SRL Archive - News and General

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/piers-unrepentant-face-59-000-petition-123737811.html

Really?

Your views on this lol?

Cue black market rifle sales increase.
It's a lose lose in every aspect.

LOL I actually saw the interview and followed the reports for a while on Piers. Honestly, Americans think they're the shit. The guy can't even say what he wants. Some guy who is a director of some stupid rifle association made a petition to get him kicked out of the country because he pwned him in a debate? LOL.. The director looked extra stupid during the debate. Piers made a fool of him. Still, that's no reason to get him deported. Ahahaha.

65,000 people signed a petition because they don't like what he said? LOL. Is it odd that 300,000 guns sold on the same day as the last shooting? Those guns happened to be the exact same AR-15 Rifle the shooter used.. Of course the director is going to be happy with more gun sales. More security = more money for him.

From: Brandon
LOL I actually saw the interview and followed the reports for a while on Piers. Honestly, Americans think they're the shit. The guy can't even say what he wants. Some guy who is a director of some stupid rifle association made a petition to get him kicked out of the country because he pwned him in a debate? LOL.. The director looked extra stupid during the debate. Piers made a fool of him. Still, that's no reason to get him deported. Ahahaha.

65,000 people signed a petition because they don't like what he said? LOL. Is it odd that 300,000 guns sold on the same day as the last shooting? Those guns happened to be the exact same AR-15 Rifle the shooter used.. Of course the director is going to be happy with more gun sales. More security = more money for him.

Gun dude = Sore loser imo, how can you have someone deported for saying something…like I thought America was all about freedom of speech and sh*t :duh:

I guess I'm more liberal and want tighter gun laws but Piers did say
"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?"
Thats hardly the way to properly debate, doing name-calling.

From: Rincewind
I guess I'm more liberal and want tighter gun laws but Piers did say
"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?"
Thats hardly the way to properly debate, doing name-calling.

It's not really name calling it's pointing out facts

Is it just me or is the OP link dead?

I want to know whats going on and I'm to lazy to google it!

Mr Morgan, who repeatedly interrupted Mr Pratt and shouted over him when he was talking,

It's not really name calling it's pointing out facts

Isn't it funny that when people have no legitimate arguments they resort to name calling?

There is a petition because he is violently attacking our constitution, the very foundation of our law. He enjoys none of the rights that a US citizen would, as he is a British Citizen.

Where do I sign?

@Danny
The link is live for me.

From: DrChill
Isn't it funny that when people have no legitimate arguments they resort to name calling?

There is a petition because he is violently attacking our constitution, the very foundation of our law. He enjoys none of the rights that a US citizen would, as he is a British Citizen.

Where do I sign?

@Danny
The link is live for me.

Just realized his name is Mr Pratt hahahahahahaaha you don't know how much I am laughing atm :cartman:

Seriously yahoo? The links fine if you view desktop version, but the mobile site causes 404

Got it ;)

From: DannyRS
Seriously yahoo? The links fine if you view desktop version, but the mobile site causes 404

Got it ;)

Yahoo is shitteeeeeeee, i try to log in through their mobile mail and it says my account does not exist :S

Mr Morgan, who repeatedly interrupted Mr Pratt and shouted over him when he was talking

So this Morgan guy is like the Bill O'Reilly of liberals or something?

From: Echo_
So this Morgan guy is like the Bill O'Reilly of liberals or something?

I guess so. I mean he has his own talk show on CNN like OReilly has his talk show on FOX.

From: DrChill
There is a petition because he is violently attacking our constitution, the very foundation of our law.

Last time I checked free speech was part of your constitution as well, but now speaking freely is grounds to be kicked out of a country? I don't see the logic.

my personal views:
1. to say that it was a debate is sorta a joke. after watching it twice, i have found that Mr. Pratt is trying to compose himself and just talk normally and point out his opinion, while Mr. Morgan is just trying to condemn him and his opinion, while not providing too much factual evidence. LOL, i just re-watched the time (about 10 mins in), where Mr. Morgan keeps saying "let me finish my sentence" after he constantly interrupted Mr. Pratt on multiple occasions. Anyway, this whole interview thing is stupid either way. I dont agree with how Mr. Morgan conducted himself during the interview, but I dont agree with either opinion on gun control itself.

2. No need to deport him. Dont know why that would even come up honestly. There are tons of jerks on tv that spew their political opinions; if we get rid of Mr. Morgan, then we should get rid of them all.

From: BMWxi
Last time I checked free speech was part of your constitution as well, but now speaking freely is grounds to be kicked out of a country? I don't see the logic.

Like I said its a lose lose…
A) Guns are part of the amendment, and people like to have their rights
B) More guns, more killers, more innocent children dead- but we still have the right to bear arms.

Piers isn't saying all guns should be banned- just high powered, high magazine assault rifles. We don't need any more killers. We need change.

From: DrChill
There is a petition because he is violently attacking our constitution.

Ahaha! Are you serious? Your constitution violently kills little kids. How about that one? Now where should I sign to deport all of America?

What's not fact? He did state the facts. There are roughly 300 million assault rifles in America and not even nearly that many people. Who's going to use all of that? It's also a fact that 300k of those rifles were AR-15 Assault rifles. The same ones that were bought from WALMART. The same assault rifles the school shooter used.

These are all facts. It's also a fact that the NRA director opted for security guards in schools with high powered rifles. Where they gunna get those? Oh of course. They're going to "buy" them and he's going to get more money. Piers shut him up because he was lying during his press conference and he tried to lie and say Britain has more murders than the US.

Here's another fact for you. Walmart was selling those AR-15's for 900-1100$ a piece the day before the school shooting. The day of the shooting and the day after, the rifle's price was 2500$ a piece. 300k of these sold.

Last but not least, Walmart refuses to stop selling the rifles until a law is put in place. It says that they will only stop when the law says to do so. They will obey the law then and only then. Britain does have less "shootings and murders" than the US. You can go read up on this before you bash Piers.

There was such a high turn out for the rifle payouts that Obama and his team had to issue IOU's to people turning in their rifles. That's a joke! So many that you need an IOU from the government? Really?

I hope you didn't get ripped off when you bought your rifle.

As someone in ireland (northern still UK), what happens here is way worse than what happens to america most of the time, not so much recently but its heading back that way real soon

Personally I'm all for guns, but our government isnt so whatever

But if we talk about guns again I'm going to lose more rep :(

From: Brandon
Ahaha! Are you serious? Your constitution violently kills little kids. How about that one? Now where should I sign to deport all of America?

What's not fact? He did state the facts. There are roughly 300 million assault rifles in America and not even nearly that many people. Who's going to use all of that? It's also a fact that 300k of those rifles were AR-15 Assault rifles. The same ones that were bought from WALMART. The same assault rifles the school shooter used.

These are all facts. It's also a fact that the NRA director opted for security guards in schools with high powered rifles. Where they gunna get those? Oh of course. They're going to "buy" them and he's going to get more money. Piers shut him up because he was lying during his press conference and he tried to lie and say Britain has more murders than the US.

Here's another fact for you. Walmart was selling those AR-15's for 900-1100$ a piece the day before the school shooting. The day of the shooting and the day after, the rifle's price was 2500$ a piece. 300k of these sold.

Last but not least, Walmart refuses to stop selling the rifles until a law is put in place. It says that they will only stop when the law says to do so. They will obey the law then and only then. Britain does have less "shootings and murders" than the US. You can go read up on this before you bash Piers.

I hope you didn't get ripped off when you bought your rifle.

Well said.

Places like Australia are on the right track by even banning things like Resident Evil. Violence is just so easy to come by now. Movies are all killer thriller, games are all shoot to kill, even toys for children have guns.
I admit I have played gun games and watched gun movies, but if it were removed completely people would be less violent.

There needs to be change, and Obama can only come up with more apologies rather than making a difference.

From: Brandon
Ahaha! Are you serious? Your constitution violently kills little kids. How about that one? Now where should I sign to deport all of America?

What's not fact? He did state the facts. There are roughly 300 million assault rifles in America and not even nearly that many people. Who's going to use all of that? It's also a fact that 300k of those rifles were AR-15 Assault rifles. The same ones that were bought from WALMART. The same assault rifles the school shooter used.

These are all facts. It's also a fact that the NRA director opted for security guards in schools with high powered rifles. Where they gunna get those? Oh of course. They're going to "buy" them and he's going to get more money. Piers shut him up because he was lying during his press conference and he tried to lie and say Britain has more murders than the US.

Here's another fact for you. Walmart was selling those AR-15's for 900-1100$ a piece the day before the school shooting. The day of the shooting and the day after, the rifle's price was 2500$ a piece. 300k of these sold.

Last but not least, Walmart refuses to stop selling the rifles until a law is put in place. It says that they will only stop when the law says to do so. They will obey the law then and only then. Britain does have less "shootings and murders" than the US. You can go read up on this before you bash Piers.

There was such a high turn out for the rifle payouts that Obama and his team had to issue IOU's to people turning in their rifles. That's a joke! So many that you need an IOU from the government? Really?

I hope you didn't get ripped off when you bought your rifle.

some one is grumpy and watches too much political tv XD. a couple things, just to make clear Mr. Pratt is not a part of the NRA, he is with the GOA.

there are 315 million ppl in the USA. So if there are 300 million assault rifles, that is in fact less than the population.

The USA has more than 5 times the population of England, thus accordingly should have about 5 times more the crime rate. I dont know the crime rates, but dont be so shocked that they are higher than Englands…

And why the hell would walmart stop selling a profitable item? They would have to be stupid to willingly lose all that profit, and we all know that walmart will do anything for profit.

As for the IOU thing, its not necessarily due to the gun issue, its due to our current economy. A lot more IOUs are going to be going out to government workers when the fiscal cliff takes effect.

Trust me, the IOU's are definitely for the guns:


Ahaha. Before noon, they ran out of money. Considering the fact that the line was 2 miles long after, only 200$ a rifle, how do you run out? Well, the picture explains it all. There's some AK-47's in there as well. Fortunately the people weren't arrested for even having them. This was on CBS. And yes I watch world news and news where I live. I tend to keep up with what's going on around me.

Ahh 315m and 300m rifles I see. Well my number is off I guess (Piers said it, not moi.. CNN fact checked it but I guess not). Still, considering only 15m off of the amount of rifles there are. Really? Those 15m are probably babies lol.

No I'm not grumpy. Consider this though. The rifles in that picture are turned in for 200$ a piece. Who won? Well, they bought the rifles for 900 each and sold for 200 each. Imagine turning in the AR-15's? 2500$ a piece, selling for 200$ each. Damn..

Of course from a business stand point walmart isn't going to stop selling them. Anyone can practically buy one from there. What will come of the world if everyone felt threatened and shot someone because of it? What is a business that sells only for the sake of money and has no morals or ethics? I think a lot of businesses do this and that's why America's economy is the way it is. Too much greed. No morals. No standards. Nothing. They ship jobs out everywhere.

Tell me, if you shipped out jobs and became a billionaire in the US. What happens when you hit a recession and your money becomes worthless? Was it worth it?

From: Brandon
Ahaha! Are you serious? Your constitution violently kills little kids. How about that one? Now where should I sign to deport all of America?

What's not fact? He did state the facts. There are roughly 300 million assault rifles in America and not even nearly that many people. Who's going to use all of that? It's also a fact that 300k of those rifles were AR-15 Assault rifles. The same ones that were bought from WALMART. The same assault rifles the school shooter used.

These are all facts. It's also a fact that the NRA director opted for security guards in schools with high powered rifles. Where they gunna get those? Oh of course. They're going to "buy" them and he's going to get more money. Piers shut him up because he was lying during his press conference and he tried to lie and say Britain has more murders than the US.

Here's another fact for you. Walmart was selling those AR-15's for 900-1100$ a piece the day before the school shooting. The day of the shooting and the day after, the rifle's price was 2500$ a piece. 300k of these sold.

Last but not least, Walmart refuses to stop selling the rifles until a law is put in place. It says that they will only stop when the law says to do so. They will obey the law then and only then. Britain does have less "shootings and murders" than the US. You can go read up on this before you bash Piers.

There was such a high turn out for the rifle payouts that Obama and his team had to issue IOU's to people turning in their rifles. That's a joke! So many that you need an IOU from the government? Really?

I hope you didn't get ripped off when you bought your rifle.

300 million assault rifles? you sir have your facts wrong, its 300 million guns, LOL of which a lot are owned by criminals. Also: It has just come out.. the shooter never even used the 'assault' rifle he used 2 9mm pistols.. Typical liberal move to call somebody a 'child killer' for their opinion.

Think what ever you want though, nothing will be done republicans will vote no and democrats are to scared to not get re-elected.

Please don't respond back if your going to pull numbers out of your ass.

From: rjj95
300 million assault rifles? you sir have your facts wrong, its 300 million guns, LOL of which a lot are owned by criminals. Also: It has just come out.. the shooter never even used the 'assault' rifle he used 2 9mm pistols.. Typical liberal move to call somebody a 'child killer' for their opinion.

Think what ever you want though, nothing will be done republicans will vote no and democrats are to scared to not get re-elected.

Please don't respond back if your going to pull numbers out of your ass.

OR you can sit down and learn to read. Don't pull BS out of your ass. The last news report was a couple days ago and it was an AR-15 assault rifle. Pfft. When you don't watch the news, you're going to come here and say that it was a pistol? LOL? Are you shitting me?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/lawmakers+calls+restriction+magazine+size+used+Newtown+shooting+legal+Canada+with+limits/7741704/story.html

I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. These numbers are what is reported on my television and local news papers. Don't respond if you're not going to respond properly.

From: Brandon
OR you can sit down and learn to read. Don't pull BS out of your ass. The last news report was a couple days ago and it was an AR-15 assault rifle. Pfft. When you don't watch the news, you're going to come here and say that it was a pistol? LOL? Are you shitting me?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/lawmakers+calls+restriction+magazine+size+used+Newtown+shooting+legal+Canada+with+limits/7741704/story.html

I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. These numbers are what is reported on my television and local news papers. Don't respond if you're not going to respond properly.

The ar-15 was in his car… stop watching CNN..

From: rjj95
The ar-15 was in his car… stop watching CNN..

Or you can stop lying to get your point across.

.22 Marlin rifle was used on his mother. Died in her own home.
Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. Used to shoot through the doors and kill some people. Gun Jammed. Killed himself with the pistol.

Chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot multiple times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.

Don't argue at all. Just sit back and let the rest of SRL do the work for you. YOU don't watch the news. You don't do anything. You just make up posts because you're a gun enthusiast.

From: Brandon
Or you can stop lying to get your point across.

.22 Marlin rifle was used on his mother. Died in her own home.
Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. Used to shoot through the doors and kill some people. Gun Jammed. Killed himself with the pistol.



Don't argue at all. Just sit back and let the rest of SRL do the work for you. YOU don't watch the news. You don't do anything. You just make up posts because you're a gun enthusiast.

From: rjj95

No. Just no.

From: Shay
No. Just no.

It's still a valid point… I am 100% willing to give up all of my guns if every criminal/other person is willing to.Which won't happen. Come to peace with it.There's always going to be massacres no matter what you can't stop them.

From: rjj95
It's still a valid point… I am 100% willing to give up all of my guns if every criminal/other person is willing to.Which won't happen. Come to peace with it.There's always going to be massacres no matter what you can't stop them.

Not even close to valid.

You can virtually stop them. Not completely but you can cut down so much!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339130

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/

Read both. Japan pwns the world with gun laws. They have the least amount of murders by guns and swords according to the statistics. Their procedures to even own one far surpasses your second amendment. They are happy.

There is such a thing as too much. And you guys, clearly have too much. I cannot imagine you living in a country with less "freedom" than America.

From: Brandon
Not even close to valid.

You can virtually stop them. Not completely but you can cut down so much!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339130

Read both. Japan pwns the world with gun laws. They have the least amount of murders by guns and swords according to the statistics. Their procedures to even own one far surpasses your second amendment. They are happy.

There is such a thing as too much. And you guys, clearly have too much. I cannot imagine you living in a country with less "freedom" than America.

Sweden has a lower crime rate then that. And a higher gun ownership then America. Lol. If you want to get extreme you could say South Africa has restrictions on guns and have a high murder rate, but i won't say that because it's a stupid argument.

From: rjj95
Sweden has a lower crime rate then that. And a higher gun ownership then America. Lol.

Do you wanna back that up with some numbers? Wikipedia isn't a source but pfft.. We all read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Washington post also states Japan as having one of the world's lowest murder rates. Sweden does not seem to be anywhere near on that list.

Google is your friend. Don't go spouting about wrong details. They can be wrong. You can correct them, but try not to change numbers to fit your own opinion.

From: Brandon
Do you wanna back that up with some numbers? Wikipedia isn't a source but pfft.. We all read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Washington post also states Japan as having one of the world's lowest murder rates. Sweden does not seem to be anywhere near on that list.

https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=12338

From: rjj95
https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=12338

Read your own link before posting it:

Sweden 2012 Crime and Safety Report
Fraud; Financial Security; Burglary; Theft; Stolen items; Drug Trafficking

There is nothing in there mentioning guns. Infact, there was a 35% increase in homicides according to your link but somehow due to an error.

Still, I see no numbers or statistics in this post that suggests they are lower than Japan. The words "one of the lowest" doesn't say very much.

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Sweden is 2,800,000 in 2007. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

LOL? Is 2.8m more than 300m? No way near! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Lower than America still.. LOL

I'm done arguing. I'm going to drink a beer and sleep. Good night. I'll read the replies tomorrow.

Blood spattered banner
Land of the free
home of the psychotic.

Ignorance mayyynnn

Words cannot describe this thread, so I made a picture for you guys:

m8s communism ftw

Guns are a great deterrent for criminal activity. So far, in the USA the high amount of shootings e.g. school massacres, cinema shootings etc… can only be explained by the simple fact that the victims (old men and small children) didn't have proper access to a gun. We all need guns to defend ourselves and we need to start teaching our children how to use them, which is what myself and many of my neighbours have started doing in our small (Only 2 dozen people excluding children at the moment), but nevertheless steadily growing household defence group.
We call ourselves the 'American Civil Hunting Militia' and are proud owners of over 50000 rounds of ammo, a great selection of all the necessary equipment, which we purchased for just under 2000$ per person. Most of the money was taken from our kid's college funds, but if this is what it takes for them to see another day then so be it.
If I see a shady looking stranger walk by my front porch I will shoot him no questions asked and the sooner my kids are able to do the same the better. I'm not turning them into killers - this is just a really productive neighbourhood watch thing I got going on here and it's a bit of a fun hobby. The kids love it! They get to fire rounds at targets we made and I feel a lot safer knowing that I can count on my boys.

From: Runehack123
Guns are a great deterrent for criminal activity. So far, in the USA the high amount of shootings e.g. school massacres, cinema shootings etc… can only be explained by the simple fact that the victims (old men and small children) didn't have proper access to a gun. We all need guns to defend ourselves and we need to start teaching our children how to use them, which is what myself and many of my neighbours have started doing in our small (Only 2 dozen people excluding children at the moment), but nevertheless steadily growing household defence group.
We call ourselves the 'American Civil Hunting Militia' and are proud owners of over 50000 rounds of ammo, a great selection of all the necessary equipment, which we purchased for just under 2000$ per person. Most of the money was taken from our kid's college funds, but if this is what it takes for them to see another day then so be it.
If I see a shady looking stranger walk by my front porch I will shoot him no questions asked and the sooner my kids are able to do the same the better. I'm not turning them into killers - this is just a really productive neighbourhood watch thing I got going on here and it's a bit of a fun hobby. The kids love it! They get to fire rounds at targets we made and I feel a lot safer knowing that I can count on my boys.

What the f am I reading.

From: eska
Words cannot describe this thread, so I made a picture for you guys:

That is pure genius

From: Runehack123
Guns are a great deterrent for criminal activity. So far, in the USA the high amount of shootings e.g. school massacres, cinema shootings etc… can only be explained by the simple fact that the victims (old men and small children) didn't have proper access to a gun. We all need guns to defend ourselves and we need to start teaching our children how to use them, which is what myself and many of my neighbours have started doing in our small (Only 2 dozen people excluding children at the moment), but nevertheless steadily growing household defence group.
We call ourselves the 'American Civil Hunting Militia' and are proud owners of over 50000 rounds of ammo, a great selection of all the necessary equipment, which we purchased for just under 2000$ per person. Most of the money was taken from our kid's college funds, but if this is what it takes for them to see another day then so be it.
If I see a shady looking stranger walk by my front porch I will shoot him no questions asked and the sooner my kids are able to do the same the better. I'm not turning them into killers - this is just a really productive neighbourhood watch thing I got going on here and it's a bit of a fun hobby. The kids love it! They get to fire rounds at targets we made and I feel a lot safer knowing that I can count on my boys.

I feel safe knowing that I can KO someone with my fists rather than grab a gun and shoot my way out

From: Runehack123
Guns are a great deterrent for criminal activity. So far, in the USA the high amount of shootings e.g. school massacres, cinema shootings etc… can only be explained by the simple fact that the victims (old men and small children) didn't have proper access to a gun. We all need guns to defend ourselves and we need to start teaching our children how to use them, which is what myself and many of my neighbours have started doing in our small (Only 2 dozen people excluding children at the moment), but nevertheless steadily growing household defence group.
We call ourselves the 'American Civil Hunting Militia' and are proud owners of over 50000 rounds of ammo, a great selection of all the necessary equipment, which we purchased for just under 2000$ per person. Most of the money was taken from our kid's college funds, but if this is what it takes for them to see another day then so be it.
If I see a shady looking stranger walk by my front porch I will shoot him no questions asked and the sooner my kids are able to do the same the better. I'm not turning them into killers - this is just a really productive neighbourhood watch thing I got going on here and it's a bit of a fun hobby. The kids love it! They get to fire rounds at targets we made and I feel a lot safer knowing that I can count on my boys.

A little too extreme don't you think?

It is illegal to posses guns in the Netherlands. You need:

1. formal training
2. licence
3. mental sanity background check

Once and a while the Netherlands is victim to weird massacres too. We recently had a guy emptying his semi-automatic in a supermarket. He had been diagnosed as bipolar, yet he still was able to train himself in shooting and he had a licence too. This is now finally over for the Netherlands. A firm background check is needed before you can aquire a gun. This will prevent at least some massacres. You cant with 100% certainty prevents this -in China recently there has been a knife massacre- but with less people carrying guns… there will be less shootings. Simple.


Found this one. You cant compare the two, but the image is striking.





If the excuse of carrying a gun is preventing violence it is as tortional as starting a war to end a war.

From: WT-Fakawi
It is illegal to posses guns in the Netherlands. You need:

1. formal training
2. licence
3. mental sanity background check

Once and a while the Netherlands is victim to weird massacres too. We recently had a guy emptying his semi-automatic in a supermarket. He had been diagnosed as bipolar, yet he still was able to train himself in shooting and he had a licence too. This is now finally over for the Netherlands. A firm background check is needed before you can aquire a gun. This will prevent at least some massacres. You cant with 100% certainty prevents this -in China recently there has been a knife massacre- but with less people carrying guns… there will be less shootings. Simple.


Found this one. You cant compare the two, but the image is striking.





If the excuse of carrying a gun is preventing violence it is as tortional as starting a war to end a war.

You serious kinder surprise is illegal is USA????!!!!! DAFUUQQQQQ IS WRONG WITH THAT COUNTRY!

From: WT-Fakawi
It is illegal to posses guns in the Netherlands. You need:

1. formal training
2. licence
3. mental sanity background check

Once and a while the Netherlands is victim to weird massacres too. We recently had a guy emptying his semi-automatic in a supermarket. He had been diagnosed as bipolar, yet he still was able to train himself in shooting and he had a licence too. This is now finally over for the Netherlands. A firm background check is needed before you can aquire a gun. This will prevent at least some massacres. You cant with 100% certainty prevents this -in China recently there has been a knife massacre- but with less people carrying guns… there will be less shootings. Simple.


Found this one. You cant compare the two, but the image is striking.





If the excuse of carrying a gun is preventing violence it is as tortional as starting a war to end a war.

Fully automatic weapons are not legal in the USA. You can argue 'oh em gee less guns=less shooting' but less guns is also more of the criminals with guns of COURSE they are not giving them up. You have to be smoking crack to think some drug cartel is going to hand in their guns.

Ohh, that gun has a bayonet. I love guns with bayonets - they're really handy for all sorts of things e.g. defence or hunting or just having a good time with your friends at target practice! My wife gets off on big guns like that so I got her a custom-made pink one for Christmas. She was really happy. :)

From: Runehack123
Ohh, that gun has a bayonet. I love guns with bayonets - they're really handy if you're short on rounds and want to stab someone in the face. :)

You realize you can attach a kitchen knife to the end of a gun and call it a bayonet?

From: Runehack123
Ohh, that gun has a bayonet. I love guns with bayonets - they're really handy if you're short on rounds and want to stab someone in the face. :)

I know your anti gun, but well yea, thats kinda the point

Btw this wasn't created for an argument about guns, it was the fact that Americans can think that signing a petition to get someone deported is the right thing to do…it's 1 man who isn't scared to put his view out in a 'free country' and people say he should be deported it's just like lol like someone will be deported with a petition about freedom of speech…obama must be laughing in all who signed that pet :duh: You can obviously see your president does not like guns in civys hands in the public he will try to get some sort of law enforced but you guys will just vote him out…the system fails.

From: Mr[S]
Btw this wasn't created for an argument about guns, it was the fact that Americans can think that signing a petition to get someone deported is the right thing to do…it's 1 man who isn't scared to put his view out in a 'free country' and people say he should be deported it's just like lol like someone will be deported with a petition about freedom of speech…obama must be laughing in all who signed that pet :duh: You can obviously see your president does not like guns in civys hands in the public he will try to get some sort of law enforced but you guys will just vote him out…the system fails.

We can't vote him out.. it's his last term..

Theres to many ignorant voters to vote anybody else in anyway

From: rjj95
We can't vote him out.. it's his last term..

Theres to many ignorant voters to vote anybody else in anyway

It's not like we have much of a choice. Either Democrats or Republicans. This time round I flicked a coin and ended up voting for Obama. :)

Piers Morgan is live tonight at 9pm eastern on CNN again. Will be looking forward to see if he brings up anything about the controversy against him ;)

Last time I checked free speech was part of your constitution as well, but now speaking freely is grounds to be kicked out of a country? I don't see the logic.

He is not a US citizen, therefore he doesn't have freedom of speech. His is attacking the foundation of our laws, and freedom, and when someone attacks your freedoms, this person is called a terrorist.

If the excuse of carrying a gun is preventing violence it is as tortional as starting a war to end a war.

One of my primary reasons for owning a gun is self-defence, I don't see how this is illogical. I do not view guns as anywhere similar to war. My logic has always been, criminals are inherently cowards, if there is a chance I have a gun, they will statistically not attack me or invade my home. There is a city in Georgia which requires it's citizens to own guns, this quote from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession law.

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[20] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[21][22] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]

The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.

It doesn't even look as if this debate/flame war is going anywhere. Please do not post if you don't have a clear logical point, I've seen good arguments on both sides, and I've also seen ad-hominem attacks, and pointless posts on both sides, if you have nothing to add, please do not post.

Also, when comparing statistics, please remember that countries vary in size and population, so if you simply google crime rates, you will find that the US has more crime than the UK, but if you compare the actual ratio you will find that the US has lower crime ratio (significantly lower), despite having more guns than the UK (significantly more).

I feel tired now :p

So much fighting and negative rep flying around :( We all know guns will never leave America but at the same time we know restrictions must be put down. Can't we all agree on that?

From: DrChill

Also, when comparing statistics, please remember that countries vary in size and population, so if you simply google crime rates, you will find that the US has more crime than the UK, but if you compare the actual ratio you will find that the US has lower crime ratio (significantly lower), despite having more guns than the UK (significantly more).

Everyone in America has freedom of speech regardless of where they're from. Who told you he doesn't have free speech? He had to sign papers when entering your country. He has the same rights as you do. You ever heard of citizenship?

China has more people than anywhere else. Still lower murder rates than the US. You'll see a significantly lower crime ratio comparing it to the US.

Lol at this self defence argument you guys keep throwing about. If someone wanted to kill you, they'd catch you off guard. You can't walk around with your gun. You'll most likely be caught off guard by a shooter so having "self-defence" as an argument is invalid. It's like the guys who say: "I bought a macbook because it protects me against viruses". Pfft.. If someone really wanted to hack you or destroy you, they definitely will find a way.

Knowing you have a gun is just going to make someone more careful when hunting you. It doesn't scare anyone. It doesn't prevent anything.

I'd love to see you in the streets walking around with your rifle 24/7, paranoid that someone's going to cap your ass. If that was going to happen, they'd shoot you long distance, they'd shoot you in the back. You'd still get shot. A stray bullet can take you out. You'd have a far better chance of survival against an idiot with a knife than an idiot with a gun.

Please do not post if you don't have a clear logical point.

Self defence is illogical.

Everyone in America has freedom of speech regardless of where they're from. Who told you he doesn't have free speech? He had to sign papers when entering your country. He has the same rights as you do. You ever heard of citizenship?

I'm fairly certain he is a British citizen, although I could be wrong on this.

China has more people than anywhere else. Still lower murder rates than the US. You'll see a significantly lower crime ratio comparing it to the US.

Can you show statistics for that please? Also, I'd like to see this for overall crime, not just murder rates.

Lol at this self defence argument you guys keep throwing about. If someone wanted to kill you, they'd catch you off guard. You can't walk around with your gun. You'll most likely be caught off guard by a shooter so having "self-defence" as an argument is invalid. It's like the guys who say: "I bought a macbook because it protects me against viruses". Pfft.. If someone really wanted to hack you or destroy you, they definitely will find a way.

The funny part is that you metaphor completely proves my point, if you go out and buy a macintosh computer, or install Linux you basically destroy you chances of ever getting a virus, I've been on Linux for many years, and never once gotten a virus, but I've been on windows, and gotten a virus frequently. If someone REALLY wanted me dead, or virused they'd have a hard time, because I'm packin' (Linux and Guns, bring it on).

I'd love to see you in the streets walking around with your rifle 24/7, paranoid that

This called concealed carry, you carry a pistol, not a rifle. It is not paranoia it is self-protection, if there were a school shooting, or random street violence, or I was robbed, then I could defend myself and others.

Next you state that criminals will attack me even if they know I'm armed, they'll just be more careful, this is not true, and in a previous thread i showed that statistics that most criminals, after finding that the victim had a firearm backed off, and did not commit the crime.

I'd love to see you in the streets walking around with your rifle 24/7, paranoid that someone's going to cap your ass. If that was going to happen, they'd shoot you long distance, they'd shoot you in the back. You'd still get shot. A stray bullet can take you out. You'd have a far better chance of survival against an idiot with a knife than an idiot with a gun.

Perhaps, but I'm not really afraid of being assassinated, I'm afraid of home invasion, and school shootings etc…

Also humorously enough you say that if someone wishes to commit a crime they will do so regardless of whether or not I own a gun, this is false. But if someone really wanted to commit a crime with a gun they'd just find a way to get a gun, legal of illegal.

Self defence is illogical.

Your argument is therefore illogical. Next you'll be criticizing martial arts, and women carrying pepper spray.

this is pathetic. I hope he's deported. not because i think he should be based on what happened but because he's a retard. People that cannot debate with facts but require screaming and shouting over another persons sensible thoughts are complete imbeciles lacking self-esteem. They do not believe what they're saying is true thus they do not want to let the other person be heard. Piers is retarded.

I'm going to buy as many guns as is humanly possible.

From: Brandon


China has more people than anywhere else. Still lower murder rates than the US. You'll see a significantly lower crime ratio comparing it to the US.

Lol at this self defence argument you guys keep throwing about. If someone wanted to kill you, they'd catch you off guard. You can't walk around with your gun.

Self defence is illogical.

idk how to say this. But if you truly believe in what you said… :duh:

You believe statistics from china? hahahahahaha, i guess you've never lived in china or visited the countryside… lolololol, hahaha. omg, i can't take you seriously.

We can't walk around with guns? are you joking?! open carrying is anyone's right. :) (except in first class cities, in PA the only city is Philadelphia)

Self defense is illogical? you're kidding right? You must not live in or near a large city where muggings happen. You must also not have a TV that broadcasts news. You must have also tuned out ANY and ALL correspondence from the free world.

From: DrChill
I'm fairly certain he is a British citizen, although I could be wrong on this.

Just because he is/was a British citizen does not mean that he does not enjoy the rights outlined in the constitution.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/noncitizens.html

Read this, he has most of your rights regardless of where he is from.

Can you show statistics for that please? Also, I'd like to see this for overall crime, not just murder rates.


The funny part is that you metaphor completely proves my point, if you go out and buy a macintosh computer, or install Linux you basically destroy you chances of ever getting a virus, I've been on Linux for many years, and never once gotten a virus, but I've been on windows, and gotten a virus frequently. If someone REALLY wanted me dead, or virused they'd have a hard time, because I'm packin' (Linux and Guns, bring it on).

Just because you have a Linux, does not mean that Linux do not get viruses, Just because you got a virus on windows does not mean they are prone to them. I can reverse that argument " I own a windows computer, never once gotten a virus, on my only Mac I got a virus" See, out of my butthole. If someone really did want to shoot you, then they would. Plain and simple, you have to be in a wrong state of mind to want to shoot someone, someone who is mentally distressed/diseased would not rationally think about you having a gun. You have a gun and Linux? Well I want you and your computer dead, so I just make a virus for Linux and blow you up(Metaphorical, I don't want to kill you or your computer(;), that was hard?

Just because I am in a garage does not make me a car.


This called concealed carry, you carry a pistol, not a rifle. It is not paranoia it is self-protection, if there were a school shooting, or random street violence, or I was robbed, then I could defend myself and others.

If someone was to shoot you, they would not see the CONCEALED weapon, so only if they tried to attack you and you had time to pull out the gun would they know, unless as previously stated, you carry it open. Wouldn't you be better off with a knife in close combat? A gun is useful, and might deter someone if they see it, but when is the last time you saw a robber go up to a victim and say "Do you have a gun on you?"

Next you state that criminals will attack me even if they know I'm armed, they'll just be more careful, this is not true, and in a previous thread i showed that statistics that most criminals, after finding that the victim had a firearm backed off, and did not commit the crime.

Link the stats. Also being in a College stat class, they can lie and be deceiving quite often, ever heard of lurking variables?

Here


Perhaps, but I'm not really afraid of being assassinated, I'm afraid of home invasion, and school shootings etc…

If you are afraid of home invasions get an alarm system, nice guard dog and a taser. If a taser wont take the intruder down, then I doubt you would be much better off with a pistol. Taser's can be bought to shoot just like a gun, or you can buy special made shotguns that shoot bean bag sacks, taser ammo ect.

Also humorously enough you say that if someone wishes to commit a crime they will do so regardless of whether or not I own a gun, this is false. But if someone really wanted to commit a crime with a gun they'd just find a way to get a gun, legal of illegal.

How is this false? You have only simply restated what he has said. Gravity is false. See how easy that is? Which by the way my claim above^ can be proven true as gravity is just a theory and not a law of science.


Your argument is therefore illogical. Next you'll be criticizing martial arts, and women carrying pepper spray.

Hmm.. relating two things together to make your agreement seem well placed and logical? His opinion has nothing to do with either of these statements. quit distracting from the facet at hand. It is easy to try and divert the attention from your argument no? If you have no argument, do not butt in.

Read.

From: SRLKing
Read.

thank you, i did read it(: DrChill is a sensible person. I've rep'd+ him

From: footballjds
thank you, i did read it(: DrChill is a sensible person. I've rep'd+ him

I forgot to bold what I said XD

From: Brandon
Trust me, the IOU's are definitely for the guns:


Ahaha. Before noon, they ran out of money. Considering the fact that the line was 2 miles long after, only 200$ a rifle, how do you run out? Well, the picture explains it all. There's some AK-47's in there as well. Fortunately the people weren't arrested for even having them. This was on CBS. And yes I watch world news and news where I live. I tend to keep up with what's going on around me.

Ahh 315m and 300m rifles I see. Well my number is off I guess (Piers said it, not moi.. CNN fact checked it but I guess not). Still, considering only 15m off of the amount of rifles there are. Really? Those 15m are probably babies lol.

No I'm not grumpy. Consider this though. The rifles in that picture are turned in for 200$ a piece. Who won? Well, they bought the rifles for 900 each and sold for 200 each. Imagine turning in the AR-15's? 2500$ a piece, selling for 200$ each. Damn..

Of course from a business stand point walmart isn't going to stop selling them. Anyone can practically buy one from there. What will come of the world if everyone felt threatened and shot someone because of it? What is a business that sells only for the sake of money and has no morals or ethics? I think a lot of businesses do this and that's why America's economy is the way it is. Too much greed. No morals. No standards. Nothing. They ship jobs out everywhere.

Tell me, if you shipped out jobs and became a billionaire in the US. What happens when you hit a recession and your money becomes worthless? Was it worth it?

Ironically it seems to me that none of the guns brought back were assault rifles that were used in the school shootings. If anything those guns(especially the long barrelled hunting rifles) brought back are either broken or worth less than $200.

Did any Mexican drug cartel runners turn in their fully automated ak 47s, ar15s or 50 BMG sniper rifles?

Another publicity stunt for the Obama campaign.

http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1144075&postcount=52 - Something to take note of when trying to compare gun control in Japan and in US

Also.. piers morgan is no stranger of controversy.. dats how he gets publicity for his ridiculously boring reality TV shows.

Just because he is/was a British citizen does not mean that he does not enjoy the rights outlined in the constitution.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/...ncitizens.html

Read this, he has most of your rights regardless of where he is from.

While he does have freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc… he may still be deported/expelled from the US. Terrorism is worthy of deportation.

Just because you have a Linux, does not mean that Linux do not get viruses, Just because you got a virus on windows does not mean they are prone to them. I can reverse that argument " I own a windows computer, never once gotten a virus, on my only Mac I got a virus" See, out of my butthole. If someone really did want to shoot you, then they would. Plain and simple, you have to be in a wrong state of mind to want to shoot someone, someone who is mentally distressed/diseased would not rationally think about you having a gun. You have a gun and Linux? Well I want you and your computer dead, so I just make a virus for Linux and blow you up(Metaphorical, I don't want to kill you or your computer(, that was hard?

Just because I am in a garage does not make me a car.

Just because you do not understand my metaphor, does not mean you can criticize my logic. Linux is an armored tank, and macintosh is a relative (albeit distant) of Linux. Please tell me if you would attack someone who you knew had a loaded gun? What is worth losing you life over? My wallet? Pfft, I wish.

If you can't attack my argument or metaphor, don't make a couter-argument.

If someone was to shoot you, they would not see the CONCEALED weapon, so only if they tried to attack you and you had time to pull out the gun would they know, unless as previously stated, you carry it open. Wouldn't you be better off with a knife in close combat? A gun is useful, and might deter someone if they see it, but when is the last time you saw a robber go up to a victim and say "Do you have a gun on you?"

If criminals think I have a weapon they will flee (this is basic logic). Therefore if I have a possibility of having a gun they will be less likely to attack me(more guns create less crime). Also, you seem to assume there is close combat, but as stated I am not afraid of a targeted attack, but rather burglary or in the case that there is, for example, a school shooting. You think if the principal had had a gun, the situation would not have gone differently?

I would much rather have a gun than a knife, even in close combat.

Link the stats. Also being in a College stat class, they can lie and be deceiving quite often, ever heard of lurking variables?

Look out, we got an expert in here.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
* 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

* 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

* 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

If you are afraid of home invasions get an alarm system, nice guard dog and a taser. If a taser wont take the intruder down, then I doubt you would be much better off with a pistol. Taser's can be bought to shoot just like a gun, or you can buy special made shotguns that shoot bean bag sacks, taser ammo ect.

This where your supposed to make an argument about how these systems are better. However I'm going to assume that's what you're saying. I personally however don't like these because:
1. I don't trust the alarm systems, and if I did, I'm sure criminals would find some way of circumventing them.
2. I keep a dog, however I'm not really sure if he would attack the robber, or lick him to death!
3. If you've ever heard a pump shotgun being pumped, you would understand why I prefer guns.
4. I wouldn't want a beany rifle, noooo I would never want to harm the poor person invading my home (some of these can even be lethal!)

How is this false? You have only simply restated what he has said. Gravity is false. See how easy that is? Which by the way my claim above^ can be proven true as gravity is just a theory and not a law of science.

I was pointing out that he seems to think criminals have superhuman courage when comes to attacking an armed person, but when it comes to finding a gun illegally, they flounder like fish on dry land.

Your argument is therefore illogical. Next you'll be criticizing martial arts, and women carrying pepper spray.

Hmm.. relating two things together to make your agreement seem well placed and logical? His opinion has nothing to do with either of these statements. quit distracting from the facet at hand. It is easy to try and divert the attention from your argument no? If you have no argument, do not butt in.

My logic _is_ solid, I'm linking the two because I see them as very similar, both only have the purpose of harming another, and both are useful to have, but unlike the two, gun owners seem to be depicted as crazy people!

Please surrender on few points so it doesn't take half an hour to write a response :P

From: DrChill
I don't trust the alarm systems, and if I did, I'm sure criminals would find some way of circumventing them.

I don't know who you're replying to but meh..

Like I said once, you're just paranoid. The alarm systems is pretty much equivalent to the computer machines you call beasts. If you don't trust your own alarm, you have serious problems or a shitty alarm. Might as well not trust your antivirus and not install it at all.

You're never going to use your gun. You're not going to have time. Someone wants to shoot you, you're dead. Simple. No one is going to wait for you to draw and point.

Some guy is breaking into your house, assuming he doesn't trip the alarm, he wants to kill you, your ass is dead. He's not going to be stupid and throw and break glass all over the place. Your alarm didn't even trip. If you sleep sound, you're screwed unless you sleep with it under the pillow. If so, you're really paranoid and you better hope the safety doesn't trip balls.

You're probably imagining some guy in a ski-mask breaking into your home, tippy toeing around and somehow you wake up. Paranoid as usual, you take the gun to go to the washroom and spot him. Bam you kill him.

You watch too much TV. I don't know what makes you think criminals give a crap if you have a gun or not. You're assuming all criminals are cowards and they won't attack you because you carry a gun. Well, I will assume you are also a coward because you carry a gun and scream self-defence. You don't like my assumption? Well don't assume either.

Pfft.

You don't like my assumption? Well don't assume either.

I'm not assuming anything. At all. I have statistics.

Well, I will assume you are also a coward because you carry a gun and scream self-defence.

Your logic is invalid. You are calling me a coward for being prepared, and concerned about my safety.

Like I said once, you're just paranoid. The alarm systems is pretty much equivalent to the computer machines you call beasts. If you don't trust your own alarm, you have serious problems or a shitty alarm. Might as well not trust your antivirus and not install it at all.

I have not investigated them for a while, but when I did, they were pretty faulty. That being said, I don't have antivirus, as Linux does not get viruses.

You're never going to use your gun. You're not going to have time. Someone wants to shoot you, you're dead. Simple. No one is going to wait for you to draw and point.

*Sigh* Let's take a situation, I dunno how about the school shooting, where theres a gunman out to kill as many people as possible, I take cover, and I'm armed, what next? It takes _very_ littles time to draw my weapon, and in a case where I have no chance of survival, hopefully the people around me also have weapons.

You watch too much TV.

Side note, I don't have cable, nor do I watch many movies.

You also have a legitimate concern as to whether or not I will even hear the guy breaking into my house, this is possible, perhaps I should install an alarm system too. I also do sleep with my gun near me.

Thinking it over though, I would definitely hear the person coming in, there's not that many ways to break into a house and be quiet about it.

From: DrChill
While he does have freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc… he may still be deported/expelled from the US. Terrorism is worthy of deportation.

Explain how he was being a terrorist..



Just because you do not understand my metaphor, does not mean you can criticize my logic. Linux is an armored tank, and macintosh is a relative (albeit distant) of Linux. Please tell me if you would attack someone who you knew had a loaded gun? What is worth losing you life over? My wallet? Pfft, I wish.

Your metaphor was not correctly used..I will attack your metaphor because that is proper in a debate, rather than attacking the other speaker with invalid random ramblings(You)..

What if I just wanted to kill you? You are ASSUMING all criminals just want your wallet and are of sane mind(Which if they were, why wouldn't they get a job?)

If you can't attack my argument or metaphor, don't make a couter-argument.

I attacked it directly, you just stated above that I did. Do not contradict yourself in an argument.


If criminals think I have a weapon they will flee (this is basic logic). Therefore if I have a possibility of having a gun they will be less likely to attack me(more guns create less crime). Also, you seem to assume there is close combat, but as stated I am not afraid of a targeted attack, but rather burglary or in the case that there is, for example, a school shooting. You think if the principal had had a gun, the situation would not have gone differently?

I would much rather have a gun than a knife, even in close combat.

Although it may have gone differently, this man was not of a sane mind, no sane mind = No rational decisions. No rational decisions = Doesnt give a crap about who has a gun. ONCE AGAIN SANE MIND


Look out, we got an expert in here.

Attacking the speaker again? Nice debate skills(I can do it too…)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp



This where your supposed to make an argument about how these systems are better. However I'm going to assume that's what you're saying. I personally however don't like these because:
1. I don't trust the alarm systems, and if I did, I'm sure criminals would find some way of circumventing them.

Yet somehow you having a gun will stop them from killing you in your sleep? or deter them if they don't know you have the gun?

2. I keep a dog, however I'm not really sure if he would attack the robber, or lick him to death!

Then train the dog?…

3. If you've ever heard a pump shotgun being pumped, you would understand why I prefer guns.

I am an avid hunter, I know what a gun sounds like.

4. I wouldn't want a beany rifle, noooo I would never want to harm the poor person invading my home (some of these can even be lethal!)

Not even an argument, just using sarcasm for fun?..When's the last time you messed with riot police and got hit with one?..


I was pointing out that he seems to think criminals have superhuman courage when comes to attacking an armed person, but when it comes to finding a gun illegally, they flounder like fish on dry land.

Well do they know you are armed? Are they sane? Do they care? All individualized. You will look the same carrying a concealed weapon until you pull it out (after they have started the crime) then they might be like "oh no!" or they can just continue because they have the element of surprise, else you would have already shot them, right slick?

Your argument is therefore illogical. Next you'll be criticizing martial arts, and women carrying pepper spray.

You have done diddly squat to prove my argument invalid..

My logic _is_ solid, I'm linking the two because I see them as very similar, both only have the purpose of harming another, and both are useful to have, but unlike the two, gun owners seem to be depicted as crazy people!

I own many guns, I just think people should have to go through a heck of a lot more to get them.

Please surrender on few points so it doesn't take half an hour to write a response :P

I would, if I was wrong..:P

BTW Here

There you go skipper(;

From: Brandon
I don't know who you're replying to but meh..

Like I said once, you're just paranoid. The alarm systems is pretty much equivalent to the computer machines you call beasts. If you don't trust your own alarm, you have serious problems or a shitty alarm. Might as well not trust your antivirus and not install it at all.

You're never going to use your gun. You're not going to have time. Someone wants to shoot you, you're dead. Simple. No one is going to wait for you to draw and point.

Some guy is breaking into your house, assuming he doesn't trip the alarm, he wants to kill you, your ass is dead. He's not going to be stupid and throw and break glass all over the place. Your alarm didn't even trip. If you sleep sound, you're screwed unless you sleep with it under the pillow. If so, you're really paranoid and you better hope the safety doesn't trip balls.

You're probably imagining some guy in a ski-mask breaking into your home, tippy toeing around and somehow you wake up. Paranoid as usual, you take the gun to go to the washroom and spot him. Bam you kill him.

You watch too much TV. I don't know what makes you think criminals give a crap if you have a gun or not. You're assuming all criminals are cowards and they won't attack you because you carry a gun. Well, I will assume you are also a coward because you carry a gun and scream self-defence. You don't like my assumption? Well don't assume either.

Pfft.

If hes scared his own alarm won't work and somebody might break into his house with a ski-mask and kill him while hes asleep then your scared somebody is going to come into then 1 in over 500,000 restaurants in America or 1 of the 100,000 public schools your in with a AR-15 and shoot you.

Just a few cases of how responsible gun owners have helped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTX7hqeNyQ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXI2xtOLMJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrFS_Or7I18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vPlaWSKDMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhB0G-k3Y2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV3mGvCFFJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CkwXDzUtuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvqKGTEVSsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJgL2yXAJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blq_a_lqDBs

From: rjj95
If hes scared his own alarm won't work and somebody might break into his house with a ski-mask and kill him while hes asleep then your scared somebody is going to come into then 1 in over 500,000 restaurants in America or 1 of the 100,000 public schools your in with a AR-15 and shoot you.

Just a few cases of how responsible gun owners have helped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTX7hqeNyQ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXI2xtOLMJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrFS_Or7I18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vPlaWSKDMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhB0G-k3Y2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV3mGvCFFJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CkwXDzUtuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvqKGTEVSsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJgL2yXAJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blq_a_lqDBs

Your sentence doesn't even make sense. No punctuation at all.. I'm not scared of anyone walking into a restaurant with an AR-15. If you took the time to read the thread, you'd notice that I dislike that you can go to walmart and buy these weapons. I dislike that anyone and everyone can have a gun in the US. I was in the military for a year and a half. I'm not scare of guns or dying so don't bother putting words in my mouth and say I'm scared.

He is a bit paranoid. Guns aren't the answer to everything. Banning them can stop idiots from having them in the first place. I see it as a better solution than allowing everyone to have them in the first place even if they do have psychological checks. If we can ban taking a shit on the side-walk, what makes guns so special? Everyone is going to claim self-defence all of the time.

Meh I'm done arguing though. This really isn't going to go anywhere. We're all trying to force eachother to see the other's views. Going to go watch fringe. You can watch it here if you like as well: http://tvsuperstream.com/show/fringe/season/5/episode/10

Pretty good show.

It is too simple:

More guns = more powpow = more violence.

99% of people are irresponsible; I wouldnt get in a fight with anyone carrying a gun. In an angry state of mind, I might do something I'd regret fot the rest of my life. And jails in the US are full with people that have regretfully made that stupid mistake… that wouldnt have happened if they didnt have that gun in that drawer.


Once again:

More guns = more violence!

From: WT-Fakawi
It is too simple:

More guns = more powpow = more violence.

99% of people are irresponsible; I wouldnt get in a fight with anyone carrying a gun. In an angry state of mind, I might do something I'd regret fot the rest of my life. And jails in the US are full with people that have regretfully made that stupid mistake… that wouldnt have happened if they didnt have that gun in that drawer.


Once again:

More guns = more violence!

I haven't really been paying real attention to this topic thought it lost the plot tbh but that is a good post :)

From: WT-Fakawi
It is too simple:

More guns = more powpow = more violence.

99% of people are irresponsible;

Once again:

More guns = more violence!

Tell me your not that shallow.. That's like saying ' were going to ban heroin,meth,crack,and cocaine and now nobody will use it!'I'm tired of repeating it so I will just explain it with this picture:

I really dislike metaphors when they are completely inapropriate. I also dislike saucing the argument with a semi funny picture. I will repeat myself: Reduce guns = reduce shooting…duh. I am done with arguing in this thread and shall leave you the final say:

"Your argument is therefore illogical. Next you'll be criticizing martial arts, and women carrying pepper spray."

Pepper spray is not illegal to have, but illegal to use in the Netherlands. Even if you are robbed. Also carrying knives is illegal, or owning a knife sharp on both edges.

From: WT-Fakawi
I really dislike metaphors when they are completely inapropriate. I also dislike saucing the argument with a semi funny picture. I will repeat myself: Reduce guns = reduce shooting…duh. I am done with arguing in this thread and shall leave you the final say:

Your logic is flawed. How could you possibly believe taking away guns from gun owners will stop shooting which 90%+ are committed by illegal gun owners?

Don't be closed minded…

From: rjj95
Your logic is flawed. How could you possibly believe taking away guns from gun owners will stop shooting which 90%+ are committed by illegal gun owners?

Don't be closed minded…

Where do you think the illegal gun owners got the guns from? Gun trees? They bought/got them from people who where legally allowed to have them.

From: BMWxi
Where do you think the illegal gun owners got the guns from? Gun trees? They bought/got them from people who where legally allowed to have them.

They get them from black markets and other countries such as Mexico/Anywhere in South America.

Even if they did ban guns, IT STILL WOULD NOT STOP THE CRIMINALS FROM HAVING THEM BECAUSE AT THIS TIME AND MOMENT THEY HAVE GUNS. LOL.

From: rjj95
They get them from black markets and other countries such as Mexico/Anywhere in South America.

Even if they did ban guns, IT STILL WOULD NOT STOP THE CRIMINALS FROM HAVING THEM BECAUSE AT THIS TIME AND MOMENT THEY HAVE GUNS. LOL.

Guns are bought from people with licences. I think someone said that the cartels in Mexico get guns from legal gun owners in the states. And every time criminals get arrested, there guns get confiscated, so stopping the flow of guns would stop criminals from getting them. See how you understood that last sentence even though I didn't write it in all caps?

From: BMWxi
Guns are bought from people with licences. I think someone said that the cartels in Mexico get guns from legal gun owners in the states. And every time criminals get arrested, there guns get confiscated, so stopping the flow of guns would stop criminals from getting them. See how you understood that last sentence even though I didn't write it in all caps?

The guns still aren't the problem in that case. Why are these people having to sell guns to criminals to make money, and why do these criminals need guns? Perhaps it's because the economy is shit?

People seem to look past these underlying problems, and think that removing guns from the equation will fix it.

From: BMWxi
Guns are bought from people with licences. I think someone said that the cartels in Mexico get guns from legal gun owners in the states. And every time criminals get arrested, there guns get confiscated, so stopping the flow of guns would stop criminals from getting them. See how you understood that last sentence even though I didn't write it in all caps?

So DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell are the local crack dealers with illegal 9mm pistols. They are watching the news and see that now all guns have been banned from civilians. All guns have been taken from the gun owners houses by the government because they were tracked by their permits. DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell the crack dealers still have their guns and continue to commit crime just as normal and the violence and murder rate in the united states will either stay the same or rise.

Therfor the problem would not have been solved.


What was that liberal Newspaper that tried to make a point by posting the address's of all the local gun owners in their newspaper, when really all it did was give burglars a list of houses they now know may be dangerous to break into?

From: WT-Fakawi

It is too simple:

More guns = more powpow = more violence.

Agreed, but what happens if you think about,

Criminals same amount of guns + Less responsible normal people with guns = ??

StreetCrime = (StreetCrime*1000%);

Just so the news and media might report 1 less shooting in a school (and the killing would probably happen without the gun anyway with a weapon less currently under discussion in the news)

I see no reason to change the current system as its working fine, if you want to stop this, then pat-down and xray/search all students as they enter schools, and have a central remote door locking system that prevents people leaving and entering a new room during class times, or have students in ballistic glass boxes, one each in their current room, turn it into some kind of prison,

Its not the gun's fault, its the way the world is, if you want freedom and no violence, then sorry but its impossible,

I also can't see an argument that will get so heated that someone would shoot someone, if anyone would use such violence in a word - word exchange, then they probably belong in jail anyway

I think this thread originally addressed automatic weapons, and all shootings normally the gun is from a source where the owner has followed all the correct registry and laws to obtain and keep them, so unless the laws change really really drastically, cant see it making any difference in the long run,

Also, i don't own a gun and probably never will, just my opinion on banning them

From: rjj95
So DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell are the local crack dealers with illegal 9mm pistols.

Adding racism are you? hilarious.

From: rjj95

They are watching the news and see that now all guns have been banned from civilians. All guns have been taken from the gun owners houses by the government because they were tracked by their permits. DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell the crack dealers still have their guns and continue to commit crime just as normal and the violence and murder rate in the united states will either stay the same or rise.

Why would they start killing people? As drug dealers, they make money from selling narcotics, not killing random people.

From: rjj95

What was that liberal Newspaper that tried to make a point by posting the address's of all the local gun owners in their newspaper, when really all it did was give burglars a list of houses they now know may be dangerous to break into?

I don't know, I don't live there.

From: DannyRS
Agreed, but what happens if you think about,

Criminals same amount of guns + Less responsible normal people with guns = ??

StreetCrime = (StreetCrime*1000%);

That 1000% seems a bit unfounded.

From: DannyRS

Just so the news and media might report 1 less shooting in a school (and the killing would probably happen without the gun anyway with a weapon less currently under discussion in the news)

It would prevent more than one, there have been many in recent years. And I don't think that these recent killings would have been possible without guns. With guns, you just point and press a button. It is very distant, so the killer has less emotion to get in the way of killing. With a knife, you need to be right next to them, and hear them, and feel them trying to get away, probably hear them crying. There is a much larger emotional barrier that needs to be breached.

From: DannyRS

I see no reason to change the current system as its working fine, if you want to stop this, then pat-down and xray/search all students as they enter schools, and have a central remote door locking system that prevents people leaving and entering a new room during class times, or have students in ballistic glass boxes, one each in their current room, turn it into some kind of prison,

It is obviously not working fine. Working fine is when no one breaks in with a gun and shoots people. Would you even be able to tell if your school had bulletproof glass windows? As for the pat down/ searches, you would only have to stop guns from being in the school at the entrance, not at each class. And most/all of these measures would be overkill if nobody had access to guns in the first place.

From: DannyRS

Its not the gun's fault, its the way the world is, if you want freedom and no violence, then sorry but its impossible,

You're right, it isn't the guns fault, it's (people + guns)'s fault. Saying it isn't gun's fault is like saying a housefire is not the fire's fault, bucause it couldn't burn without oxygen. To go in a school and shoot someone you need Person + Gun Take away the gun, and you have Person.

From: DannyRS

I also can't see an argument that will get so heated that someone would shoot someone, if anyone would use such violence in a word - word exchange, then they probably belong in jail anyway

I don't see why either, but unfortunately it happens frequently. And is the life of the person they killed the cost of them going to jail? Guns never need to be involved for that to happen.

From: DannyRS

I think this thread originally addressed automatic weapons, and all shootings normally the gun is from a source where the owner has followed all the correct registry and laws to obtain and keep them, so unless the laws change really really drastically, cant see it making any difference in the long run,

Exactly, which is why stricter regulations will reduce gun violence.

From: DannyRS

Also, i don't own a gun and probably never will, just my opinion on banning them

Why is the reason you wont? I'll guess it is the same reason that I think people shouldn't.

From: BMWxi
Adding racism are you? hilarious.

Why would they start killing people? As drug dealers, they make money from selling narcotics, not killing random people.

I don't know, I don't live there.

How am I being racist? LOL typical left wing argument to pull the racist card, do you know what a gang is? Just curious i'm not sure if you know what they are. You should read up on them.

From: rjj95
How am I being racist? LOL typical left wing argument to pull the racist card, do you know what a gang is? Just curious i'm not sure if you know what they are. You should read up on them.

Probably because you gave the crack dealers all stereotypical black names lol.

Anyways, they don't necessary have to be drug dealers in this example. They could be burglars, or murderers for hire.

From: Echo_
Probably because you gave the crack dealers all stereotypical black names lol.

Anyways, they don't necessary have to be drug dealers in this example. They could be burglars, or murderers for hire.

Ok sure, this might be a interesting chart to look at, it's a shame it does not include acts commited with illegal guns:

Almost all of those offences were committed by more white people than black people, so why would you choose to give them stereotypical black names?

They should have included a ratio comparing these numbers to the total population of each race in America.

Since this discussion has gone horribly off topic, I'm gonna stop posting now :p

From: Echo_
They should have included a ratio comparing these numbers to the total population of each race in America.

Since this discussion has gone horribly off topic, I'm gonna stop posting now :p

Yeah, it's pretty meaningless without that :P

And it probably should have included something about their economic status, as that too should be considered

From: BMWxi
Almost all of those offences were committed by more white people than black people, so why would you choose to give them stereotypical black names?

Why are you turning this into a race war? This has nothing to do with race, you attempted to call me racist when I am not, I am just using statistics to write a accurate scenario. Yea, more white people have been arrested, but there's also 6x more white people..



Echo's right it's getting to far off topic and im cba to start a race with, especially with somebody whose going to argue when they aren't even offended.

From: rjj95
Why are you turning this into a race war? This has nothing to do with race, you attempted to call me racist when I am not, I am just using statistics to write a accurate scenario. Yea, more white people have been arrested, but there's also 6x more white people..



Back on topic: It's a gun debate not a race debate.

That race data is from 2011, the arrest data is from 2009…

Anyways, I like to go up to the mountains with my dad, set up a few targets, and shoot for a couple hours. It's fun. I don't think people who enjoy guns in the same way as I do should be punished for the actions of psycho killers.

From: Echo_
That race data is from 2011, the arrest data is from 2009…

Anyways, I like to go up to the mountains with my dad, set up a few targets, and shoot for a couple hours. It's fun. I don't think people who enjoy guns in the same way as I do should be punished for the actions of psycho killers.

Rates are pretty much the same.. black to white in 2009 might be 5.9458849:1 lol :s

I never "started a race war" I just didn't see the point of you arbitrarily assigning stereotypical black names to your hypothetical drug dealers.

From: BMWxi

Why is the reason you wont? I'll guess it is the same reason that I think people shouldn't.

All my numbers were not meant to be literal sorry ;)

Honestly just because i cant be bothered to do the paperwork and pay registry fee's, and I cant see a situation for me personally to need a gun to stop anyone,

Still believe they shouldn't be banned tho

From: DannyRS
All my numbers were not meant to be literal sorry ;)

Haha np :p

From: DannyRS

I cant see a situation for me personally to need a gun to stop anyone,

I don't think most people do, but for some reason many still feel the need to have a piece of metal that launches other pieces of metal.

:p

From: BMWxi
I never "started a race war" I just didn't see the point of you arbitrarily assigning stereotypical black names to your hypothetical drug dealers.

Just pick ever story you like best then::spot:

So DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell are the local crack dealers with illegal 9mm pistols. They are watching the news and see that now all guns have been banned from civilians. All guns have been taken from the gun owners houses by the government because they were tracked by their permits. DeShawn,DeAndre,Marquis,Darnell, and Terrell the crack dealers still have their guns and continue to commit crime just as normal and the violence and murder rate in the united states will either stay the same or rise.

Therfor the problem would not have been solved.

So Juan,Pablo, Diego,Sebastián, and Nicolás are the local crack dealers with illegal 9mm pistols. They are watching the news and see that now all guns have been banned from civilians. All guns have been taken from the gun owners houses by the government because they were tracked by their permits. Juan,Pablo, Diego,Sebastián, and Nicolás the crack dealers still have their guns and continue to commit crime just as normal and the violence and murder rate in the united states will either stay the same or rise.

Therfor the problem would not have been solved.


So Billy,Billy-Jean, Billy-Joe,Tom, and Huck are the local crack dealers with illegal 9mm pistols. They are watching the news and see that now all guns have been banned from civilians. All guns have been taken from the gun owners houses by the government because they were tracked by their permits. Billy,Billy-Jean, Billy-Joe,Tom, and Huck the crack dealers still have their guns and continue to commit crime just as normal and the violence and murder rate in the united states will either stay the same or rise.

Therfor the problem would not have been solved.

From: rjj95

It would still be a damn lot harder to get one than just walking to your local Walmart ;) .

From: Ubuntu
It would still be a damn lot harder to get one than just walking to your local Walmart ;) .

:duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh:
:duh:Criminals can't buy guns at Walmart :duh:
:duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh:

Do not flame me as I have no done any actual reading or looking into this story, but I was told that NONE of the guns were the shooters. They were all legally obtained by his mother and then he took them from his home and used them. This is what I was told.

From: Hazzah
Do not flame me as I have no done any actual reading or looking into this story, but I was told that NONE of the guns were the shooters. They were all legally obtained by his mother and then he took them from his home and used them. This is what I was told.

Well according to pro-gun people, the mother should've been safe, since she owned gun and could therefore gun down anyone who attempted to shoot her.

Oh the irony.

From: eska
Well according to pro-gun people, the mother should've been safe, since she owned gun and could therefore gun down anyone who attempted to shoot her.

Oh the irony.

:duh:Her own son shot her why would she suspect anything:duh:


According to anti gun people, when guns are outlawed everybody including criminals are going to hand them in.

Oh the irony.

I am agreeing with the OP's link. (That guns that have the characteristics described should be banned)

Sorry didn't read the rest of the thread.

Lol, this thread is still opened? And not in the spam section?

From: rjj95
:duh:Her own son shot her why would she suspect anything:duh:


According to anti gun people, when guns are outlawed everybody including criminals are going to hand them in.

Oh the irony.

According to pro gun people, when gun are outlawed every criminal start killing innocent civilian simply because they are now "defenseless".

ITT:

From: eska
According to pro gun people, when gun are outlawed every criminal start killing innocent civilian simply because they are now "defenseless".

ITT:

Nobody said that.

Let's talk about the constitution. Finally, I can talk about law on this forum.

Let's look at what the second amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As much as some people would want this line to mean that everyone can have a gun and that any law regulating guns is unconstitutional, it isn't the case, as confirmed by the courts on many occasions. While right wing extremists like Scalia state that the purpose of this amendment is to allow every American to bear a gun, let's not forget that this is primarily a political question rather than a legal one and that the 2008 decision declaring unconstitutional a regulation of Washington D.C. prohibiting the ownership of a handgun at home was a very close 5 vs 4 case. With this in mind, it appears clear to me that a lot can be done to more tightly regulate these killing machines.

I'd also like to add a reply of the judge in chief of the Supreme Court of Canada (my country so I'm somewhat proud) to judge Scalia (I apologize for the rough translation):

Antonin, I agree with you: your Constitution gives you the right to bear a gun, but only if you're on a horse

Let's never forget the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago.

From: Wardancer
Let's talk about the constitution. Finally, I can talk about law on this forum.

Let's look at what the second amendment actually says:



As much as some people would want this line to mean that everyone can have a gun and that any law regulating guns is unconstitutional, it isn't the case, as confirmed by the courts on many occasions. While right wing extremists like Scalia state that the purpose of this amendment is to allow every American to bear a gun, let's not forget that this is primarily a political question rather than a legal one and that the 2008 decision declaring unconstitutional a regulation of Washington D.C. prohibiting the ownership of a handgun at home was a very close 5 vs 4 case. With this in mind, it appears clear to me that a lot can be done to more tightly regulate these killing machines.

I'd also like to add a reply of the judge in chief of the Supreme Court of Canada (my country so I'm somewhat proud) to judge Scalia (I apologize for the rough translation):



Let's never forget the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago.

Good post, but let's not forget the reason nobody has mentioned but you. To protect us from our government. People can tell me I'm crazy if they want IDC but part of the reason it's there is to protect from the government taking away our rights (which are slowly slipping away, not saying were gonna be communist.. but our rights are slipping away)

rjj95, that argument was valid 250 years ago. Not now. Do you seriously think a handgun would help you against… a tank or aircraft carrier? The very nature of the military evolved with time.

I don't mean to sound rude, but you just seem to be repeating the same arguments as the lobbyists without truly understanding or doubting them. There is no historical perspective in the reasoning… just a general fear of the government which is, for the most part, unfounded and a total anachronism.

Finally, communism means no rights? Really? Please explain as I somewhat feel like you're just repeating this without really understanding what you're trying to say…

From: Wardancer
rjj95, that argument was valid 250 years ago. Not now. Do you seriously think a handgun would help you against… a tank or aircraft carrier? The very nature of the military evolved with time.

I don't mean to sound rude, but you just seem to be repeating the same arguments as the lobbyists without truly understanding or doubting them. There is no historical perspective in the reasoning… just a general fear of the government which is, for the most part, unfounded and a total anachronism.

Finally, communism means no rights? Really? Please explain as I somewhat feel like you're just repeating this without really understanding what you're trying to say…

I never said communism means no rights. Your pulling words of of my mouth.
Look at all the middle eastern countries that rebelled, that was citizens vs armies

From: rjj95
I never said communism means no rights. Your pulling words of of my mouth.
Look at all the middle eastern countries that rebelled, that was citizens vs armies

1. Different context. The people in the Arab Spring that rebelled were living under a dictatorship. I can hardly imagine the same scenario EVER happening in the USA
2. The USA has a +700m military budget (I'm not sure, fact-check me on that), the Middle Eastern dictatorships we're talking about barely had a fraction of that
3. It wasn't exactly citizen vs army. Egypt and Tunisia sure had some conflict, but it never escalated into a full out war because the government backed down. Libyan and Syrian rebels had/have other countries/NATO helping them. So its not appropiate to say "Citizen vs Army", its more appropiate to say "Citizens backed by international support vs. Sub-par dictatorships"

Excuse my grammar, typed this in a rush

From: rjj95
I never said communism means no rights. Your pulling words of of my mouth.

From: rjj95
Good post, but let's not forget the reason nobody has mentioned but you. To protect us from our government. People can tell me I'm crazy if they want IDC but part of the reason it's there is to protect from the government taking away our rights (which are slowly slipping away, not saying were gonna be communist.. but our rights are slipping away)

The inference is very strong. If you weren't saying that communism means no rights, you're saying that communism is worst than having no rights. I'll let you decide.

From: rjj95
Look at all the middle eastern countries that rebelled, that was citizens vs armies

There seems to be some romanticism about those civil wars for you. In the cases that there were bloodshed, people didn't overthrow the government thanks to their right to bear arms. They got rid of the past government because they received military help from third parties and the defection of a part of the military. The already-owned-before-the-conflict-started arms didn't tip the balance of power in the favour of revolutionists.

Lol you guys are still going at it.

Don't you guys take breaks from debating on new-years? :P

There seems to be some romanticism about those civil wars for you. In the cases that there were bloodshed, people didn't overthrow the government thanks to their right to bear arms. They got rid of the past government because they received military help from third parties and the defection of a part of the military. The already-owned-before-the-conflict-started arms didn't tip the balance of power in the favour of revolutionists.

[Citation needed]

As for your interpretation of our constitution, please see the following cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

And a quote from Wikipedia:

Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter

.

Also, @SRLKing

just using sarcasm for fun?

I enjoy using sarcasm, but if you want I'll try attaching more solid points to my sarcasm.

Explain how he was being a terrorist..

Attacking the foundation of our law, the constitution, is considered by me to be terrorism.

Your metaphor was not correctly used..I will attack your metaphor because that is proper in a debate, rather than attacking the other speaker with invalid random ramblings(You)..

What if I just wanted to kill you? You are ASSUMING all criminals just want your wallet and are of sane mind(Which if they were, why wouldn't they get a job?)

I'm not attacking you, and I'm not rambling. I am assuming that someone want's my wallet, their reasons are their own.

Although it may have gone differently, this man was not of a sane mind, no sane mind = No rational decisions. No rational decisions = Doesnt give a crap about who has a gun. ONCE AGAIN SANE MIND

I'm assuming had the principal had a gun in this case he would have used it, not just waved it around :P

You have done diddly squat to prove my argument invalid..

This quote was for a previous post, must have mis-copied it. However you don't really have an argument, only a counter-argument to my counter-argument.

I am an avid hunter, I know what a gun sounds like.

I own many guns, I just think people should have to go through a heck of a lot more to get them.

Well, I'm not sure that I disagree with you, I support doing background checks. However banning entire groups of guns, and saying that when you die your ARs must be turned in to be destroyed is pretty crazy.

They're planning on destroying all guns that have only one physical attribute of assault weapons. To gun owners everywhere it should be chilling to you how strict this new bill is: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

From: Wardancer
rjj95, that argument was valid 250 years ago. Not now. Do you seriously think a handgun would help you against… a tank or aircraft carrier? The very nature of the military evolved with time.

That's a horrible example. Why the hell would you go after a tank or aircraft carrier with a handgun? Clearly civilian owned guns would be used against government infantry forces.

From: eska
Lol you guys are still going at it.

lol yeah I've lost interest in this topic in like the first page they still arguing :p

From: Wardancer
rjj95, that argument was valid 250 years ago. Not now. Do you seriously think a handgun would help you against… a tank or aircraft carrier? The very nature of the military evolved with time.

I don't mean to sound rude, but you just seem to be repeating the same arguments as the lobbyists without truly understanding or doubting them. There is no historical perspective in the reasoning… just a general fear of the government which is, for the most part, unfounded and a total anachronism.

Finally, communism means no rights? Really? Please explain as I somewhat feel like you're just repeating this without really understanding what you're trying to say…

It's not about one person taking on a tank, it's about the entirety of the population not being easy to subdue/introduce martial law. And considering the amount of "haziness" around: 9/11, Iraq, US involvement in the UN, I don't feel totally comfortable with the US Government.

I can understand disagreeing with someone, but trying to get them deported. I can't tell if it's a joke gone too far or if people just don't respect eachother at all anymore.

From: xdarkshadowx
I can understand disagreeing with someone, but trying to get them deported. I can't tell if it's a joke gone too far or if people just don't respect eachother at all anymore.

Yeah that was my point about the whole topic it was just about the deportation on 'views' that could save lives

From: Brandon
LOL I actually saw the interview and followed the reports for a while on Piers. Honestly, Americans think they're the shit. The guy can't even say what he wants. Some guy who is a director of some stupid rifle association made a petition to get him kicked out of the country because he pwned him in a debate? LOL.. The director looked extra stupid during the debate. Piers made a fool of him. Still, that's no reason to get him deported. Ahahaha.

65,000 people signed a petition because they don't like what he said? LOL. Is it odd that 300,000 guns sold on the same day as the last shooting? Those guns happened to be the exact same AR-15 Rifle the shooter used.. Of course the director is going to be happy with more gun sales. More security = more money for him.

"He pwned him in a debate"…? That whole debate was nothing but name-calling and argumentative bigotry. Neither Piers nor the director intelligently represented their opinion on the situation. While I think it's ridiculous a bunch of southerners are making an attempt to deport a man for practicing an amendment right, Piers is nonetheless a condescending, and rude man. Might I add the way you word your statements makes you look asinine and uneducated. If you're going to make bold statements like "Americans think they're the shit." please provide FACTUAL evidence supporting that idea.

From: Zeds
"He pwned him in a debate"…? That whole debate was nothing but name-calling and argumentative bigotry. Neither Piers nor the director intelligently represented their opinion on the situation. While I think it's ridiculous a bunch of southerners are making an attempt to deport a man for practicing an amendment right, Piers is nonetheless a condescending, and rude man. Might I add the way you word your statements makes you look asinine and uneducated. If you're going to make bold statements like "Americans think they're the shit." please provide FACTUAL evidence supporting that idea.

Ahh bumping old threads? Nice job on getting an extra post count.. I don't exactly care if you think I'm uneducated lol. Finally, the statement speaks for itself. You want to deport a man for saying what he wishes?

Go to google and type: "why do americans think".. tell me what the first suggestion is? Oh? Let me tell you.. It says: "why do americans think they are so great"

Press enter now.. Read. All stereotypes have some truth to it. I obviously wasn't the only one thinking it as you can see. Google has 3,320,000,000 results on this.. Second is why Canadians say Eh.. Let me guess.. "Canadians don't say eh"? pfft.

Why not search before calling me out. Yes there was name calling but so what? The guy had no valid points anyway. Lets put a security guard at every school so we can sell them guns to protect themselves.. Not to mention the new idea of having your kid carry a bulletproof backpack. Nice one.

Don't bother tagging me again. This thread has a reply that was 25 days ago. No one cares anymore. I certainly don't. I get to watch from this country all the chaos/crapstorm that happens in yours. Still.. forgive me for stereotyping.. but again, all stereotypes come from somewhere.

From: Brandon
Ahh bumping old threads? Nice job on getting an extra post count.. I don't exactly care if you think I'm uneducated lol. Finally, the statement speaks for itself. You want to deport a man for saying what he wishes?

Go to google and type: "why do americans think".. tell me what the first suggestion is? Oh? Let me tell you.. It says: "why do americans think they are so great"

Press enter now.. Read. All stereotypes have some truth to it. I obviously wasn't the only one thinking it as you can see. Google has 3,320,000,000 results on this.. Second is why Canadians say Eh.. Let me guess.. "Canadians don't say eh"? pfft.

Why not search before calling me out. Yes there was name calling but so what? The guy had no valid points anyway. Lets put a security guard at every school so we can sell them guns to protect themselves.. Not to mention the new idea of having your kid carry a bulletproof backpack. Nice one.

Don't bother tagging me again. This thread has a reply that was 25 days ago. No one cares anymore. I certainly don't. I get to watch from this country all the chaos/crapstorm that happens in yours. Still.. forgive me for stereotyping.. but again, all stereotypes come from somewhere.

Even though I disagree with 15% of what you said you just pwned him

Ahh bumping old threads? Nice job on getting an extra post count.. I don't exactly care if you think I'm uneducated lol. Finally, the statement speaks for itself. You want to deport a man for saying what he wishes?
Since when is commenting on a thread that's only three shy of being the top thread gravedigging? Secondly, I said it was completely ridiculous that people are trying to deport a man for practicing his right. Please re-read my post before responding.

Go to google and type: "why do americans think".. tell me what the first suggestion is? Oh? Let me tell you.. It says: "why do americans think they are so great"
Once again, factual evidence.

Press enter now.. Read. All stereotypes have some truth to it. I obviously wasn't the only one thinking it as you can see. Google has 3,320,000,000 results on this.. Second is why Canadians say Eh.. Let me guess.. "Canadians don't say eh"? pfft.
While stereotypes may connect to a large majority of the group it's focused on (hence why it's a stereotype), it does not represent that group as a whole. Assuming that is just pure stupidity.

Why not search before calling me out. Yes there was name calling but so what? The guy had no valid points anyway. Lets put a security guard at every school so we can sell them guns to protect themselves.. Not to mention the new idea of having your kid carry a bulletproof backpack. Nice one.
Did I not say that man had no valid argument? Oh wait… I did say that.

Don't bother tagging me again. This thread has a reply that was 25 days ago. No one cares anymore. I certainly don't. I get to watch from this country all the chaos/crapstorm that happens in yours. Still.. forgive me for stereotyping.. but again, all stereotypes come from somewhere.
Actually, i'm Italian. This has nothing to do with "my country", this has to do with the political debate on cnn.

From: Zeds

…Actually, i'm Italian…

++ Italiano :]

OT: The person Piers interviewed seemed like the guy who is too unstable to own a handgun… or possibly he had a combination of how do you say "wake on to the opposite side of the bed" and "Wheaties cereal"

-Lj