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

Forums - Politics - Arm Yourself: The Ultimate Gun Factsheet

Mmmfishtacos on 20 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?

Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.

Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)

But you can't make a concesson on one gun and not the other. Not to mention many hunters don't go down to game lands to hunt. Many around her just go in their back yards. And many do it to feed their family. Having a butcher process your deer is 75 dollars. That meat could last for as long as 3 months. My house hold spends 75 a week on meat. Do you see the cost saving here? And you take that way from people? Just because someone might kill someone with a gun?



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 20 December 2012
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?

Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.

Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)

you really don't let facts get in the way of an emotion based argument, do you?

And you don't have much in the way of compassion for your fellow man. Point?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

enrageorange on 20 December 2012

Not going to debate gun control. Just going to mention this gun "factsheet" is just laughable.

Certain chart axises adjusted to make tiny shifts look like they are exponentially increasing.

Any studies that are pro gun control, discredited, just because.

Very specific countries specified to prove a point, when comparing violent crime rates.

Random, often times completely irrelevent statistics mentioned.

Basically what I am saying is someone could make a nearly identical convincing pro guncontrol "factsheet" just by picking other countries to compare the USA with, or by picking different irrelevent stastics between the countries to compare.

This is what you call propaganda. And yes I am sure there are pro gun control arguements that are just as bad as that website. But it doesn't help that everyone is lying and distorting the truth.



the2real4mafol on 20 December 2012
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


no 20 kids died becuase somebody wanted to kill them, it could have been with any weapon. the deadliest school attack in US history happened without a gun, the deadliest attack on US soil happened without a gun. These kids are dead people of a murdered intent of murdering. and they may be alive today if it werent for laws making it near impossible for the to be defended by the adults around them.

also an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. it isnt even high powered. the bullet it uses, is used to varment hunt, in many places its illegal to hunt deer with it because its too small of a caliber. the AR-15 only has a bad rep because its a scary black plastic and metal gun. if it had a nice wood grain to it no one would care.

and saying you should only have a pistol to defend yourself with is extremely naive. tell that to the korean shop owners that defended themselves with AR's during the LA riots. tell that to the police officers son that shot and killed home invaders with his dad AR, and saved himselve and his sister. there are many other stories like this. 

look at the viginia tech shooting, he killed 32, more than this one. did he use an AR, no he used 2 pistols.

I don't believe for a second, those kids would of been any safer, if teachers could carry arms with them. Maybe less would of been killed, but i'm only happy when no one dies. My problem is that the guns used for the crime where legally obtained, but there is obviously no way he was checked first because if he was sane he would of never killed anyone without a  motive at all, especially innocent little kids like that. Do you think that community would ever want to see a gun ever again? I wouldn't. 

But you think i'm crazy that people should only carry pistols? Well in my country, the police don't even want to carry that and yet society is just fine here. Except for the austerity measures that is, which is stupid in itself, but that is another topic



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

killerzX on 20 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?

Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.

Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)

you really don't let facts get in the way of an emotion based argument, do you?

And you don't have much in the way of compassion for your fellow man. Point?

fellow man. yes. so much so that i am willing to defend them. thats why i joined the Marine Corps. I deeply care about the sanctity of life. i dont give into moral reletivist shit.

Criminals. not so much. they come after me or others, im going to drop them.



Around the Network
Mmmfishtacos on 20 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


no 20 kids died becuase somebody wanted to kill them, it could have been with any weapon. the deadliest school attack in US history happened without a gun, the deadliest attack on US soil happened without a gun. These kids are dead people of a murdered intent of murdering. and they may be alive today if it werent for laws making it near impossible for the to be defended by the adults around them.

also an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. it isnt even high powered. the bullet it uses, is used to varment hunt, in many places its illegal to hunt deer with it because its too small of a caliber. the AR-15 only has a bad rep because its a scary black plastic and metal gun. if it had a nice wood grain to it no one would care.

and saying you should only have a pistol to defend yourself with is extremely naive. tell that to the korean shop owners that defended themselves with AR's during the LA riots. tell that to the police officers son that shot and killed home invaders with his dad AR, and saved himselve and his sister. there are many other stories like this. 

look at the viginia tech shooting, he killed 32, more than this one. did he use an AR, no he used 2 pistols.

I don't believe for a second, those kids would of been any safer, if teachers could carry arms with them. Maybe less would of been killed, but i'm only happy when no one dies. My problem is that the guns used for the crime where legally obtained, but there is obviously no way he was checked first because if he was sane he would of never killed anyone without a  motive at all, especially innocent little kids like that. Do you think that community would ever want to see a gun ever again? I wouldn't. 

But you think i'm crazy that people should only carry pistols? Well in my country, the police don't even want to carry that and yet society is just fine here. Except for the austerity measures that is, which is stupid in itself, but that is another topic

Where are you from? And you just said the kids wouldn't have been any safer and then the very next sentence was maybe less would have died. No maybe about it. Far less would have died if teacher were to carry guns, the whole thing may have never happened if he thought he might be killed right away. Even if having a gun in the class room even saved one kid it would have been better than the full 20.



killerzX on 20 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


no 20 kids died becuase somebody wanted to kill them, it could have been with any weapon. the deadliest school attack in US history happened without a gun, the deadliest attack on US soil happened without a gun. These kids are dead people of a murdered intent of murdering. and they may be alive today if it werent for laws making it near impossible for the to be defended by the adults around them.

also an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. it isnt even high powered. the bullet it uses, is used to varment hunt, in many places its illegal to hunt deer with it because its too small of a caliber. the AR-15 only has a bad rep because its a scary black plastic and metal gun. if it had a nice wood grain to it no one would care.

and saying you should only have a pistol to defend yourself with is extremely naive. tell that to the korean shop owners that defended themselves with AR's during the LA riots. tell that to the police officers son that shot and killed home invaders with his dad AR, and saved himselve and his sister. there are many other stories like this. 

look at the viginia tech shooting, he killed 32, more than this one. did he use an AR, no he used 2 pistols.

I don't believe for a second, those kids would of been any safer, if teachers could carry arms with them. Maybe less would of been killed, but i'm only happy when no one dies. My problem is that the guns used for the crime where legally obtained, but there is obviously no way he was checked first because if he was sane he would of never killed anyone without a  motive at all, especially innocent little kids like that. Do you think that community would ever want to see a gun ever again? I wouldn't. 

But you think i'm crazy that people should only carry pistols? Well in my country, the police don't even want to carry that and yet society is just fine here. Except for the austerity measures that is, which is stupid in itself, but that is another topic

aside from your belief being unsupported by fact. At least having an adult that is properly trained with a gun, would have at least given them a fighting chance. i'd rather that than them being completely defenseless.

also he did not have his guns legally. he stole them. thats illegal. he transported them in public without a permit, which is illegal in CT. he took them into a school. Thats illegal. he brandished his weapon. thats illegal. he dischareged his weapon in a non designated zone. thats illegal. He murder 27 people. thats illegal. He possed a handgun without a permit before age 21. thats illegal. So with just that he committed 7 crimes. So no he didnt have his guns legally.

Also interesting tidbit. in the past 50 years in the US, in killing spress where 3 or more people died, all but 1 happened in a so called "gun free zone" why do you think that is? is it coincidence? or do you think most of the killers chose those locations for a reason? a reason of the wanting easy targets. also why do most of these wackos commit suicide when people with guns come in? this school shooting he commits suicide when the police barge in. the guy at the mall, commited suicide right after being confronted with a ccw holder gun wielding man.

why do you think the aurora colorado shooter chose that particular theatre, when he had 6 others right around him. could it be becuase out of those 7 theaters the only one that banned guns, was the one he shot up?



Player1x3 on 20 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


So you just ignore all the facts in the document, shut your ears and yell the usual left wing holier than thou crap despite the facts?



Mr Khan on 20 December 2012
Player1x3 said:
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


So you just ignore all the facts in the document, shut your ears and yell the usual left wing holier than thou crap despite the facts?

The facts in the document are specious at best. I would go so far as to call them usual right-wing pseudo-intellectual claptrap.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

the2real4mafol on 20 December 2012
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


no 20 kids died becuase somebody wanted to kill them, it could have been with any weapon. the deadliest school attack in US history happened without a gun, the deadliest attack on US soil happened without a gun. These kids are dead people of a murdered intent of murdering. and they may be alive today if it werent for laws making it near impossible for the to be defended by the adults around them.

also an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. it isnt even high powered. the bullet it uses, is used to varment hunt, in many places its illegal to hunt deer with it because its too small of a caliber. the AR-15 only has a bad rep because its a scary black plastic and metal gun. if it had a nice wood grain to it no one would care.

and saying you should only have a pistol to defend yourself with is extremely naive. tell that to the korean shop owners that defended themselves with AR's during the LA riots. tell that to the police officers son that shot and killed home invaders with his dad AR, and saved himselve and his sister. there are many other stories like this. 

look at the viginia tech shooting, he killed 32, more than this one. did he use an AR, no he used 2 pistols.

I don't believe for a second, those kids would of been any safer, if teachers could carry arms with them. Maybe less would of been killed, but i'm only happy when no one dies. My problem is that the guns used for the crime where legally obtained, but there is obviously no way he was checked first because if he was sane he would of never killed anyone without a  motive at all, especially innocent little kids like that. Do you think that community would ever want to see a gun ever again? I wouldn't. 

But you think i'm crazy that people should only carry pistols? Well in my country, the police don't even want to carry that and yet society is just fine here. Except for the austerity measures that is, which is stupid in itself, but that is another topic

aside from your belief being unsupported by fact. At least having an adult that is properly trained with a gun, would have at least given them a fighting chance. i'd rather that than them being completely defenseless.

also he did not have his guns legally. he stole them. thats illegal. he transported them in public without a permit, which is illegal in CT. he took them into a school. Thats illegal. he brandished his weapon. thats illegal. he dischareged his weapon in a non designated zone. thats illegal. He murder 27 people. thats illegal. He possed a handgun without a permit before age 21. thats illegal. So with just that he committed 7 crimes. So no he didnt have his guns legally.

Also interesting tidbit. in the past 50 years in the US, in killing spress where 3 or more people died, all but 1 happened in a so called "gun free zone" why do you think that is? is it coincidence? or do you think most of the killers chose those locations for a reason? a reason of the wanting easy targets. also why do most of these wackos commit suicide when people with guns come in? this school shooting he commits suicide when the police barge in. the guy at the mall, commited suicide right after being confronted with a ccw holder gun wielding man.

why do you think the aurora colorado shooter chose that particular theatre, when he had 6 others right around him. could it be becuase out of those 7 theaters the only one that banned guns, was the one he shot up?

I though I read somewhere that he bought the guns with his mums ID, maybe not. 

I don't know why these gun men would go to a "gun free" zone to shoot up the place if they would inevitably shoot themselves. Just cowards I guess.

But a problem i find is that there seems to be loads of propaganda floating about on each side of the argument, I don't doubt for a second that money plays as big apart as the constitution itself

@mmmfishtacos I'm from Great Britain

 



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030