Current Events > Some gun owners seem wishful about using them on others

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
DarkBuster22904 04/18/23 4:58:51 PM #103:	Beveren_Rabbit posted... people should have guns so they can kill home invaders or anyone that threatens their lives or the lives of others. I'll tell you what. Own up to and explain the crap you pulled here, and I'll pretend you're posting in good faith: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80415067 --- Haven't had a good sig idea since 2006 <cite>DarkBuster22904 posted [p:972926126] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Beveren_Rabbit posted... </cite><quote>people should have guns so they can kill home invaders or anyone that threatens their lives or the lives of others.</quote>I'll tell you what. Own up to and explain the crap you pulled here, and I'll pretend you're posting in good faith:https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80415067</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 4:59:43 PM #104:	DarkBuster22904 posted... Against my better judgment, I'll bite. Yes, it is for safety. Because cars have utility, and in our society necessity, outside of killing things. Guns do not. They are explicitly designed to kill, whether in defense or otherwise. That is their primary function. And the government has no interest in disarming the populace for some nefarious "control" goal. There's no point. No matter what right wing pundits like to spout, no amount of Mississippi rednecks with AR-15s has a single prayer of even slowing down the US military. For as many consumer guns are out in the wild, if the government wanted to send in the military and crack down on us, there is not a damn thing any Militia can do to stop it. Between air superiority, drone strikes, actual military training and coordination, all the way up to the nuclear arsenal. If the government wants to oppress us, they can. There's no need for "disarmament." This isn't the 1780s or even the 1920s where the gap in firepower was much less pronounced. These "empowered" citizens are literally paper tigers before a hurricane. You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms. A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972926147] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>DarkBuster22904 posted... </cite><quote>Against my better judgment, I'll bite.Yes, it is for safety. Because cars have utility, and in our society necessity, outside of killing things. Guns do not. They are explicitly designed to kill, whether in defense or otherwise. That is their primary function.And the government has no interest in disarming the populace for some nefarious "control" goal. There's no point. No matter what right wing pundits like to spout, no amount of Mississippi rednecks with AR-15s has a single prayer of even slowing down the US military. For as many consumer guns are out in the wild, if the government wanted to send in the military and crack down on us, there is not a damn thing any Militia can do to stop it. Between air superiority, drone strikes, actual military training and coordination, all the way up to the nuclear arsenal. If the government wants to oppress us, they can. There's no need for "disarmament." This isn't the 1780s or even the 1920s where the gap in firepower was much less pronounced. These "empowered" citizens are literally paper tigers before a hurricane.</quote>You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkBuster22904 04/18/23 5:02:34 PM #105:	youenjoymyself1 posted... You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms. A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation. Game over. --- Haven't had a good sig idea since 2006 <cite>DarkBuster22904 posted [p:972926199] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.</quote>And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation.Game over.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#106	Post #106 was unavailable or deleted.
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 5:12:25 PM #107:	DarkBuster22904 posted... And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation. Game over. Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people. Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again? --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972926405] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>DarkBuster22904 posted... </cite><quote>And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation.Game over.</quote>Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people. Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Malcrasternus 04/18/23 5:13:31 PM #108:	DarkBuster22904 posted... And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation. Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . . https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens? --- 4/15/1951 - 3/18/2014 <cite>Malcrasternus posted [p:972926435] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>DarkBuster22904 posted... </cite><quote>And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation.</quote>Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . .https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 5:16:16 PM #109:	Malcrasternus posted... Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . . https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens? Yes we fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan for almost two decades apiece (and lost) and never nuked them to "send a message" but as soon as the Maga rednecks get bout it the daddy Joe IS PICKING UP THAT RED TELEPHONE. --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972926497] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Malcrasternus posted... </cite><quote>Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . .https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens?</quote>Yes we fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan for almost two decades apiece (and lost) and never nuked them to "send a message" but as soon as the Maga rednecks get bout it the daddy Joe IS PICKING UP THAT RED TELEPHONE.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkBuster22904 04/18/23 5:20:56 PM #110:	youenjoymyself1 posted... Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people. Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again? There was no actual threat in Vietnam or Afghanistan. We literally could just pack up and leave whenever. You're discussing an active rebellion situation where the people in charge would be, theoretically, legitimately afraid for their own lives, safety, or more likely their power. A scenario where they've already turned the full might of the military on the populace. What about that batshit scenario makes you think they WOULDN'T glass the populace if they legitimately thought they would lose? Malcrasternus posted... Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . . https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens? Give up what? This hypothetical conservative wet dream of a bunch of blue collar workers getting together to re-enact Olympus Has Fallen? We're literally discussing why gun control is bad because it leaves us vulnerable to a made-up threat that has no practical reason to ever happen, and the best you can come up with is "yeah, they're bad enough to have the military start mowing down civilians and seizing cities, but nuking them is just TOO FAR!" --- Haven't had a good sig idea since 2006 <cite>DarkBuster22904 posted [p:972926609] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people.Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again?</quote>There was no actual threat in Vietnam or Afghanistan. We literally could just pack up and leave whenever.You're discussing an active rebellion situation where the people in charge would be, theoretically, legitimately afraid for their own lives, safety, or more likely their power. A scenario where they've already turned the full might of the military on the populace. What about that batshit scenario makes you think they WOULDN'T glass the populace if they legitimately thought they would lose?Malcrasternus posted... </cite><quote>Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . .https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg . . .nuke its own citizens?</quote>Give up what? This hypothetical conservative wet dream of a bunch of blue collar workers getting together to re-enact Olympus Has Fallen?We're literally discussing why gun control is bad because it leaves us vulnerable to a made-up threat that has no practical reason to ever happen, and the best you can come up with is "yeah, they're bad enough to have the military start mowing down civilians and seizing cities, but nuking them is just TOO FAR!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Materus 04/18/23 5:23:06 PM #111:	Every time a nuclear weapon was almost used the servicemen in charge of the nukes literally just went "no we arent doing that". To think that they would suddenly change their minds if told to nuke their own countrymen is an incredibly stupid arguement and shows a total lack of knowledge regarding the military. As a Army veteran I can say the majority of the Army (although the Navy and Airforce are more left/centrist) is pretty right wing and would not comply with an order to shoot rednecks in the south, especially since most soldiers originate from "red" states. --- Gamers. <cite>Materus posted [p:972926658] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Every time a nuclear weapon was almost used the servicemen in charge of the nukes literally just went "no we arent doing that". To think that they would suddenly change their minds if told to nuke their own countrymen is an incredibly stupid arguement and shows a total lack of knowledge regarding the military.As a Army veteran I can say the majority of the Army (although the Navy and Airforce are more left/centrist) is pretty right wing and would not comply with an order to shoot rednecks in the south, especially since most soldiers originate from "red" states.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Materus 04/18/23 5:24:33 PM #112:	I also want to add the rest of DarkBusters posts were pretty good and thought out, but that one feels like pure shitposting. Which as a shit poster myself I do admire. --- Gamers. <cite>Materus posted [p:972926693] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>I also want to add the rest of DarkBusters posts were pretty good and thought out, but that one feels like pure shitposting. Which as a shit poster myself I do admire.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#113	Post #113 was unavailable or deleted.
justaguy3492 04/18/23 5:27:47 PM #114:	From the guy that brought you "abolish the death penalty", CyricZ posted... What if I were to say "let them die"? --- Gt: justaguy3492 <cite>justaguy3492 posted [p:972926743] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>From the guy that brought you "abolish the death penalty",CyricZ posted... </cite><quote>What if I were to say "let them die"?</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 04/18/23 5:31:10 PM #115:	justaguy3492 posted... From the guy that brought you "abolish the death penalty", Yeah I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between state-led violence and calling the bluff of the gun culture literally holding us hostage. --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:972926802] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>justaguy3492 posted... </cite><quote>From the guy that brought you "abolish the death penalty",</quote>Yeah I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between state-led violence and calling the bluff of the gun culture literally holding us hostage.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 5:32:58 PM #116:	CyricZ posted... Yeah I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between state-led violence and calling the bluff of the gun culture literally holding us hostage. Not surprised you think the state killing it's own citizens isn't "state led violence" but self euthanasia is, in fact, gun violence. --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972926836] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>CyricZ posted... </cite><quote>Yeah I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between state-led violence and calling the bluff of the gun culture literally holding us hostage.</quote>Not surprised you think the state killing it's own citizens isn't "state led violence" but self euthanasia is, in fact, gun violence. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 04/18/23 5:37:43 PM #117:	youenjoymyself1 posted... Not surprised you think the state killing it's own citizens isn't "state led violence" but self euthanasia is, in fact, gun violence. Not surprised you're calling suicide by firearm "self euthanasia". But good job bringing that up again for reminding us how absolutely wild that sounded the first time. EDIT: Note to readers, this was a different topic about gun violence, where yemy got backed into a corner defending suicide by firearm as "not gun violence" to the point where he suggested it'd be a valid form of euthanasia for someone with a terminal illness. --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:972926943] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>Not surprised you think the state killing it's own citizens isn't "state led violence" but self euthanasia is, in fact, gun violence.</quote>Not surprised you're calling suicide by firearm "self euthanasia".But good job bringing that up again for reminding us how absolutely wild that sounded the first time.EDIT: Note to readers, this was a different topic about gun violence, where yemy got backed into a corner defending suicide by firearm as "not gun violence" to the point where he suggested it'd be a valid form of euthanasia for someone with a terminal illness.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nononom0use123 04/18/23 5:40:27 PM #118:	What the hell are you all even babbling on about at this point? --- Imma mouse meowwww <cite>nononom0use123 posted [p:972926985] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>What the hell are you all even babbling on about at this point? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#119	Post #119 was unavailable or deleted.
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 5:43:24 PM #120:	CyricZ posted... Not surprised you're calling suicide by firearm "self euthanasia". But good job bringing that up again for reminding us how absolutely wild that sounded the first time. against death penalty for convicted murderers wants the government to shoot gun owners, to call their bluff doesn't think terminally ill people should be allowed to off themselves even if a gun is their only option --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972927045] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>CyricZ posted... </cite><quote>Not surprised you're calling suicide by firearm "self euthanasia".But good job bringing that up again for reminding us how absolutely wild that sounded the first time.</quote>against death penalty for convicted murderers wants the government to shoot gun owners, to call their bluffdoesn't think terminally ill people should be allowed to off themselves even if a gun is their only option</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 04/18/23 5:46:32 PM #121:	youenjoymyself1 posted... against death penalty for convicted murderers wants the government to shoot gun owners, to call their bluff doesn't think terminally ill people should be allowed to off themselves even if a gun is their only option You could have stopped at two checks and I might have had fun to counter the difference between state sponsored murder of imprisoned criminals and putting down a gun-toting insurrection that I'm told would be inevitable if we banned guns. But then you... if you'll pardon the metaphor... shot yourself in the foot all over again. So sorry I don't think you get to be taken seriously. --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:972927122] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>against death penalty for convicted murderers wants the government to shoot gun owners, to call their bluffdoesn't think terminally ill people should be allowed to off themselves even if a gun is their only option</quote>You could have stopped at two checks and I might have had fun to counter the difference between state sponsored murder of imprisoned criminals and putting down a gun-toting insurrection that I'm told would be inevitable if we banned guns.But then you... if you'll pardon the metaphor... shot yourself in the foot all over again.So sorry I don't think you get to be taken seriously.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
youenjoymyself1 04/18/23 5:50:32 PM #122:	Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me --- I ain't givin up my truck <cite>youenjoymyself1 posted [p:972927198] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 04/18/23 5:51:35 PM #123:	youenjoymyself1 posted... Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me I don't even know which banned account you are. I'm just not letting the idea of "putting a gun to your head is a valid form of euthanasia" go without mockery. --- CyricZ He/him <cite>CyricZ posted [p:972927220] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me</quote>I don't even know which banned account you are.I'm just not letting the idea of "putting a gun to your head is a valid form of euthanasia" go without mockery.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#124	Post #124 was unavailable or deleted.
nononom0use123 04/18/23 7:51:03 PM #125:	youenjoymyself1 posted... Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me I dont like you too --- Imma mouse meowwww <cite>nononom0use123 posted [p:972929440] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>youenjoymyself1 posted... </cite><quote>Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me</quote>I dont like you too </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nononom0use123 04/19/23 4:48:40 AM #126:	My point keeps getting proven. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-texas-cheerleaders-shot-after-wrong-car-parking/story?id=98686531 --- Imma mouse meowwww <cite>nononom0use123 posted [p:972936659] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>My point keeps getting proven. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-texas-cheerleaders-shot-after-wrong-car-parking/story?id=98686531</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St0rmFury 04/19/23 7:40:35 AM #127:	nononom0use123 posted... My point keeps getting proven. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-texas-cheerleaders-shot-after-wrong-car-parking/story?id=98686531 Wtf, the shooter approached the victims before opening fire. --- "Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen (Hellhole: 52458377) <cite>St0rmFury posted [p:972937934] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>nononom0use123 posted... </cite><quote>My point keeps getting proven. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-texas-cheerleaders-shot-after-wrong-car-parking/story?id=98686531</quote>Wtf, the shooter approached the victims before opening fire. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nononom0use123 04/19/23 8:42:26 AM #128:	St0rmFury posted... Wtf, the shooter approached the victims before opening fire. mandatory minimum of 25 years for firing a gun --- Imma mouse meowwww <cite>nononom0use123 posted [p:972938611] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>St0rmFury posted... </cite><quote>Wtf, the shooter approached the victims before opening fire.</quote>mandatory minimum of 25 years for firing a gun </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nasty_Nitro 04/19/23 3:56:26 PM #129:	NeoShadowhen posted... Yeah. Theres a huge problem with the gun owning population wanting to use them, and its fueled by popular media. So often its a good guy with a gun saving the day, and after a few decades of that of course some people are going to see it as a solution to everything. Its even more apparent in music. Rap music has been glorifying gun violence for decades, and the lyrics are often blatant declarations about their desire to use their firearms on others. We need to implement methods for getting guns off the streets. I wholeheartedly agree with releasing drug offenders and raising the punishment for gun crimes. You need to be careful with mandatory minimums, though. Cops have some bad habits. The cultural aspect is harder to approach. telling you if they increase gun laws to a point where having a gun means you rick losing 30 years in prison ppl will stop. im talking about posession of a gun outside of your house, use if your gun on an unarmed person etc. Brandishing a weapon etc. would cut gun crime down so much. Only a select few are nuts enough to risk mandatory decades. --- OG status Triple OG Status pipedown yung bol Im Neo Im Leo Im Desiax Clark <cite>Nasty_Nitro posted [p:972946750] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>NeoShadowhen posted... </cite><quote>Yeah. Theres a huge problem with the gun owning population wanting to use them, and its fueled by popular media. So often its a good guy with a gun saving the day, and after a few decades of that of course some people are going to see it as a solution to everything.Its even more apparent in music. Rap music has been glorifying gun violence for decades, and the lyrics are often blatant declarations about their desire to use their firearms on others.We need to implement methods for getting guns off the streets. I wholeheartedly agree with releasing drug offenders and raising the punishment for gun crimes. You need to be careful with mandatory minimums, though. Cops have some bad habits.The cultural aspect is harder to approach.</quote>telling you if they increase gun laws to a point where having a gun means you rick losing 30 years in prison ppl will stop.im talking about posession of a gun outside of your house, use if your gun on an unarmed person etc. Brandishing a weapon etc. would cut gun crime down so much. Only a select few are nuts enough to risk mandatory decades. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 04/19/23 6:06:24 PM #130:	Nasty_Nitro posted... use if your gun on an unarmed person etc He was armed! drops a different gun near the dead body See! --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:972949320] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Nasty_Nitro posted... </cite><quote>use if your gun on an unarmed person etc</quote>He was armed!drops a different gun near the dead bodySee!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nasty_Nitro 04/20/23 11:42:57 AM #131:	Foppe posted... He was armed! drops a different gun near the dead body See! thatd be bold i dont think many would take the risk if the laws where tough --- OG status Triple OG Status pipedown yung bol Im Neo Im Leo Im Desiax Clark <cite>Nasty_Nitro posted [p:972963733] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Foppe posted... </cite><quote>He was armed!drops a different gun near the dead bodySee!</quote>thatd be bold i dont think many would take the risk if the laws where tough</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 04/20/23 1:37:31 PM #132:	Nasty_Nitro posted... thatd be bold i dont think many would take the risk if the laws where tough Works for cops shruggs --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:972965871] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Nasty_Nitro posted... </cite><quote>thatd be bold i dont think many would take the risk if the laws where tough</quote>Works for cops shruggs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nasty_Nitro 04/20/23 3:05:03 PM #133:	Foppe posted... Works for cops shruggs Well thats a whole different story because cops need a whole new set of standards to follow --- OG status Triple OG Status pipedown yung bol Im Neo Im Leo Im Desiax Clark <cite>Nasty_Nitro posted [p:972967735] in Some gun o... [t:80415905]...</cite> <quote>Foppe posted... </cite><quote>Works for cops shruggs</quote>Well thats a whole different story because cops need a whole new set of standards to follow</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Some gun owners seem wishful about using them on others (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Some gun owners seem wishful about using them on others