So I had a little discussion with one of my friends today. He told me his father had just bought a working Ak-47 gun with a buttload of ammo. It now rests comfortably next to the rest of his handgun collection. I suppose my only question was, why?
Got me thinking a bit, it did. So why the hell are handguns and any other non hunting related firearm sold to the public. I mean, think about it. Handguns, specifically, are designed to kill people. So why sell the public a firearm designed to kill other humans.
Or better yet, why dont they sell the guns cheap, but make ammo incredibly expensive. $5,000 a bullet. I dont know, it's just one of those sore spots I harbor. Guns suck amigos. I'm not bringing up anything new. Thoughts? Opinions?
Guns are for "defense."
I don't buy it.
But, if nobody sold guns in the first place, what would you need to defend against? It would certainly make gang fights a little more even, what with everyone relying on knives or chains.
So I had a little discussion with one of my friends today.awesome He told me his father had just bought a working Ak-47 gun with a buttload of ammo. no way, that's the same gun a terrorist uses, he must be a terroristIt now rests comfortably next to the rest of his handgun collection. oh wait, maybe he's a collector and uses it for sport I suppose my only question was, why?
Got me thinking a bit, it did. first time, it was So why the hell are handguns and any other non hunting related firearm sold to the public. why not I mean, think about it. okHandguns, specifically, are designed to kill people.not always So why sell the public a firearm designed to kill other humans. profit
Or better yet, why dont they sell the guns cheap, but make ammo incredibly expensive. $5,000 a bulletbecause even austfailia isn't that batshit insane. I dont know, it's just one of those sore spots I harbor. my nipples are sore spots sometimes Guns suck amigos. wait a second, my mosin nagant is sucking off my spanish speaking friends? god damn itI'm not bringing up anything new.ive heard it a thousand times Thoughts? Opinions?
Quote from: Boognish on March 15, 2008, 07:32:44 PM
But, if nobody sold guns in the first place, what would you need to defend against? It would certainly make gang fights a little more even, what with everyone relying on knives or chains.
There are people (JMV) that would argue a gun can be used to protect yourself from government oppression, police, etc. If you whip out a gun on an officer, you're shot without hesitation; if you're trying to take down the government as a whole, then you'd have to be pretty stupid, so it's a horrible argument.
If someone breaks into your house at night and comes into your room, it's possible you'd be killed before you'd even find your weapon. You could keep it in a gun cabinet in another room to "scare off" any potential burglars/murderers/whatever (yes, I've known people that actually think displaying their weapons will deter crime), but all that person would have to do is snag your weapon. The only way I could possibly see it actually proving to be good for defense is if you sleep with it under your pillow and manage to shoot the person if they broke in downstairs, or just fire a few rounds to maybe scare them off.
The only purpose I see for them is hunting or law enforcement. e.g. woman being held hostage with a knife to her throat and an officer shoots the man.
Also, stuff like paintball is okay I suppose. I don't play it but it's highly unlikely to kill someone.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 07:43:29 PM
There are people (JMV) that would argue a gun can be used to protect yourself from government oppression, police, etc. If you whip out a gun on an officer, you're shot without hesitation; if you're trying to take down the government as a whole, then you'd have to be pretty stupid, so it's a horrible argument.
If the only people with access to firearms are law enforcement and the government, that's just asking for a situation that can be abused.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 07:43:29 PM
There are people (JMV) that would argue a gun can be used to protect yourself from government oppression, police, etc. If you whip out a gun on an officer, you're shot without hesitation; if you're trying to take down the government as a whole, then you'd have to be pretty stupid, so it's a horrible argument.
it's a horrible thing the founding fathers had evil gun weapons and resisted the british
Quote from: JMV on March 15, 2008, 07:47:27 PM
If the only people with access to firearms are law enforcement and the government, that's just asking for a situation that can be abused.
If the general public doesn't possess firearms, the police have less use for them.
Beanbag guns and whacking sticks for the general police force, guns for the highly specialized units.
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 07:49:24 PM
it's a horrible thing the founding fathers had evil gun weapons and resisted the british
the confederacy did the same thing but they were bad people
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 07:51:12 PM
If the general public doesn't possess firearms, the police have less use for them.
Beanbag guns and whacking sticks for the general police force, guns for the highly specialized units.the confederacy did the same thing but they were bad people
the general public wouldn't ever want to shoot someone unless they absolutely had to
damn the confederates for wanting to leave the union
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 07:43:29 PM
If someone breaks into your house at night and comes into your room, it's possible you'd be killed before you'd even find your weapon. You could keep it in a gun cabinet in another room to "scare off" any potential burglars/murderers/whatever
it's also possible for you to get hurt while trying to use a fire extinguisher so e need to ban those
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 08:04:48 PM
it's also possible for you to get hurt while trying to use a fire extinguisher so e need to ban those
let me change that to probable
you can shoot someone in the face with a fire extinguisher and they'll gag, but live
you can shoot a person in the face with a gun and they'll die
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 08:15:09 PM
let me change that to probable
you can shoot someone in the face with a fire extinguisher and they'll gag, but live
you can shoot a person in the face with a gun and they'll die
You can shoot some one in the face with a fire extinguisher and they might die.
You can shoot some one in the face with a gun and they might live.
Quote from: JMV on March 15, 2008, 08:21:02 PM
You can shoot some one in the face with a fire extinguisher and they might die.
You can shoot some one in the face with a gun and they might live.
You can shoot someone in the face with a gun and they might live. Everyone hides and someone calls the police. A while later, the police come to arrest you to find 7 other people dead, with you dead on the floor from suicide.
You can shoot someone in the face with a gun and they might live. A person with a CCW shoots you.
baddood;
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 07:49:24 PM
it's a horrible thing the founding fathers had evil gun weapons and resisted the british
Obviously times have changed. I hardly think the population is planning a revolution. Unless you know something about one? Maybe then that statement would have an ounce of validity.
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 08:04:48 PM
it's also possible for you to get hurt while trying to use a fire extinguisher so e need to ban those
Yes, but last time I checked, fire extinguishers were built and designed to put out small fires, not shoot a small metal projectile into someone. Right?
Obviously the prospect of seriously banning gun sale to the general public is incredibly unrealistic, as advantageous as it would be. Still, I think there are a few more guidelines that could be budged into place to try to at least make it even more difficult to purchase a piece.
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 08:37:17 PM
You can shoot someone in the face with a gun and they might live. Everyone hides and someone calls the police. A while later, the police come to arrest you to find 7 other people dead, with you dead on the floor from suicide.
You can shoot someone in the face with a gun and they might live. A person with a CCW shoots you.
baddood;
And where exactly are you going with this here?.......
Quote from: Lawlz on March 15, 2008, 07:51:12 PM
If the general public doesn't possess firearms, the police have less use for them.
Says the man who gave the knife to the hostage throat as an example of how police can use guns. How, pray tell, do I call the police in the middle of a home invasion or when I have a knife to my throat?
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 15, 2008, 07:41:03 PM
So I had a little discussion with one of my friends today.awesome He told me his father had just bought a working Ak-47 gun with a buttload of ammo. no way, that's the same gun a terrorist uses, he must be a terroristIt now rests comfortably next to the rest of his handgun collection. oh wait, maybe he's a collector and uses it for sport I suppose my only question was, why?
Got me thinking a bit, it did. first time, it was So why the hell are handguns and any other non hunting related firearm sold to the public. why not I mean, think about it. okHandguns, specifically, are designed to kill people.not always So why sell the public a firearm designed to kill other humans. profit
Or better yet, why dont they sell the guns cheap, but make ammo incredibly expensive. $5,000 a bulletbecause even austfailia isn't that batshit insane. I dont know, it's just one of those sore spots I harbor. my nipples are sore spots sometimes Guns suck amigos. wait a second, my mosin nagant is sucking off my spanish speaking friends? god damn itI'm not bringing up anything new.ive heard it a thousand times Thoughts? Opinions?
that's some nice quoting you got there
I wrote this in 8th grade, but it is still alright and relevant, I was told not to choose a side (stupid teacher).
â,"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.â,(Constitution of the U.S.) In the early days of our country guns were taken to church to protect the people of the town from Indian attacks while they were all at church. Gun control is a very hot topic in the United Sates of America. There are organizations that support it and others that think it would be totally counterproductive. I believe that gun control would promote more violence than there is now and here are some of my reasons why:
If the government of our country decided to ban all types of firearms there would still be guns out there because all of the good citizens would turn in their guns and criminals wouldnâ,,,t. There would be more armed robbery, assaults, and other violence using guns because the people wouldnâ,,,t be able to defend them because they turned in their firearms. In fact our nationâ,,,s capital did that. Twenty-nine years ago Washington D.C. passed a law banning all guns and firearms. In the past fifteen years Washington D.C. has been the Murder Capital of the U.S. for fourteen of those fifteen years. It is an excellent example of how gun control laws fail to keep citizens safe.(Americaâ,,,s1st Freedom, 36).
The news never says this, but â,"Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.â,(Americaâ,,,s1st Freedom, 24). This shows that guns arenâ,,,t just used for bad, such as killings, they are able to help you protect your family and property
Supporters of gun control may argue that firearms are dangerous, but almost everything is dangerous, far more people are killed by automobiles each year than by firearms. Yes guns can be dangerous around little kids, but there are cabinets that you can buy that you can lock your gun in to keep people you donâ,,,t want touching it and accidentally firing it.
If you could insure that you could take guns from people using them for illegal things then you could have successful gun control. â,"In any given year 99.8% of firearms and 99.6% of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity.(Aitkens, 15). Guns themselves arenâ,,,t dangerous it is the people that use them for wrong that make them dangerous.
Gun control supporters say gun control would reduce the number of killings each year. They also say it helps the government control who can and canâ,,,t buy guns, which can be a good thing. The place that sells you a gun has to do a background check, by law, to insure they are not selling a gun to someone they are not supposed to. You can not purchase a firearm if you are a felon or have a drug addiction. If you are a felon or have a drug addiction then your application for a firearm is immediately discarded and you have no chance of getting one legally.
Some gun control laws help, like the one that bans people who have problems are good because the law prevents people who might use them for bad things. Another one is that you cannot sell a gun to a minor. This prevents young people from taking guns to school and shooting someone.
Guns help save people from intruders and burglars here is a story I read: â,"Georgia Belle Sullivan of Clinton L.A., will never know if her former employee, Arthur Sanford, came back for money, revenge or both. Sullivan was up late watching television when she heard a noise that caused her two dogs to start barking wildly. She took her pistol and went to investigate, but before she fully realized what was happening a shadowy figure lunged at her. Although she fired at the intruder, kept coming and the two struggled for the gun. Sullivan said, â,"He beat me with his fists. He was trying to get the gun out of my hand, he never did.â, Sanford continued to attack, saying that he wanted money, until his grip finally loosened and he died on the spot from a gunshot wound to his chest. Sanford had worked on Sullivanâ,,,s cattle farm for years, but had been fired three years earlier because of suspected drug use. Sanford also had a history of arrests for armed robbery.â,
In conclusion I found that there are many reasons why each side believes what it does. I also learned that each side has legitimate reasons for itâ,,,s opinion, and I respect that. I have shown both sides of the argument, now I suggest you choose which side you support because this issue is very important in our country.
If we ban guns, they will only be available to the criminals on the black market. NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN SOME ASSHOLE COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE AND PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD DUMBFUCKS!
Bibliography
Aitkens, Maggi. Should We Have Gun Control. Minneapolis. Lerner Publication Company, 1992.
â,"Gun Control,â, <www.guncite.com/.html> (December 4, 2005).
Chesnut, Mark. â,"D.C. To Criminals: â,˜We Surrender!â,,,,â, Americaâ,,,s1st Freedom September 2005: 36.
Henderson, Harry. Gun Control. New York, Facts on File, Inc.,2000.
LaPierre, Wayne. Guns, Crime, and Violence. Washington D.C. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,1994.
Streissguth, Tom, Gun Control The Pros and Cons. Berkeley Heights, NJ, Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Sugarman, Josh, NRA National Rifle Association, Money, Firepower, Fear. Washington D.C., National Press Books, 1992.
â,"Gun Control,â, <www.guncite.com/.html> (December 4, 2005).
"If we ban guns, they will only be available to the criminals on the black market. NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN SOME ASSHOLE COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE AND PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD DUMBFUCKS!"
judo chop
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 16, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
"If we ban guns, they will only be available to the criminals on the black market. NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN SOME ASSHOLE COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE AND PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD DUMBFUCKS!"
judo chop
Shit doesn't work, I have tried that, that is why I am dead. x.x
Banning guns? Stupid.
I'm tired, so I'll let P&T speak for me.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NPNsI68XAXI
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
"Mr Dellinger:
"Some people think machine guns are more dangerous than handguns -- they shoot a lot of people at once...""
"Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening."
Lots of lulz to be had
Bad idea.
I mean a really bad idea.
A. Restricting guns only means criminals alone can get ahold of them. Look at DC, now it's the criminals doing the killing.
B. The police aren't omnipresent. Let me say this you should never, I repeat never rely on the police as your sole protection in a life or death situation. When some crackhead decides to pull out your intestines with a harpy so he can loot your home for drug money, chances are the police will not be notified ahead of time. More likely than not you will need to protect yourself.
C. The founding fathers wanted Americans to be secure, to be empowered and to be able to defend themselves as well as their families against threats from within as well as threats from without. Now take Lawlz's situation. Say somehow the police are the only ones with weapons. Can anyone tell me what might be wrong with this situation?
Banning guns is foolish and impossible.
Further moderating and restricting gun sales is practical.
Quote from: Boognish on March 19, 2008, 07:16:52 PM
Banning guns is foolish and impossible.
Further moderating and restricting gun sales is practical.
explain
We definitely must continue to control gun sales. Criminals do not deserve the right to a gun.
You know what Penn and Teller made a good point about? Issuing guns to every woman. No rapist would get near them if women were given concealed weapons, even if only half of them actually carried their guns.
Quote from: Co-Z on March 21, 2008, 09:57:23 AM
We definitely must continue to control gun sales. Criminals do not deserve the right to a gun.
You know what Penn and Teller made a good point about? Issuing guns to every woman. No rapist would get near them if women were given concealed weapons, even if only half of them actually carried their guns.
Women can be rapists too.
Quote from: Co-Z on March 21, 2008, 09:57:23 AM
We definitely must continue to control gun sales. Criminals do not deserve the right to a gun.
You know what Penn and Teller made a good point about? Issuing guns to every woman. No rapist would get near them if women were given concealed weapons, even if only half of them actually carried their guns.
As if asking out a girl wasn't scary enough
Quote from: Co-Z on March 21, 2008, 09:57:23 AM
We definitely must continue to control gun sales. Criminals do not deserve the right to a gun.
You know what Penn and Teller made a good point about? Issuing guns to every woman. No rapist would get near them if women were given concealed weapons, even if only half of them actually carried their guns.
All criminals or only violent ones?
(http://www.lauerweaponry.com/images/cpr27.jpg)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html
Hand guns are for protection in your home.
Quote from: xXTheHaunted on March 21, 2008, 08:18:13 PM
Hand guns are for protection in your home.
what's the ratio of citizens using guns for self defense versus those being used for criminal activities
Convenience store employees pretty much need them while at work, but outside that, no.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 21, 2008, 08:54:01 PM
what's the ratio of citizens using guns for self defense versus those being used for criminal activities
In that case, lets ban baseball bats because I could bash your skull in.
Quote from: Zeta on March 21, 2008, 09:23:34 PM
In that case, lets ban baseball bats because I could bash your skull in.
Ugh! That's such a stupid, shitty argument and it's been already used with the fire extinguisher example. Are baseball bats manufactured specifically for bashing skulls in?
Plus, as said numerous times, the idea of having a universal ban on guns is absurd. Instead, there needs to be greater emphasis on continuing to set up rules and regulations to moderate sales.
Quote from: Zeta on March 21, 2008, 09:23:34 PM
In that case, lets ban baseball bats because I could bash your skull in.
Guns exist for the sole purpose of killing.
Baseball bats exist primarily for entertainment, but can be used for killing.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 21, 2008, 09:40:40 PM
Guns exist for the sole purpose of killing.
Yeah, I mean you should get life for killing these:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Clay-Pigeons-Loaded.jpg/750px-Clay-Pigeons-Loaded.jpg)
Damn clay pigeon shooting isn't entertainment anymore; it is murder.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 09:50:46 PM
Damn clay pigeon shooting isn't entertainment anymore; it is murder.
that's a silly thing to say doodthing;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on March 22, 2008, 11:18:40 AM
that's a silly thing to say doodthing;
Guns are used solely for murder. Lawlz said.
Quote from: JMV on March 22, 2008, 11:21:09 AM
Guns are used solely for murder. Lawlz said.
and i'm sure that the majority of gun owners are nothing more than clay pigeon enthusiasts
Cyanide is only used for suicide, let's ban it.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 10:30:39 AM
Women can be rapists too.
Yep. It's just more common for a man to be a rapist. Just using that as an example.
Quote from: Vunderhof on March 21, 2008, 04:24:53 PM
(http://www.lauerweaponry.com/images/cpr27.jpg)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html
Badass.
QuoteAll criminals or only violent ones?
Generally, I'd say violent ones. However, people like thiefs shouldn't get any because they could use it to help them steal shit.
Everyone who wants to ban guns is a retard though, if only criminals and cops get 'em, we're fucked.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 21, 2008, 09:40:40 PM
Guns exist for the sole purpose of killing.
And they can be used in self-defense, a positive thing. Just because fuckheads who get their weapons illegally like to do drive-bys doesn't mean you should punish people who don't.
If you wanted to stop the above, you wouldn't even look at guns. You'd end the war on drugs.
Quote from: Boognish on March 15, 2008, 07:32:44 PM
But, if nobody sold guns in the first place, what would you need to defend against? It would certainly make gang fights a little more even, what with everyone relying on knives or chains.
Not necessarily. Just because no one sold guns, doesn't mean that no one would produce guns. For all we know, only the gangsters would have guns
Quote from: Zeta on March 22, 2008, 04:13:39 PM
And they can be used in self-defense, a positive thing. Just because fuckheads who get their weapons illegally like to do drive-bys doesn't mean you should punish people who don't.
If you wanted to stop the above, you wouldn't even look at guns. You'd end the war on drugs.
Finally someone has some fucking brains!
Quote from: some_person on March 22, 2008, 10:35:42 PM
Not necessarily. Just because no one sold guns, doesn't mean that no one would produce guns. For all we know, only the gangsters would have guns
YES!
This is exactly the main reason to keep guns legal. Imagine a nation where everyone who obeys the laws gets a gun. Sure, there'd be occassions when a guy gets mad at his wife and pulls the trigger, but that's obvious - there's no way to stop all crime. But there'd be less assaults by thugs when they know you have a gun, and we'd be able to defend ourselves.
Quote from: Co-Z on March 23, 2008, 07:29:53 AM
YES!
This is exactly the main reason to keep guns legal. Imagine a nation where everyone who obeys the laws gets a gun. Sure, there'd be occassions when a guy gets mad at his wife and pulls the trigger, but that's obvious - there's no way to stop all crime. But there'd be less assaults by thugs when they know you have a gun, and we'd be able to defend ourselves.
Feel free to call me an idiot if I missed something about self defense guns, but why do they use real bullets?
Quote from: Co-Z on March 23, 2008, 07:29:53 AM
YES!
This is exactly the main reason to keep guns legal. Imagine a nation where everyone who obeys the laws gets a gun. Sure, there'd be occassions when a guy gets mad at his wife and pulls the trigger, but that's obvious - there's no way to stop all crime. But there'd be less assaults by thugs when they know you have a gun, and we'd be able to defend ourselves.
And you'd be scared shitless to ask an old lady a question because you'd fear that she'd think you're an assailant and she'd shoot you.
If everyone carried a gun, you wouldn't feel safer, but you'd just be scared. If a man is going to kill a person, he's going to kill a person; whether or not the other people have guns doesn't matter because his target can be murdered in half a second before anyone else even thinks to reach for their weapon.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 23, 2008, 11:48:53 AM
And you'd be scared shitless to ask an old lady a question because you'd fear that she'd think you're an assailant and she'd shoot you.
If everyone carried a gun, you wouldn't feel safer, but you'd just be scared. If a man is going to kill a person, he's going to kill a person; whether or not the other people have guns doesn't matter because his target can be murdered in half a second before anyone else even thinks to reach for their weapon.
So? Wasn't there a period in Europe when everyone (or a lot of people) carried swords? Swords then were probably like guns today.
Quote from: some_person on March 23, 2008, 12:39:30 PM
So? Wasn't there a period in Europe when everyone (or a lot of people) carried swords? Swords then were probably like guns today.
A man has a better chance of defending himself in a sword-fight than a gunfight. If a person whips out a gun and pulls the trigger, it's almost guaranteed to be an instant death. If a person swings their sword at you, you can dodge/block/strike back/whatever. I don't know of many people that can dodge an object flying hundreds of miles per hour that they can't even see, much less repel it.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 23, 2008, 06:06:05 PM
A man has a better chance of defending himself in a sword-fight than a gunfight. If a person whips out a gun and pulls the trigger, it's almost guaranteed to be an instant death. If a person swings their sword at you, you can dodge/block/strike back/whatever. I don't know of many people that can dodge an object flying hundreds of miles per hour that they can't even see, much less repel it.
If someone swings a sword at you, you're still pretty fucked. There's not a chance in hell of you blocking it and most people don't have the reflexes to dodge it.
Quote from: Houdini on March 23, 2008, 06:29:26 PM
If someone swings a sword at you, you're still pretty fucked. There's not a chance in hell of you blocking it and most people don't have the reflexes to dodge it.
Yet some people may have reflexes great enough to dodge bullets (or at least react before the bullet can hit that person).
Quote from: Lawlz on March 23, 2008, 11:48:53 AM
And you'd be scared shitless to ask an old lady a question because you'd fear that she'd think you're an assailant and she'd shoot you.
If everyone carried a gun, you wouldn't feel safer, but you'd just be scared. If a man is going to kill a person, he's going to kill a person; whether or not the other people have guns doesn't matter because his target can be murdered in half a second before anyone else even thinks to reach for their weapon.
Unless you live in Illinois, Wisconsin, or DC, kindly shut the fuck up. If you live anywhere else in the US, concealed-carry is allowed. Are you scared now?
Quote from: some_person on March 23, 2008, 06:38:29 PM
Yet some people may have reflexes great enough to dodge bullets (or at least react before the bullet can hit that person).
Neo.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 23, 2008, 11:48:53 AM
And you'd be scared shitless to ask an old lady a question because you'd fear that she'd think you're an assailant and she'd shoot you.
If everyone carried a gun, you wouldn't feel safer, but you'd just be scared. If a man is going to kill a person, he's going to kill a person; whether or not the other people have guns doesn't matter because his target can be murdered in half a second before anyone else even thinks to reach for their weapon.
THERE ARE STILL GOOD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
Question, what if she didn't have a gun, and you asked her a question? Would she fear you or act like you're assaulting her?
10 years later and the only way my opinion has changed is that I think all gun laws should be repealed akudood;
yeah fuck all those dead kids i need muh gunz
Quote from: Nyerp on May 31, 2018, 11:18:46 AM
yeah fuck all those dead kids i need muh gunz
fuck all the people of color killed as a result of gun control me and the nimbys in my gentrified neighborhood need to make sure our pasty white kids are safe
Quote from: Khadafi on May 31, 2018, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Nyerp on May 31, 2018, 11:18:46 AM
yeah fuck all those dead kids i need muh gunz
fuck all the people of color killed as a result of gun control
explain? google isn't helping
Quote from: Nyerp on May 31, 2018, 11:18:46 AM
yeah fuck all those dead kids i need muh gunz
yeah fuck all those dead kids nobody should have guns
Quote from: Nyerp on May 31, 2018, 06:27:22 PM
Quote from: Khadafi on May 31, 2018, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Nyerp on May 31, 2018, 11:18:46 AM
yeah fuck all those dead kids i need muh gunz
fuck all the people of color killed as a result of gun control
explain? google isn't helping
It was a gross over-simplification of things mainly because the use of the absolutely fucking braindead argument incessantly used by liberals of "lmao u want kids to die i dont want to put any thought into my arguments so ill just make up this one".
Gun control's history has largely followed racist temperament in an attempt to disarm people who weren't largely non-poor whites.
Open carry laws in California were passed because the Black Panthers were carrying rifles.
"Saturday night special" laws were a way to limit which cheaper guns could legally be purchased.
NYC's "stop & frisk" polices are rooted in gun control and have notoriously been used by the NYPD to target black citizens.
Anyone who recognizes that the war on drugs is a complete failure of a policy based on prohibition and uneven sentencing should be able to at least comprehend the same concern about many gun control provisions. Just like the justice system often will use possession of drugs to make up as many charges as possible and levy as strict of a sentence as possible against PoC, a lot of the gun control laws end up doing the same. Take bans on "high capacity" magazines for example. You're fooling yourself if you don't think such laws and the related prosecution isn't structured in such a way that PoC and the poor are disproportionately given heavier sentences.
"Progressives" often cite police violence against PoC as the proof of systemic racism yet they're often fine with giving these same cops a monopoly on violence. "Progressives" acknowledge that it's not rare that black people who call 911 for help are often killed by the police. They acknowledge failures of police response times in places like Detroit. In spite of both of these, they still think "the police will protect you". Furthermore, the more strict gun laws are, the more leeway you give the cops when they gun down unarmed (or, still, legally armed) black people as they can continue to cite even more things they "thought"
Then we extend it beyond the criminal justice system. The current rhetoric is that the right is full of nazis and other white nationalists (which it is) who want to enact violence against PoC. the liberal solution to that is to disarm Blacks, the LGBT, the disabled, etc.
Here's two articles on the subject (and not from a right-wing perspective), the first of which also includes citations for some of the above claims
https://theconjurehouse.com/2018/02/15/the-liberal-desire-for-gun-control-is-going-to-get-us-killed/
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html
Liberals and "progressives" willingly ignore the effects gun control has on other communities largely because they want to protect the white children who are usually insulated from this type of crime. To them, draconian laws regarding firearms and defense are worth this regardless of the cost.
To back up the arguments, they'll often cite shit in Europe (with an air of racism by calling them "civilized countries" implying African and South/Central american countries are uncivilized) while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of statistics. They equate the gun laws as the sole factor while ignoring things like income inequality (a high GINI coefficient is positively correlated with high violent crime rates) that is significantly higher in the US. They ignore the degree to which the US criminal justice system has racism and classism embedded. They ignore the devastating effects that the US's war on drugs has regarding violent crime. They ignore differences in healthcare that ultimately reduce suicide, which is a significant portion of US gun violence. Rather than fixing the root cause of many of the problems and reducing overall violent crime, liberals and progressives seem to think cracking down on gun ownership, accepting the collateral damage to other communities, and ignoring on the violent crime that still exists (wew now people can be stabbed or beaten instead of shot) is sufficient to solve "the gun problem".
It's not an argument I buy and the moronic "lmao ded kids" is just smug liberalism trying to serve as an actual argument.
Also, it's very important to note that gun control in 2018 and beyond can't even be implemented the same was it was in 1994 with the Federal AWB.
Over the last few years we've seen multiple 3D printed firearms. There's schematics now for AR-15 lower receivers. There's files to print bump/slide fire stocks. FOSSCAD maintains a git repo with tons of files for various parts (https://github.com/maduce/fosscad-repo). As home 3D printing (and personal CNC machines) become better, cheaper, and more prevalent the amount of home made firearms will go up. No legislation will stop criminals from printing these but it'd stop law abiding people from defending theirselves.
Right now the reason why it's not as popular as you'd expect is that it's still a bit easier to order all the parts of an AR and either used a stripped lower or mill out a 80% lower. Either changes in legislation or improvements in home manufacturing technology will result in many more guns sidestepping these laws.
When you're listening to politicans who think it's 1990 and activists & pundits who know nothing about guns and/or technology it's easy to pretend that banning some spoopy parts will actually mean anything in 5 years.
in 10 years we will have blue prints to newly formed diseases. we already got access to the small pox BP.
Quote from: SVT on June 01, 2018, 10:47:38 PM
in 10 years we will have blue prints to newly formed diseases. we already got access to the small pox BP.
you joke but i wouldn't be surprised if technology to manufacture genetic information similar to 3d printing becomes something we can do in the near future.
" i joke " haha yas joke