegally. When the handgun ban came into effect (1997ish) within a very short space of time every legally owned handgun (hundreds of thousands) were handed in, something like less than 10 were not accounted for within the time frame given.
This wouldn't have stopped the tragedy though, as it was down to this guys mum who hadn't secured her firearms like she should have.
Because most Americans are too stupid to have a gun. America is largely a moron country. That article is misleading: what do they think constitutes labeling a gun-related incident as "self-defense"?
I read a stat where most criminals in jail who were shot were about 90% not shot out of self-defense. Guns are seldom used like most 'Muricans would picture; most of this country thinks guns save 5 million lives a year! How laughably stupid.
Health care won't change anything; unless "hate" or "anger" become mental diseases, most shooters are regular seeming folk who snap one day and shoot many, or out of motives like hate or revenge. Unless we live in "Minority Report", there's not going to be any way to prevent seemingly normal folk from misusing guns. A majority of gun crime is not by the insane.
I can only answer your point with my opinion, which is that CC would be allowed by persons over 25 who have been vetted and approved to CC. Stipulations like not being allowed to drink whilst CC'ing would apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
In fact i'm sure some states do have similar CC rules.
Anyways, It boils down to this: assuming you were able to ban all legally owned guns, overnight every single one was handed in. Chances are you would prevent this killing of 28 people. Yet how many who were previously able to defend themselves from rape, assault, murder now can't and end up dead?
Is the trade off worth it, even if far more people are killed, injured, raped etc than would be killed by not revoking firearms?
You have yet to show a statistic the rate of guns used as self-defense in your favor. Those who were "previously able" is just a bunch of madeup BS.
Oh, they answer that in november's report:Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1902/November-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
Basically they only print the obvious, clear cut cases of self defence. They go on to give examples, have a read of the ones they feature and see if you agree or not.
Criminals using guns to shoot criminals... good! lol.
Something which wouldn't change by the way with banning guns, they're not likely to hand them in.
So why are you so scathing of americans? Having visited the west coast and met varied amount of people there, yes the stereotypes exist but there is a lot of normal, well balanced intelligent people there. (I'd never normally admit that :D )
You've yet to give any statistic that you haven't just made up, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
By 'previously able' have a read of those articles where self defence was used and justified. Now if you had your wish and guns were banned, those situations COULD have turned out very different. This is the point I'm making - all those self defence situations involving firearms COULD have now resulted in the innocent person being killed/raped/assaulted.
Do you think it's worth the trade off?
That is so horrible. Its amazing how evil some people are...
I don't really care anymore. All I know is, I'm sick of the same stupid ad nauseum moron typical 'Murrican arguments:
A) That there guver'ment goin' to take our guns, o noes! We needs them to prevent martial law
B) Because the Constitution.
C) Derr, cuz Baby Jesus would have wanted us to has guns, derr.
D) To prevent crime (but instead, shoot their families, or kill possums for dinner or to have stolen by their dimwit son to shoot kids at school)
E) Uh derr, if theyz takes our guns away, Obama will become dictator for life, uhh der.
That represents the typical American's argument for guns.
'Murrica believes you should accept everything you're told and **** all to questions of ethics or validity.
No, it represents what you think the stereotype think. :lol:
Why so much hatred for your fellow americans?
No, actually; it really DOES represent the majority of the nation. Alexis de Tocqueville whose "Democracy in America" I just finished reading points out exactly what goes wrong when a nation goes "democratic" (this country is actually a Constitutional republic, but 'Murricans like to yell "Democracy!" while drinking their beer in pickup trucks and shooting at birds). Majority opinion in a stupid nation is a dangerous thing and that's exactly what we have in this country.
'Murricans are a stupid, shallow people whose brief empire is crumbling and the world is laughing.