Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My reasoning has never been to ban all guns.If you can find where i stated that show it to me.See Australian gun laws and results for an answer.

 

Australia also had a mass shooting with banned weaponry  after 1996....Australia had 3 events that were considered Mass shooting incidents after 1996.

 

and only had 9 recorded shooting sprees spanning 100 years before the 1996 legislation. 

Link to comment
  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

My reasoning has never been to ban all guns.If you can find where i stated that show it to me.See Australian gun laws and results for an answer.

 

Why differentiate?

 

Just because you exclude one specific look of a rifle or weapon. Will not guarantee that it stops anything.

Link to comment

The knife argument again ? come on.Can somebody go into a crowded public place with a knife and kill as many as he could with a semi-automatic rifle ? 

 

You have, almost intentionally, bypassed the argument altogether. 

 

 

Do not deflect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Ok,5 people with knives killed 29 people.Put a semi-automatic rifle in their hands.Then how many die ?

 

Dude you are running in a circle.

 

If you need an example of that then look no further than the Florida shooting......

 

You wanted an example and mocked the knife argument. So there was an example... In a country that allows ZERO guns... It doesn't END regardless of whether you take something away. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Let me spell it out using a different method of injury:

 

Lets just say there were multiple vehicle vs crowd incidents. The attackers in each case used a moving truck made by the Isuzu company. Would you design legislation to ban Isuzu moving trucks? Or would design legislation for all moving trucks?

 

 

I can scale this as analogy all day..

  • Like 1
Link to comment

 

Poor example there were at least 5 attackers (maybe more) so 6 each not 17.  Knives are not for mass murdering. What you need do here is control who gets knives and take a gun to a knife fight..

Link to comment

Dude you are running in a circle.

 

If you need an example of that then look no further than the Florida shooting......

 

You wanted an example and mocked the knife argument. So there was an example... In a country that allows ZERO guns... It doesn't END regardless of whether you take something away. 

I'm running in a circle,funny.

Link to comment

No,doesn't make sense to me.I never understood the "scary gun" BS.Any gun pointed at me would be scary,don't care what kind it is.

 

The scary part comes from brain dead politicians banning features on a rifle that does not impact its operation at all. Banning pistol grips, bayonets, collapsible stocks and so on. 

 

The cosmetic, scary stuff. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Poor example there were at least 5 attackers (maybe more) so 6 each not 17.  Knives are not for mass murdering. What you need do here is control who gets knives and take a gun to a knife fight..

 

But it does prove that someone wishing to do harm will find a way. Gun or No Gun

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Poor example there were at least 5 attackers (maybe more) so 6 each not 17.  Knives are not for mass murdering. What you need do here is control who gets knives and take a gun to a knife fight..

 

 

Ok,5 people with knives killed 29 people.Put a semi-automatic rifle in their hands.Then how many die ?

 

 

Now that you've deflected and are going down that road.. I'll follow.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)

Link to comment

But it does prove that someone wishing to do harm will find a way. Gun or No Gun

 

Sure, you could throw rocks too.  Then board with nail in it, knife, sword, spear, bow and arrow and... gun. The efficiency of delivering death from a distance goes up this way>>>>>

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Sure, you could throw rocks too.  Then board with nail in it, knife, sword, spear, bow and arrow and... gun. The efficiency of delivering death from a distance goes up this way>>>>>

ViEUd3O.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Well because that same 18yo can join the military and GIVEN said rifle, in fact the true "assault rifle" version of that firearm. That same 18yo can vote, be drafted, get a job, get a credit card, aquire a loan, go to college and get massively in debt for a useless document and is legally an ADULT.

 

Bull shit. You aren't GIVEN said rifle, you are trained like a mother fucker on how to us it, once certified you are issued not given a true assault rifle. From that point all ammo is tightly controlled until you are deployed, at witch point they take advantage of an 18 year old kid's natural aggressive tendencies so you'll kill who they tell you to. When your service is over and you are a disciplined mature adult, the military takes your assault rifle back.

 

Yes, an 18yo can vote, Join the military, get a job, get a credit card, acquire a loan, and go to college to get massively in debt for a useless document, but they can't drink until they're 21. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MATURE OR RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH. That's not to say there aren't 18 year olds who can hold their liquor or a sport crabine, but on average, statistics says otherwise.

Link to comment

Also jr ROTC at Florida school and Cruz was in that program briefly?

 

Teachers or coaches , like the one who jumped in front of bullets.., would not wait outside. Again though it's the threat of security, no gun free..

 

Lastly.. TV , and all entertainment was created for narrative and culture control. And it worked.

 

So they opened up the internet and created Facebook.. here we are

Link to comment

People that want to kill will kill. Regulating their weapon WILL unquestionably alter the efficiency of their attack. Most of the mass murderers that carry out gun attacks use Semi-automatic rifles because they look intimidating and they are literally getting off on being feared. They buy them legally or steal them from family because they are wierdos who don't know people on the street. Loners who spend sat. night online jerking off. To say "why is no one talking about the drugs" is bullshit. It's all I go after. And there are books, websites, studies implicating benzodizipines all over the place. MSM? Fuck em. I don't watch, or read it.

 

Why do we care about these killings with AR's over handgun deaths? Exactly as John stated, complete innocent lives getting slaughtered. But I personally believe they will just get a handgun and do the same thing slightly less effectively. Mostly due to less ammo between reloads.

 

Why blame the NRA? Because they have funded opposition to legislation restricting mental health screenings over and over again. They lobbied to have Trump reverse Obamas one gun restriction in his 8years that added a tiny level of mental health screening. They to push the narrative that no discussion should be had because liberals won't stop until all guns are illegal. You believe it, and they sold it.

 

Guns are a great tool necessary for many functions of society public and private. Limiting features on guns is not stupid. Fully automatic weapons should be illegal. Bump stocks are reckless retarded and should be illegal. Shotgun pistols, tracer rounds, silencers, etc. Reason is reasonable. AR-15's or the like are fine. But let's restrict who can get them and restrict how many they can get. And if they "lose" one, they should be restricted further. If they are proven to sell them illegally, take away all gun rights and fine them $1M heavy or jail time. Everyone is born with gun rights, but they sure as fuck can lose them.

 

Drugs, HIPAA can't disclose recipients of certain scripts, but gun owners can be databased (I fucking hate this too), and if they want a drug on the no go list, they've gotta give up gun privilage. Doctors should be legally obliged to then report those who are verging on becoming a threat and remove their gun privilege. Even heavy narcs remove our driving privilege.

 

Stop this bullshit "they just want to talk all our guns away" bullshit. You are annoyed at liberals for saying the same shit over and over??? Look in a fucking mirror. Both sides need to ignore the extremists and talk solutions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

tr8er, I defy you to find 17 “completely innocent teenagers” in a fucking county, much less a school. Does it really matter that it’s a high school vs any other location? I would say not. A primary school, I’m on board, you’ll find actual innocent youth. Teenagers are damn near adult so should be looked at as such. Would you, john, etc really give a fuck if it wasn’t the taboo of a school? Not really. None of you showed even half the outrage for vegas as you did for this one...I guaranfuckintee you there were way more than 17 innocent casualties in Vegas. In all actuality, the world is so populated with humans, none of it REALLY matters. It sounds callous but it’s true. Not one person here has grandstanded over child abuse, starving children, little girls in Africa being tortured and having their genetalls mutilated, the list goes on for miles when it comes to large mistreatment of youth. Why are they no big deal but 17 upper middle class kids are?

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Teenagers are not adults or they wouldn't be called teenagers. You are born innocent and age cannot make you more innocent, so with age there is a diminishment of innocence. Basically the younger you are the more your innocence is presumed. It's bad enough for any adult be killed but a teen who has so much ahead of themselves to experience and won't get to, is a horrible loss. A child killed is just an agonizing loss. So the loss of the young is acutely felt by those who can appreciate what it is to live and grow up. Adult hood means accepting some risks that the young are shielded from. So most emphatically YES, the deaths of 17 innocent teenagers will get more outrage that those killed in Las Vegas. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Used your country Wiki.

 

Here is Wiki

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

 

Wikipedia is, and remains one of the most inaccurate sources of open source information on the planet.

 

Anyone can post information, and misinformation on wikipedia.

 

Im right, Wikipedia is wrong !!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.