Poll of the Day > My sister and two cousins are at a mall that has an active shooter

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Jen0125
08/04/19 2:45:31 PM
#151:


TheWorstPoster posted...
So you believe that the rights to self-defense, and defense of the country, and from the country, are outdated all because of technological change?


i believe the way in which it's being abused is neglectful because of the advancement in technology.

TheWorstPoster posted...
I guess we can also throw away the First Amendment as well, since it is no longer 1791, and the Founding Fathers had no idea that the internet would ever exist. How about the Fourth, because of all of these terrorist attacks and the NSA, CIA, and DHS needs to do it job? How about the 10th amendment, so that the Federal and State government can ban every little thing because some invasive species of fish don't like it?


the first amendment doesn't involve tools of mass murder and destruction.

the nsa, cia and dhs are abusing their powers as well and this abuse goes down even to local police departments. the 4th amendment isn't even protecting against that.

what the fuck are you even talking about fish for? do you ever get tired of being absolutely wrong and ignorant about literally everything you talk about? not to mention HYPOCRITICAL. how is all that welfare money working out for you?

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 2:45:49 PM
#152:


BlackScythe0 posted...
Jen0125 posted...
The_tall_midget posted...
I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.


it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.


"How dare we have common sense regulations when the amendment says it should be well regulated!"


Well, there is a problem with that claim

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

It does NOT mean gun control. It does NOT mean "common sense regulations" (how can you enforce "common sense regulations" on fighting-aged men anyway?)

It means "disciplined and trained". Suppose if there is an alternate history that occurred, and "well regulated" eventually came to mean "shitting on the sidewalk after 200 years? Would that mean that the Second Amendment is about public defecation? Of course not! The ONLY valid interpretation of the Constitution is the way in which the Framers worded it, with the original definitions, meanings, and intent of what was written.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
08/04/19 2:46:31 PM
#153:


The_tall_midget posted...
Spare us your typical hysteria. Nobody is trying to justify murder.


you guys desperately run in circles chasing your tails every time ANOTHER mass murder via guns happens about clutching your guns as much as you believe i'm clutching my pearls

hysteria is JUSTIFIED because this is absolutely ridiculous that this event keeps happening over and over and over and over

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
08/04/19 2:47:13 PM
#154:


TheWorstPoster posted...
It means "disciplined and trained". Suppose if there is an alternate history that occurred, and "well regulated" eventually came to mean "shitting on the sidewalk after 200 years? Would that mean that the Second Amendment is about public defecation? Of course not! The ONLY valid interpretation of the Constitution is the way in which the Framers worded it, with the original definitions, meanings, and intent of what was written.


okay, so where is the "disciplined and trained" militia? most states don't even require TRAINING to purchase and own a firearm.

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
08/04/19 2:48:49 PM
#155:


TheWorstPoster posted...
BlackScythe0 posted...
Jen0125 posted...
The_tall_midget posted...
I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.


it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.


"How dare we have common sense regulations when the amendment says it should be well regulated!"


Well, there is a problem with that claim

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

It does NOT mean gun control. It does NOT mean "common sense regulations" (how can you enforce "common sense regulations" on fighting-aged men anyway?)

It means "disciplined and trained". Suppose if there is an alternate history that occurred, and "well regulated" eventually came to mean "shitting on the sidewalk after 200 years? Would that mean that the Second Amendment is about public defecation? Of course not! The ONLY valid interpretation of the Constitution is the way in which the Framers worded it, with the original definitions, meanings, and intent of what was written.


Ok, so how is it disciplined and trained to have random psychopaths going out and committing terrorist attacks?

I'm in favor of common sense measures to ensure a disciplined and trained ownership.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 2:54:40 PM
#156:


Jen0125 posted...
i believe the way in which it's being abused is neglectful because of the advancement in technology.
Anything, and everything can, and will be abused, regardless of how advanced in technology it is.

Jen0125 posted...
the first amendment doesn't involve tools of mass murder and destruction.


On the contrary. Ideas are dangerous, and can lead to mass murder. Just look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, every tyrannical regime that advocated for genocide. It wasn't the leaders themselves that pulled the trigger, but it was the leaders, and thinkers in their deep cabinet who planted these ideas in that heads. Speech itself has killed hundreds of millions, because it can and will influence others to do so. Why else do you think "hate speech" is suppressed in almost all places online. Free speech is dangerous. So dangerous, it has collapsed many civilizations, because it underminded authority, and gave people justifications for mass murder. It was REVOLUTIONARY at the time to allow for unlimited speech.

Jen0125 posted...

the nsa, cia and dhs are abusing their powers as well and this abuse goes down even to local police departments. the 4th amendment isn't even protecting against that.

Really? Because as far as I can tell, you demanded that these agencies pop up everywhere to "protect us". If you want the Second Amendment gone, you might as well get rid of them all. Why stop at one when you want to feel "safe".

Jen0125 posted...
what the fuck are you even talking about fish for? do you ever get tired of being absolutely wrong and ignorant about literally everything you talk about? not to mention HYPOCRITICAL. how is all that welfare money working out for you?


Environmentalism is what I was hinting at, genius. Ever wonder why plastic bags, plastic straws, and excessive regulations are being put here to begin with, even though we are not even CLOSE to the top 10 biggest polluters on the planet? Or how about taxes for soda, or banning people from buying or owning things that might be "bad for them"? That is governmental overreach. Why give people freedom to do what they want, buy what they want, and live how they want, without the Nanny State coming in and holding their hand, banning absolutely everything there is, because of some theory that has been repeatedly disproven, or simply because the mayor or governor didn't like it, even though it's legal?
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 2:56:14 PM
#157:


BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok, so how is it disciplined and trained to have random psychopaths going out and committing terrorist attacks?

It's NOT the psychopaths who would be disciplined and trained, but rather the People, and it would be the People who would kill those psychopaths instead of waiting for the police to arrive, minutes AFTER it would have been useful (since a lot of people would die in seconds).
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
08/04/19 3:08:27 PM
#158:


TheWorstPoster posted...
Anything, and everything can, and will be abused, regardless of how advanced in technology it is.


so better do literally nothing about it herp derp

TheWorstPoster posted...
On the contrary. Ideas are dangerous, and can lead to mass murder.


and you think people who want gun laws are extreme. stop trying to find a way to relate gun control to a total lapse in freedom. it just doesn't work.

TheWorstPoster posted...
Environmentalism is what I was hinting at, genius. Ever wonder why plastic bags, plastic straws, and excessive regulations are being put here to begin with, even though we are not even CLOSE to the top 10 biggest polluters on the planet? Or how about taxes for soda, or banning people from buying or owning things that might be "bad for them"? That is governmental overreach. Why give people freedom to do what they want, buy what they want, and live how they want, without the Nanny State coming in and holding their hand, banning absolutely everything there is, because of some theory that has been repeatedly disproven, or simply because the mayor or governor didn't like it, even though it's legal?


oh no, don't try to stop global warming. we need to regulate things because people have very little care for the planet or self control. your main flaw in thinking is that you deserve to do whatever you want.

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
08/04/19 3:11:56 PM
#159:


TheWorstPoster posted...
BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok, so how is it disciplined and trained to have random psychopaths going out and committing terrorist attacks?

It's NOT the psychopaths who would be disciplined and trained, but rather the People, and it would be the People who would kill those psychopaths instead of waiting for the police to arrive, minutes AFTER it would have been useful (since a lot of people would die in seconds).


Nope you are defending guns for mass murderers instead of accepting the second amendment demanding regulation.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
08/04/19 3:14:12 PM
#160:


icoyar, not for nothing but you don't live in the real world. you hide yourself away in your parents home and accepting government welfare (which you constantly say you despise) and don't have a job. you don't strive for anything. you aren't a functioning member of society. it's an absolutely luxury that you just spend your time arguing about BS on the internet while taking the tax dollars from other people for safety nets you say we should get rid of. arguing with you in pointless because you don't do anything of value for anyone and your opinion doesn't matter and no one needs to respect it.

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 3:19:14 PM
#161:


Jen0125 posted...
icoyar, not for nothing but you don't live in the real world. you hide yourself away in your parents home and accepting government welfare (which you constantly say you despise) and don't have a job. you don't strive for anything. you aren't a functioning member of society. it's an absolutely luxury that you just spend your time arguing about BS on the internet while taking the tax dollars from other people for safety nets you say we should get rid of. arguing with you in pointless because you don't do anything of value for anyone and your opinion doesn't matter and no one needs to respect it.


So you admit defeat to this stupid argument.

Please argue with logic next time, and not emotions.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae
08/04/19 3:22:54 PM
#162:


darkknight109 posted...
Don't you find it odd that the US, with all these "defensive tools" lying around, somehow has an absolutely sky-high murder rate that is more than double its developed-world peers?

I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.
---
"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
08/04/19 3:25:56 PM
#163:


TheWorstPoster posted...
So you admit defeat to this stupid argument.

Please argue with logic next time, and not emotions.


i'm not sure how you got that from what i said, but ok. you have zero shame when you should. you don't argue with logic - you argue with strawmans. it's pointless trying to talk to you about anything because you don't try to discuss anything in good faith. you argue with deflections instead of actually addressing what anyone says.

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 3:27:08 PM
#164:


Lirishae posted...
I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
08/04/19 3:32:52 PM
#165:


TheWorstPoster posted...
Lirishae posted...
I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

What are you trying to say?
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 3:34:45 PM
#166:


LinkPizza posted...
TheWorstPoster posted...
Lirishae posted...
I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

What are you trying to say?

Lirishae posted...

I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


I refuted his entire argument with a link
... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42
08/04/19 3:43:02 PM
#167:


I think the answer is simple.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Regulate the amount of bullets, and you can't have mass killings.

Also, absolutely no way for semi-automatic etc weapons at all. Pistols or rifles only, but no fast loading ones allowed. All should be recalled and owning them should be a serious offense.

Even for pistols/rifles you need to actually take a class, get trained, and be registered to own one. Like a car, but.....actually more deadly.

We don't live in an age where everyone needs a gun, we don't get randomly attacked by beasts, and we are not going to be invaded by another country (or if we do, and it gets down to people with their own guns defending the nation, we are already screwed).

So get rid of most guns, limit the ammo for those left, and ensure nothing that can quickly kill 20+ people is available anymore.
---
We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Keebs05
08/04/19 3:45:05 PM
#168:


wolfy42 posted...
I think the answer is simple.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Regulate the amount of bullets, and you can't have mass killings.

Also, absolutely no way for semi-automatic etc weapons at all. Pistols or rifles only, but no fast loading ones allowed. All should be recalled and owning them should be a serious offense.

Even for pistols/rifles you need to actually take a class, get trained, and be registered to own one. Like a car, but.....actually more deadly.

We don't live in an age where everyone needs a gun, we don't get randomly attacked by beasts, and we are not going to be invaded by another country (or if we do, and it gets down to people with their own guns defending the nation, we are already screwed).

So get rid of most guns, limit the ammo for those left, and ensure nothing that can quickly kill 20+ people is available anymore.

"Simple"
---
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away" R.I.P PFC Dusty Seidel
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 3:46:10 PM
#169:


wolfy42 posted...
Also, absolutely no way for semi-automatic etc weapons at all. Pistols or rifles only, but no fast loading ones allowed. All should be recalled and owning them should be a serious offense.


ALL firearms that are sold, are semi-automatic. Its the automatic weaponry that is illegal to sell.

Big difference between the two. Semi-automatic means one bullet fired per trigger pull. Automatic means the magazine is expended until the release of the trigger.

wolfy42 posted...
Regulate the amount of bullets, and you can't have mass killings.


One bullet is enough to kill a person. Criminals don't care about the law. They will just find ways to buy, or steal bullets anyway. All you are doing is harming the rights of law abiding citizens.

wolfy42 posted...
We don't live in an age where everyone needs a gun, we don't get randomly attacked by beasts, and we are not going to be invaded by another country (or if we do, and it gets down to people with their own guns defending the nation, we are already screwed).


But we ARE in an age where terrorism and high crime is becoming a norm. Replace "beasts" with "criminals", and there you go.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420
08/04/19 3:46:41 PM
#170:


You can't fix this problem by banning guns or bullets. You can only fix this problem by fixing our reliance on using violence to solve problems.
---
I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 3:48:05 PM
#171:


SunWuKung420 posted...
You can't fix this problem by banning guns or bullets. You can only fix this problem by fixing our reliance on using violence to solve problems.


When diplomacy fails, violence is oftentimes the only solution. Not all violence is evil, seeing how it may be used to protect innocent lives from those seeking to harm them. It's how the violence is used, and against whom.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
08/04/19 3:58:30 PM
#172:


TheWorstPoster posted...
LinkPizza posted...
TheWorstPoster posted...
Lirishae posted...
I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

What are you trying to say?

Lirishae posted...

I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.


I refuted his entire argument with a link

Really? Which part of his argument? All I saw was a link to a truck attack.
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 4:01:28 PM
#173:


LinkPizza posted...

Really? Which part of his argument? All I saw was a link to a truck attack.

Lirishae posted...
If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.
... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42
08/04/19 4:13:28 PM
#174:


On shot per pull of the trigger doesn't really stop someone from killing tons of people, especially if you have one of those loaders that let you fire tons of times without reloading etc.

Not to mention having more then one gun as well.

Limiting bullets would not be a solution short term, but could help long term and law abiding citizens don't need tons of bullets. One gun, with 6 shots, would be enough for a home intruder etc.

If you limit guns so they can only fire so many times, and ensure they can not be quickly reloading, everyone could have guns as a defense if needed, but it would drastically limit their offensive capabilities.

Then also limit how many guns you can get, ensure everyone registers them etc, and that would help as well.

Not a total solution, but it's a step in the right direction.

Also why are these people so angry? Why is life so difficult for many in this country? There is no need for it, there is an abundance of wealth here, we just need to split it more between everyone more evenly. I'm not saying give it away, but a decent amount of wealth for a honest days work, and many opportunities to choose from, would probably go a long way towards avoiding so many people going crazy and shooting things up.

I get some are racially motivated etc, not much you can do about that other then just make it harder to get mass destruction weapons, but even in those cases, if the people are less frustrated by life, they are less likely to go kill randoms.
---
We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan
08/04/19 4:16:49 PM
#175:


I get the distinct impression that some people here just do not understand how gun control measures work, since they seem to think that they just don't. I think I'm done with this conversation though, considering this response:

Rasmoh posted...
Because they will have to pay for unnecessary background checks
If nothing else, raised taxes
More taxes

I've had a background checks done to get jobs. Those checks were unnecessary as I've never committed a crime. However, the places of employ have no reason to give a random person the benefit of the doubt and place their establishment in danger as a result.

Somehow I doubt anyone will see you running around screaming about how required background checks for acquiring a job is an undue burden despite the fact that many people who apply for jobs are unemployed and therefore have no income with which to pay for the process.

Well, at least we know how much the blood of your people is worth to you.
---
Hi
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 4:16:51 PM
#176:


wolfy42 posted...
Limiting bullets would not be a solution short term, but could help long term and law abiding citizens don't need tons of bullets. One gun, with 6 shots, would be enough for a home intruder etc.


Suppose you have a criminal with an uzi? Is a handgun going to be any good? Remember, the criminal doesn't care for the law, and likely picked out a place that was a Gun Free Zone due to that fact.

Law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves, and others, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That is also one of the reasons why we have a court system, because somebody might be forced to commit a criminal act that would save another person's life, and would otherwise land the guy in prison.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
08/04/19 4:42:08 PM
#178:


TheWorstPoster posted...
LinkPizza posted...

Really? Which part of his argument? All I saw was a link to a truck attack.

Lirishae posted...
If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.

So you refute his claim that people will run over people by posting a link showing that people have done it before?
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42
08/04/19 4:47:56 PM
#179:


TheWorstPoster posted...
wolfy42 posted...
Limiting bullets would not be a solution short term, but could help long term and law abiding citizens don't need tons of bullets. One gun, with 6 shots, would be enough for a home intruder etc.


Suppose you have a criminal with an uzi? Is a handgun going to be any good? Remember, the criminal doesn't care for the law, and likely picked out a place that was a Gun Free Zone due to that fact.

Law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves, and others, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That is also one of the reasons why we have a court system, because somebody might be forced to commit a criminal act that would save another person's life, and would otherwise land the guy in prison.


Actually a hand gun vs an uzi, if it's one person against 1 person is a pretty even match. The uzi is great at killing large number of people especially in a crowd, but nobody needs that to defend themselves, at least till we have a zombie apocalypse.

One person with a hand gun in a crowd of people, can take out the person with an uzi without collateral damage MUCH easier in fact. A hand gun gives a small person defense against a much larger intruder etc. I can see arguments for having them (although I would say tranq guns would accomplish the same objective without killing anyone.

If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.
---
We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 4:50:53 PM
#180:


wolfy42 posted...
If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.


At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"?

The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem.

The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards.
... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42
08/04/19 4:57:08 PM
#181:


TheWorstPoster posted...
wolfy42 posted...
If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.


At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"?

The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem.

The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards.


You should also limit WHO has them at all, make it like getting a drivers license (at least), but there is really no reason to have a gun that fires more then say 6 shots.

1 shot? Yeah, you can miss, or there could be 3 intruders etc. I'd say a 6 shot gun would work for almost every defensive action. Even if you are being robbed by 3-4 guys, you can shoot all of them, or at least scare them away.

No need for more then 6 shots in 99.99% of cases where you are using a gun defensively.

So step the heck up, and start replacing any guns in the US with ones that can only shoot so many times, and make it illegal to have any other kinds of guns (other then rifles etc that shoot just once for hunting etc).

A specific list of legal guns, and the ability to trade in old guns (that are no longer legal) for a new legal gun.

Still won't be popular, but, I think it could happen without a civil war.
---
We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 4:58:20 PM
#182:


wolfy42 posted...
TheWorstPoster posted...
wolfy42 posted...
If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.


At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"?

The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem.

The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards.


You should also limit WHO has them at all, make it like getting a drivers license (at least), but there is really no reason to have a gun that fires more then say 6 shots.

1 shot? Yeah, you can miss, or there could be 3 intruders etc. I'd say a 6 shot gun would work for almost every defensive action. Even if you are being robbed by 3-4 guys, you can shoot all of them, or at least scare them away.

No need for more then 6 shots in 99.99% of cases where you are using a gun defensively.

So step the heck up, and start replacing any guns in the US with ones that can only shoot so many times, and make it illegal to have any other kinds of guns (other then rifles etc that shoot just once for hunting etc).

A specific list of legal guns, and the ability to trade in old guns (that are no longer legal) for a new legal gun.

Still won't be popular, but, I think it could happen without a civil war.


Why 6 though?

Why not 5?

Or 1?

Or 0?

What is the magical reasoning why 6 is the magic number? Are 7 bullets going to make law-abiding citizens more dangerous?
... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap
08/04/19 5:09:43 PM
#183:


lmao the gun people are insane

wow its pretty fucked that innocent people are getting gunned down by lunatics all the time, we should do something about this because its pretty serious.

SPARE US THE HYSTERIA I LIEK MAEK LOUD NOISE WITH BANG BANG

take a long, hard look in the mirror because youre completely out of touch with reality.

---
I'm thinkin' about starting a corporation. WHO'S WITH ME?
... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42
08/04/19 5:10:14 PM
#184:


TheWorstPoster posted...
wolfy42 posted...
TheWorstPoster posted...
wolfy42 posted...
If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves.


At that point, why not just limit it to one bullet, because "nobody needs more"?

The amount of ammunition isn't the problem. The firearm isn't the problem.

The problem, is who is holding the firearm, as well as restricting those who are law abiding from carrying because of policies made by those who have armed guards.


You should also limit WHO has them at all, make it like getting a drivers license (at least), but there is really no reason to have a gun that fires more then say 6 shots.

1 shot? Yeah, you can miss, or there could be 3 intruders etc. I'd say a 6 shot gun would work for almost every defensive action. Even if you are being robbed by 3-4 guys, you can shoot all of them, or at least scare them away.

No need for more then 6 shots in 99.99% of cases where you are using a gun defensively.

So step the heck up, and start replacing any guns in the US with ones that can only shoot so many times, and make it illegal to have any other kinds of guns (other then rifles etc that shoot just once for hunting etc).

A specific list of legal guns, and the ability to trade in old guns (that are no longer legal) for a new legal gun.

Still won't be popular, but, I think it could happen without a civil war.


Why 6 though?

Why not 5?

Or 1?

Or 0?

What is the magical reasoning why 6 is the magic number? Are 7 bullets going to make law-abiding citizens more dangerous?


Cause then they will all be six shooters of course!!

No honestly, you don't even need 6, but...it's a large enough number to be effective vs a small group of invades, but not large enough to commit mass killings with. 7 wouldn't really be any more dangerous, but you really would never need a 7th bullet.

5 would also be ok tbh, but 6 would give you 2 shots per person if you were faced with 3 dangerous people. It would let you shoot warning shots without worrying about running out of bullets etc.

Just firing a gun at someone is likely to scare them off if they are breaking into your home etc. No need to actually kill someone. But...what if there are 3 of them and you only have 3 bullets in your gun?

First you HAVE to try and hit/take out each person with your bullets, since you only have 3, second you could still miss, and third no way of warning them by firing etc.

With 6 bullets you could

A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc.
B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.
C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option.

Even vs 1 person who is breaking in etc, you have alot more options with 6 shots. A warning shot, shoot them in both legs etc so they can't move catch you, then wait for police etc. You don't/are not forced to kill the person, and that is important to some people.

Add in you don't always know how many people are involved, and it's really a good idea to have a few bullets in reserve just in case there are more outside etc. I would say 4 would be a minimum. 6 is perfect.
---
We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster
08/04/19 5:12:46 PM
#185:


wolfy42 posted...
A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc.


Which is highly illegal, by the way.

wolfy42 posted...
B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.

Which you can get sued and sent to prison for.

wolfy42 posted...
C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option.

The ONLY valid reason to point a gun at somebody is to use lethal force.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Rasmoh
08/04/19 5:28:53 PM
#186:


wolfy42 posted...

A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc.
B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.
C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option.


Holy shit, is this a serious post? Are you that fucking disconnected from reality?
---
Miami Dolphins | Portland Trailblazers | San Francisco Giants
I won't say a thing, because the one who knows best is you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget
08/04/19 5:32:31 PM
#187:


wolfy42 posted...
Cause then they will all be six shooters of course!!

No honestly, you don't even need 6, but...it's a large enough number to be effective vs a small group of invades, but not large enough to commit mass killings with. 7 wouldn't really be any more dangerous, but you really would never need a 7th bullet.

<Truncated inane statements>

Add in you don't always know how many people are involved, and it's really a good idea to have a few bullets in reserve just in case there are more outside etc. I would say 4 would be a minimum. 6 is perfect.


So, question for all the usual lefties: Do you people really think that's how shit would usually go down if you suddenly put in all the idiotic suggestions you just proposed?
---
"We don't need more blacks that don't want to be black voices." Perfectly acceptable. "Send her back." RACISM!!!
-The hypocritical left.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae
08/04/19 8:18:40 PM
#189:


TheWorstPoster posted...
LinkPizza posted...

Really? Which part of his argument? All I saw was a link to a truck attack.

Lirishae posted...
If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't understand my argument at all, if you think this somehow "defeats" it.

wolfy42 posted...
B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.

This idea that you can shoot to injure and not kill is a Hollywood myth. Even if you deliberately aim away from vital organs and try to hit a shoulder or leg, you have arteries all over them. Piercing an artery will cause you to bleed out in minutes without prompt medical attention.
---
"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155
... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan
08/04/19 8:22:56 PM
#190:


TheWorstPoster posted...
The ONLY valid reason to point a gun at somebody is to use lethal force.

Ico said something intelligent for once? Huh.
---
Hi
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
08/04/19 8:45:32 PM
#191:


As a usual lefty, I dont think theres any legislation that can actually stop mass shootings from occurring. But I also think that there are a lot of common sense measures we can take to keep our country from being so overloaded with firearms that any psychopath can easily get their hands on one legally or otherwise. That shouldnt be a partisan viewpoint.

---
If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood
... Copied to Clipboard!
Rasmoh
08/04/19 8:49:17 PM
#192:


Mead posted...
there are a lot of common sense measures we can take to keep our country from being so overloaded with firearms


Realistically, what would you do about the over 350 million firearms in circulation already?
---
Miami Dolphins | Portland Trailblazers | San Francisco Giants
I won't say a thing, because the one who knows best is you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget
08/04/19 9:39:40 PM
#193:


Mead posted...
As a usual lefty, I dont think theres any legislation that can actually stop mass shootings from occurring. But I also think that there are a lot of common sense measures we can take to keep our country from being so overloaded with firearms that any psychopath can easily get their hands on one legally or otherwise. That shouldnt be a partisan viewpoint.


I actually agree with you.
---
"We don't need more blacks that don't want to be black voices." Perfectly acceptable. "Send her back." RACISM!!!
-The hypocritical left.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
08/04/19 10:23:55 PM
#194:


Lirishae posted...
darkknight109 posted...
Don't you find it odd that the US, with all these "defensive tools" lying around, somehow has an absolutely sky-high murder rate that is more than double its developed-world peers?

I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.

You say that, but even within the US murder rates and gun laws make an almost perfectly negative correlation. The states with more restrictive gun laws see fewer homicides, while those with less gun restrictions are among the most dangerous states in the country.
---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
08/04/19 11:40:10 PM
#195:


wolfy42 posted...
With 6 bullets you could

A: Fire a warning shot, which also alerts neighbors to call police etc.
B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.
C: If A and B don't work, you have enough bullets to still shoot them all if you have no other option


If you're trying to get people to go to jail good job.

Because your list here is fuck no. Warning shots are illegal, it's just like shooting into the air as a "celebration" thing. Bullets always go somewhere, you are responsible for where they go. People need to stop suggesting this shit.

If you have a gun you need to be prepared to use it. If you are not in a situation where you are not threatened don't shoot. However if you are threatened you aim for the center of mass so you don't miss. Aiming to maim is fantasy, never fucking aim at limbs because you're gonna miss. Period. Life isn't a movie and it isn't a video game.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lirishae
08/05/19 12:03:31 AM
#196:


darkknight109 posted...
You say that, but even within the US murder rates and gun laws make an almost perfectly negative correlation. The states with more restrictive gun laws see fewer homicides, while those with less gun restrictions are among the most dangerous states in the country.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, though. Those states tend to have higher average incomes and better access to healthcare, whereas states with less gun control also tend to be states that didn't take the Medicaid expansion and have lower average incomes, which limits people's ability to access mental health services. There are more issues at play in shootings than just mental illness, of course--there are cultural issues, political issues, even economic issues, to name a few. We need to look at the root causes of violence and treat those too, instead of just reacting to the symptoms.
---
"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155
... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato
08/05/19 2:05:27 AM
#197:


I love topics like these because you can identify the users like Ico and Wolfy that have zero firearms experience.

And this is from someone that owns a half dozen firearms and knows that access to weapons in this country is ridiculous.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4