By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Shooting at Batman Premiere - 12 dead / Your opinions on gun laws

the_dengle on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:

tell me how a law abidding citizen owning a gun would make things worse for that women and her parents.

had texas not had in place their terranical laws back then, her parents would be alive today.

 

only one guy had a gun, the other a bat. and you are telling me if criminals stormed the store with, bat, night sticks, and knives, that guys gun wouldnt have been needed. tell that to the hundreds, thousands of people that are victims of crimes like this, where the criminal had no guns in the vast majority of the cases. tell that to victims of home invasions, that get bruttaly raped, tied down with their children and burnt to death. tell those people that a gun wouldnt have helped since the criminals had no gun

You'll always be able to find an exception in a certain case in which someone having something could have saved lives.

Hey, when we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we saved lots of lives! Atomic bombs must be great life-savers, every country should be allowed to have them!

^ As for criminals obtaining guns illegally, that's why you have tighter gun control, so that people can't get guns illegally. If it was as difficult to get your hands on a gun as it is heavy explosives, small-time criminals would have nothing to work with.



Around the Network
killerzX on 20 July 2012
the_dengle said:
killerzX said:


hitler, stalin, and Mao agreed with you guys.

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.


 

"Of course, when you talk about guns, you always hear a lot about the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers, and what they would say if they were here. [...] And yes, the Founding Fathers wanted you to have the right to bear arms, but the guys who wrote that would pee through all eight layers of their pants if they saw what guns are now. In 1787, shooting a bullet was slightly faster than throwing one. If you wanted to be bullet-proof in 1787, you put on a heavy coat. So with that in mind, I'm all about Americans having guns, as long as they're the muskets from 1787 that take forever to load."
- Seth Meyers, Weekend Update

Quoting people is fun!

fortunately our founding fathers werent retards, and very well had the foresight to know technology would advance, including gun tech.

and im perfectly fine with the bolded, just as long as thats all the criminals get, and that all the government gets to use.

 

many of our weapons today are weaker than back than. our big scary assualt rifles are usually 5.56mm, while most of the musket back then were in excess of .6 in, and lets not forget, owning a cannon was perfectly acceptable.

 

i'd suggest you read this:

http://www.gunfacts.info/



vlad321 on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:

many of our weapons today are weaker than back than. our big scary assualt rifles are usually 5.56mm, while most of the musket back then were in excess of .6 in, and lets not forget, owning a cannon was perfectly acceptable.

 

 

i'd suggest you read this:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

And with this picture, while I realize you are intelligent and maybe even smart, shows me you have absolutely jack shit in the way of logic and reason.

Show me where a massacre was stopped by a gun carrying citizen, not some small time robbery. Everything else is jsut an absolutely shit argument on your part. End of story.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

killerzX on 20 July 2012
vlad321 said:
killerzX said:

many of our weapons today are weaker than back than. our big scary assualt rifles are usually 5.56mm, while most of the musket back then were in excess of .6 in, and lets not forget, owning a cannon was perfectly acceptable.

 

 

i'd suggest you read this:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

And with this picture, while I realize you are intelligent and maybe even smart, shows me you have absolutely jack shit in the way of logic and reason.

Show me where a massacre was stopped by a gun carrying citizen, not some small time robbery. Everything else is jsut an absolutely shit argument on your part. End of story.


gabby giffards?! the shooter was stopped by a armed citizen.

and thats just the thing, massacre happen because no one has a gun, it wouldnt be a massacre if an armed citizen shot the guy, now would it?

and things like the florida crime, could have easily ended in a massacre, if something wnet wrong, the criminals react and start shooting. but we will never know how many massacres are stopped.



Mr Khan on 20 July 2012
Allfreedom99 said:
Chandler said:
Guns just don't belong in the hands of civilians. I mean, what's the point? Self defense? Yeah, right. All a gun does is make shit worse.


question for you. Hypothetical. Say someone breaks into your residence or attacks you on the street and comes at you with a knife. Would you rather have a gun or a knife to defend your life?

More Gun control is just what it is, more government control. It gives government more control over how you live your life and choose to protect yourself. If you like more government control in your life thats fine, but I like having the freedom to protect myself and my family with a gun.

Taser, Mace, or one of many other parts of the growing nonlethal arsenal. Guns kill, you use guns to kill, and you shouldn't have to kill to defend yourself. Not unless we're talking about war.

Our gun culture carries over from a time when government control was weak, when armed forces existed out in the fringes that could impose lethal harm. Are we a civilized country, or should we act like a failed state?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
the_dengle on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:

many of our weapons today are weaker than back than. our big scary assualt rifles are usually 5.56mm, while most of the musket back then were in excess of .6 in, and lets not forget, owning a cannon was perfectly acceptable.

 

Are you aware of how horrible the accuracy was of those muskets?

Those are some pretty pictures ya got there. Your ignorance (or perhaps deception) of the situation at the Tuscon shooting is hilarious. Yes, the man who stopped the shooter (possibly multiple people) had a gun, but it didn't do anyone any good. He didn't want to fire it because there was only one shooter, and many civilians, and he didn't want to... miss. The shooter was stopped when the man and a couple of other unarmed civilians tackled the man to the ground when he stopped to reload. The gun helped no one.

Regardless, you're pretty much the only other person here at this point. It's obvious that you're dead-set in your opinion that we'd all be a lot safer if everyone in the country was carrying a concealed weapon. I do not share your opinion.



Mr Khan on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:
Jay520 said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Chandler said:
Guns just don't belong in the hands of civilians. I mean, what's the point? Self defense? Yeah, right. All a gun does is make shit worse.


question for you. Hypothetical. Say someone breaks into your residence or attacks you on the street and comes at you with a knife. Would you rather have a gun or a knife to defend your life?

More Gun control is just what it is, more government control. It gives government more control over how you live your life and choose to protect yourself. If you like more government control in your life thats fine, but I like having the freedom to protect myself and my family with a gun.


Question for you. Say someone breaks into your house while you and your family are sleeping. Would you rather them have a gun or a knife?

neither, but unfortunately criminals dont follow the law. guns bans mean nothing to them, other than "this is a safe place to do crime".

just look at the places in the US with the highest gun control, they usuall also have some of the highest crime to. many times the criminal use a gun.... wait for it.... illegally!! thats right the criminal illegally obtains the weapon and kills people. with the law abiding citizens being completely defensless

You're missing the bigger picture. Take a Chicago gun ban, or even an Illinois-wide gun ban for someone from Chicago. It would be easy to drive over to Gary Indiana and pick something up. Now take that gun ban and make it national, and you're going to have to find a black market or something. This might be easier for organized crime rings, of course, but it's going to be nigh impossible for someone who just wants to rob someone for oxycontin money, especially if the contraband guns are as expensive as illegal drugs because of the embargo.

The arguments about gun control are flawed because there are people in this country determined to make gun control not work.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 20 July 2012
the_dengle said:
killerzX said:

many of our weapons today are weaker than back than. our big scary assualt rifles are usually 5.56mm, while most of the musket back then were in excess of .6 in, and lets not forget, owning a cannon was perfectly acceptable.

 

Are you aware of how horrible the accuracy was of those muskets?

Those are some pretty pictures ya got there. Your ignorance (or perhaps deception) of the situation at the Tuscon shooting is hilarious. Yes, the man who stopped the shooter (possibly multiple people) had a gun, but it didn't do anyone any good. He didn't want to fire it because there was only one shooter, and many civilians, and he didn't want to... miss. The shooter was stopped when the man and a couple of other unarmed civilians tackled the man to the ground when he stopped to reload. The gun helped no one.

Regardless, you're pretty much the only other person here at this point. It's obvious that you're dead-set in your opinion that we'd all be a lot safer if everyone in the country was carrying a concealed weapon. I do not share your opinion.

no, id be perfectly content with no weapons, if that meant criminals and the goverment dont/cant get any either. but seeing as that has never happened in the history of the world.

so until then i will be open or conceal carrying ever day of my life because i know that no laws will keep the criminals from doing illegal things, like owning guns and shooting people



Mr Khan on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:
Allfreedom99 said:
enrageorange said:

Actually many of my fellow Americans seem to think the situation would have been better had other civilians in the theater brought their guns, despite the fact that there was complete chaos in the theater and the thug wore body armor and threw tear gas. No doubt that had other people started shooting a lot more people would have been killed in the crossfire.

There is absolutely no way guns will ever be outlawed in America. There are too many gunowners, most of whom probably responsibly carry their firearms, who would never vote for someone trying to make a gun ban. What will hopefully eventually be done is better screening of people who wish to purchase guns and bigger penalties for those who illegally sell guns, but I doubt that will happen either. 

Most people who get concealed carry permit have had good training with a hand gun in order to get the permit and most of those people I think would be smart enough to know what to do in that situation in order to save lives.It was said in the chaos the gunman also went up to the balcony level after shooting some on the main level. In the chaos there undoubtedly would have been an oportunity to put a bullet in the back of his head to at least stop him from shooting more.

I do however agree that anyone who wants a concealed carry permit should recieve rigorous training before obtaining a license.

Still strict gun laws will not stop serious killers. And will just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.


sure just as soon as you have to go through riguous training and schooling to get your free speech and religion permit.

Words and faith alone cannot kill. It is when we allow believers in radical ideas access to weaponry that they then become dangerous, and that possibility should not be used to justify letting everyone have access to weaponry, for the use of guns in the overthrow of governments usually leads to loss of freedom or something resembling anarchy. Check out Libya: no more Qaddafi? Sure, but also gangs running around kidnapping people like their Olympic committee chairman.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

the_dengle on 20 July 2012
killerzX said:

no, id be perfectly content with no weapons, if that meant criminals and the goverment dont/cant get any either. but seeing as that has never happened in the history of the world.

so until then i will be open or conceal carrying ever day of my life because i know that no laws will keep the criminals from doing illegal things, like owning guns and shooting people

Be the change you wish to see in the world. I don't want anyone owning weapons, either. So I will never own a firearm because I would be supporting gun ownership, and I will continue to fight for tighter regulation with my voice and my vote, because I don't want the people I care about to be gunned down by a crazy person. I shouldn't have to carry a gun, and make sure all of my friends and family carry guns, just to feel safe going to see a movie.