Conquer Club

Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:09 am

stahrgazer wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Click image to enlarge.
image


If that's entirely honest, then why don't armies use guns like the one on top, ever?


They used to. But they found that wood warps too easily in combat situations, so came up with other materials.


I don't mean the material, I mean the design. And clearly each gun has the same firing mechanism. But there aren't any countrys who go to war with polypropylene hunting rifles. That picture doesn't pass the "they're equal killers" test because of all the other differences between those two guns. Particularly those features that are already listed above, but also including the rapid-reloading clip.

stahrgazer wrote:
chang50 wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
chang50 wrote: If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.


Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.

It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.


I'm sorry but that's simply untrue.Have you looked into any of the examples listed by Juan earlier?Greneda,Guatemala,etc.etc...the US has regularly backed vile dictators like Pinochet in Chile when it suited them.That is how superpowers behave,just please don't pretend there is something noble motivating it..


We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.


That is so not true. We have toppled democracies in favor of military dictatorships, like that last example, CHILE. Then Pinochet killed everyone.
I can remember people speculating on 9-11 that we were attacked by Chile, because it was the anniversary of our pointless massacre of the democratically-elected Chilean first family.
In fact, the three countrys that I listed had Democratically elected leaders that we helped kill. Once we did it just for cheaper bananas. How f*cked up is that?

Th point of the Military-Industrial Complex is that it is so big and profitable that it can't just shut itself down. After WWII America did the single greatest and most Honorable thing a victorious army has ever done. We disbanded. We helped rebuild the lives of the people we conquered. We let them rule themselves. We helped minorities and women in Europe and Japan to establish equal rights. We took our big-ass bombers and we sent them to the scrapyard... and we really didn't have to do that. We could have plowed right through to Moscow and ruled the whole planet.
Or at least I think we could have, and I think most Americans would agree.
I don't think anyone here understands Eisenhower's warning of the realities of the Military-Industrial Complex either. We destroyed our own bombers, but not the profits and incentives of building new ones. The cash-for-war profits are exponential so long as the Military-Industrial Complex makes the majority of Americans think that we all need those bombers. Here's a pair of my favorite Quotes from Smedley Butler, but feel free to skip them.

Smedley Butler wrote:"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedley Butler wrote:"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."


The UN, the pinnacle of our American achievements towards world peace, has done... like,... nothing toward that goal. We've got a five-nation only security council? And they are all enemies of each other and coincidentally the 5 biggest distributors of weapons globally? WTF is up with that?

patches70 wrote:You've railed on about how terrible, immoral and unethical the US government is through her actions and yet you advocate turning over even more gun control to those same people. It makes absolutely no sense.

Just look at what government debate about gun control has done just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?

You are a funny, funny person.


What makes you think you can talk to Chang like that?
You want to try to have a discussion with me again, son?

You're going off so far from what we're talking about here. The US government cannot, for reasons I already laid at your feet before, turn it's weaponry on it's citizens. IT CAN do this in isolated cases, like it did during the labor movement, but it cannot, "all of a sudden" start raining bombs from the sky. No country does that save for dictatorships. That's a fantasy. The reason that Chang, thegreekdog, and I can lay such a long list of military abuses at the feet of Uncle Sam is because they took place with the consent of the people. Not all of the people, no, and you can see that when enough of the American people turned against Vietnam, for example, we left.
The American media and it's people would not consent to a spurious occupation of American soil for some fantasy reason. Every state has a defense force, and every state has a few dozen military armories as well. Some have naval yards and bases. Furthermore the Feds cannot collect cash from a state that they are at war with, so compromise will always be best. This should all be a part of a separate discussion about monkey spheres and evolutionary biology.
Point being that it's pretty stupid to even pretend that licensing and insuring fire arm purchases like everyone else is doing in civilized democracies will magically mean the Army is gonna come in and start shooting everyone. Of course, the discussion could get a lot more complex than this in a hurry, but at it's base, the discussion is about consent. For that Reason England and Australia are still functioning just fine and dandy.

Twitter and Facebook are the new tools of revolution my friend, not guns and ships. Armed revolutions and revolts are what normally end in dictatorships today. Beware of those.

Furthermore, we still, after all of these pages, are not discussing taking away all guns. I don't know why that argument is so paternally intrinsic to your side. This is an adult discussion about what to do about a real-life problem. Not one about a fantasy where Mexico invades the US or some sh*t.

patches70 wrote:Just look at what government debate about gun control has done just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?

You are a funny, funny person.

I could laugh at this if I thought that it was a parody.
The US government is not threatening to take away guns. We've only got a small handful of Congresspeople on our side. "The government" hasn't even introduced any bills on gun legislation yet, because Congress only just got back from break. Yes, there is a gun legislation bill that will be introduced. But it's just a dressed-up a copy of the 1994 ban.
And even allowing that there is a bill in the works, how the hell do you reason that "it's the government's fault" that people are buying guns? The government doesn't care. There's no fault for gross incompetence here, unless the fault is gross incompetence of logic.
"Oh the big scary government wants my guns!"
No it doesn't; that's another paranoid delusion. Buy all the guns you want, but pay your taxes on them.

Night Strike wrote:I guess this woman should have just pled with the crowbar-wielding ex-con to go away and leave her and her kids unharmed?

You're right. If she had only a shotgun she'd be dead.

patches70 wrote:But hey, keep bowing at the alter of the supremacy of government. Don't forget, our government put 1000's of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels over the objections of the gun dealers who were told by the DEA to allow said gun sales. 100's of people were then subsequently murdered with those weapons including at least one US border agent. And did all this without informing the Mexican government.
Yeah, the US government is capable of doing a great job with gun control........

Gun show sales are now organized crimes #1 method of acquiring guns. All of the guns used by those Mexican drug lords you're so proudly brandishing about came from the US, from legal markets. They did not come from the government, they came from Winchester, and Colt, and the other manufacturers. These gun manufacturers derive most profit from gun shows, and they are well aware that they are indirectly selling to criminals.
All those agents did was try to track them, like how they follow drugs back to their source. In many states you don't need a background check to buy a gun from a gun show, and that's how criminals get guns. So that's a pretty retarded argument from someone who's smugly displaying his total lack of knowledge on the vast issue of sensible gun control. The Fast & Furious debacle happened because your side refuses sensible gun control, not because the government is corrupt and evil. You lambast "the government" for trying to establish any fresh gun control, and you also attack them for not controlling the sales of guns. The people who bought those guns were legally permitted to. They were couriers, but with no criminal background.
Do you think that was the first attempt to follow the guns that flow to Mexico like hummingbirds in the winter? You think this was a one time event? As long as you all stand in the way of sensible gun control then there will be uncountable repercussions from that.
And why do you do it? Because you're paranoid about the United States government. 20,000 dead children and a civil war in Mexico is alright so long as you can own a f*cking awesome assault rifle. That's your price?


patches70 wrote:The politicians in the US are for the most part ideologues, liars, sycophants, degenerates, power hungry, greedy, instigating fools. Congress has an approval rating of around 18%. LMAO. People don't trust the government. How you can is a mystery since you seem to be forgetting everything you supposedly believe about the government when faced with this one issue.

Yeah, it's all the politician's fault that 20 thousand kids or whatever die from gunshots yearly. And how many people have been shot and killed since Sandyhook? 500 is it? f*cking politicians. They're all devil-worshipper. Did you know that? Those fucking socialist, meth-smoking, Devil worshiping scumbags.
Motherf*cking HOME OF THE BRAVE.


stahrgazer wrote:SENSIBLE gun restriction already exists in the United States.
1) Any known felons are not supposed to have guns.
2) Guns used, even in lesser crimes cause a stiffer penalty, and result in all guns by the perpetrator being confiscated.
3) Most states require a permit to carry concealed weapons.
4) Weapons cannot legally be transported across state lines without extreme restrictions.


We've been over this. This list is why children keep getting killed. Your "sensible" list actually does nothing to stop criminals from purchasing guns through licensed dealers, or from acquiring them. It's irresponsible of you to ignore that.


chang50 wrote:Surely we can agree some govt. is needed,the alternative would be total anarchy,the question is how much and what form?It's not a problem of trust,in a democracy the electorate gets what it deserves,what it voted for.

Word. This is what I said earlier. All you have to do to change the position of our government is to participate. If you're not participating then shut up. Amirite?

chang50 wrote:Your views seem right of centre for the US,which by European standards is far far right,and you lost recently so you have to suck it up.

Twenty years ago the center-right would have been our far-far-far right. Those of us on the left think these people are just as crazy as you guys do.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:14 pm



I think we can all agree that she's kinda brilliant.


Unrelated; but important given our sidelined discussion:

Ecuador Taxes Bankers, President Faces CIA Assassination Plot
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby spurgistan on Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:36 pm

patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.


You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.


So, state governments are having difficulty paying for certain things most of the electorate thinks they should be able to pay for. I wonder why?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby patches70 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:46 pm

spurgistan wrote:
patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.


You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.


So, state governments are having difficulty paying for certain things most of the electorate thinks they should be able to pay for. I wonder why?


Because printing money, going into debt and playing politics has consequences. They'd have no problems (lol) if they could print their own money like the central government does......

Maybe the local governments are paying for things they probably shouldn't. I suppose each principality has their own nuances. What applies for one wouldn't apply for another and such.
Why do you think the state governments are having trouble paying for certain things?
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 pm

spurgistan wrote:
patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.


You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.


So, state governments are having difficulty paying for certain things most of the electorate thinks they should be able to pay for. I wonder why?


Because everyone enjoys the idea of getting 'for free' (i.e. something at another's expense) and because politicians love to promise such benefits?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:01 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.


You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.


So, state governments are having difficulty paying for certain things most of the electorate thinks they should be able to pay for. I wonder why?


Because everyone enjoys the idea of getting 'for free' (i.e. something at another's expense) and because politicians love to promise such benefits?


With respect to California specifically, it's fascinating and a good experiment to watch. The legislature is elected promising various benefits provided by the government. The voters then vote for tax increases themselves, which they, of course, almost always vote against. So on the one hand, you have voters voting for more benefits (indirectly) and on the other hand you have voters voting for no new taxes (directly). It's really awesome.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:01 pm



How the average gun owner thinks VS how the average Brit thinks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:16 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:

How the average gun owner thinks VS how the average Brit thinks


Hey Juan,it must grieve you greatly to see this.I'm ashamed to belong to the same species as this man,there aren't words for how I would feel if he were British.Somebody please tell me this guy is not representative of anything except mental illness.If this man is remotely like the average gun owner in the US your country is in big trouble on so many levels.Scary,scary shit...
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:52 am

Let's talk truth here, at least half of my country is borderline retarded. George Carlin said to think about what the average I.Q. is, and then remember that half of them are stupider than that.
You're seeing it here in this thread. I've answered everything that the pro-gun side has thrown at us. Posters, quotations, facts, arguments,.. I accepted the challenge from anything they could throw at me. Yet for 58 pages, they keep repeating the same retarded stuff over and over that I've already refuted. But do they respond to my counter points? No they don't, because they can't. They don't have any answers for my counter-points, they just love and want guns, and that's it. That's why I'm forced to respond to what they are saying to others. They aren't interested in a learned discussion; & they don't care what anyone thinks and they don't care about the reality of what we're talking about. These people here are blocking our attempts at saving lives; they are responsible for the deaths of these children, and they don't give a rat's ass about the Sandyhook kids. A dozen manics could shoot 10,000 kids and these gun nuts would still not care. They'd accept 10,000 dead children as the price for their owning a sweet revolver and continue to block any hope of reform. Look at Stahr's bulleted "gun control" measures. I've stated over and over that those false control measures are precisely what enables organized crime, criminals, and maniacs to easily purchase guns. Yet there's the bullet list (pardon the pun) ignoring my earlier objections based upon reality.
And I'm not all that innocent either. I was an asshole once too. Check out these quotes from when I first started debating:


The media likes to hone in on the people who snap and go on a rampage, but how do you stop someone like that? With the kids growing up looking up to drug dealers and the like; well at least you can still reach them... take them out of that environment. But what do you do people who are mentally sick? They now see going on a rampage as an option. You've got to take away that option. At this point, I truly don't think taking away guns will do that. Instead, they'd just make bombs or something. Same difference.

Out here in my community, everyone knows each other... looks out for each other. We go to a small school... and grew up around guns. There are four churches, and everyone goes. So even those of us without parents have other adults to look up to... just because our community is so small. There are drugs here too, but no one sees that as a way out of anything. The closest thing to a gang you'll see is a sports team at dairy queen Saturday night.

So stop being so f*cking stupid everyone. Love is always the answer.


The 9-11 hijackers killed 3000 with airplanes and razor blades.



I've said a lot and more here about gun control. I was on the other side of the debate for quite a while. I shamelessly argued, as others have here, that we need our beloved blunderbusses to defend ourselves against a rouge, tyrannical government. But I didn't argue from this point of view for 58 pages after having my ass dipped in honey and handed to me. I did the hard thing and I learned from my experiences, and from the wisdom of people who knew more than I did. And then I changed my goddamn mind. But this other half of Americans, they'll never change their minds. They don't have the ability to learn or rationalize. So they'll get an irrational assault rifle ban, because it's all we can force on them, and there will be plenty more shooting and plenty more dead children. And these gun enthusiasts will be to blame. In 20 years or so, when today's youth has grown up, maybe we'll finally have some sensible changes. It's always the youth who lead in the fights for justice.

Everything Alex Jones has said in that video is everything that we're facing in the Gun Debate in America. The Conservatives in this country adamantly believe that the Constitutional right to bear arms was put in place to allow them to stockpile weapons to protect themselves against everything (government, burglers, black people, polar bears, Communists, etc). And they don't want to hear any contradictory facts, like only whites being allowed guns, Washington heading an army to kill American citizens during Shay's rebellion, WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS, Supreme Court Justices disagreeing, or Lexington and Concord. They just love their f*cking guns so much, and that's the end of the discussion, or they'll shoot you.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:04 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -road.html

In other news, Keith Ratliff, who sometimes works with FPS on youtube, has been shot in the head. This is a WTF story if I ever heard one.

First Person Shooter is a youtube channel that was started by a Russian Gun Enthusiast. He was playing video games one day and he didn't like how the guns were portrayed in the games, so he decided to start a youtube channel to show how guns actually looked. He's had some crazy videos with flame throwers and whatnot too. At one time he had the number one youtube channel, though the article says his ratings have slipped. Crazy story, Georgia.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:32 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259190/Keith-Ratliff-Popular-online-guns-explosives-expert-shot-death-rural-Georgia-road.html

In other news, Keith Ratliff, who sometimes works with FPS on youtube, has been shot in the head. This is a WTF story if I ever heard one.

First Person Shooter is a youtube channel that was started by a Russian Gun Enthusiast. He was playing video games one day and he didn't like how the guns were portrayed in the games, so he decided to start a youtube channel to show how guns actually looked. He's had some crazy videos with flame throwers and whatnot too. At one time he had the number one youtube channel, though the article says his ratings have slipped. Crazy story, Georgia.


Before I started to go online with it's easy access to worldwide news and fora and blogs,less than a decade ago,I was in some ways quite naive,especially about the US.As a teenager I read American comics about superheroes where the good guys won and everything was bigger and better and plentiful, you had hundreds of TV channels,we had three.Occasionally something like this incident would filter thru and we would all laugh;'those crazy yanks haha",never dreaming how common this sort of madness would become,or perhaps always was.Some disillusionment set in with Vietnam and Watergate but not too much.
It was the internet that opened my eyes..I remember a question on Yahoo Answers which is dominated by Americans,like cc,asking Christians if they would rather their child died or left their faith.The majority answered the former.....after the initial shock I determined to find out more,this cannot be right.The more you dig into American society the more Alex Jones's you find..
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:46 pm

According to Biden, Obama will just pass gun controls with executive orders if Congress doesn't pass them for him. When will the this dictator stop trampling all over Constitutional rights (and when will the liberals start recognizing it)?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Ray Rider on Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:02 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:

How the average gun owner thinks VS how the average Brit thinks

Yeah, you would love to pretend like the average gun owner is an idiot like Alex Jones...too bad there's this little thing called "reality" that gets in the way of your ideas all the time, eh.

Btw, I thought that was a pretty funny "interview." I'm not sure what else Piers Morgan was expecting though; the only thing Alex Jones knows how to do is rant into a camera for as long as possible while getting progressively angrier. I don't understand why anyone pays attention to him (besides for the laughs).

Juan_Bottom wrote:Let's talk truth here, at least half of my country is borderline retarded. George Carlin said to think about what the average I.Q. is, and then remember that half of them are stupider than that.
You're seeing it here in this thread. I've answered everything that the pro-gun side has thrown at us. Posters, quotations, facts, arguments,.. I accepted the challenge from anything they could throw at me. Yet for 58 pages, they keep repeating the same retarded stuff over and over that I've already refuted.

If you're wondering why people don't pay much attention to you, it could be your arrogant attitude which you have on display again right here. Or it could also be that you've already discredited yourself multiple times over by pasting propaganda posters from questionable sources into half your posts and refused to admit the error of your ways when people like Saxi or BBS patiently take the time to show how ludicrous the propaganda's "statistics" are.
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:24 pm

Ray Rider wrote:If you're wondering why people don't pay much attention to you, it could be your arrogant attitude which you have on display again right here. Or it could also be that you've already discredited yourself multiple times over by pasting propaganda posters from questionable sources into half your posts and refused to admit the error of your ways when people like Saxi or BBS patiently take the time to show how ludicrous the propaganda's "statistics" are.


Arrogance does not prove someone wrong, that's not logical.
And what do you expect? I've thrashed every argument in this stupid thread, but instead of having their way with a different perspective, these gun nuts here just repeat the same arguments that I just disproved. And it's the same people repeating them. So if I say everyone else is being stupid, it's because they are being stupid. They're ignoring the hard truth for comforting lies, and the result is innocent people being shot. I don't feel arrogant about it, I feel pretty angry about it.


Saxi has never proven any "statistics" that I've posted wrong, ever. He's not even a real person; he's a "for fun" character, which is why I don't take the time to debate with anything he says. Please for the love of God - don't take him seriously. He doesn't even debate with anyone, he just berates them until they leave.
So if you're referring to that 65% disagreement, seriously, read my response or follow my link. Saxi didn't go to the correct source (probably not his fault), and he read the first article incorrectly,.. and when I kindly tried to explain that to him, he just brushed it off as though he's never wrong. And I don't care that he did that, because nobody should try to reason with someone in character. I did not respond to him in the hopes that he would see that he was wrong, I did it so that everyone else who read it would know he was wrong. But I think you did ignore my response and instead believed a fake-90-year-old-Communist-Anarchist-West-German-doctor-living-in-California. And now I'm defending my reputation against the reputation of CC's version of Bugs Bunny. This is ridiculous, Ray Rider.
As for BBS, I can't see anything he says. I've had him on foe for a very long time, ever since he tried to argue with me that he has the right to make fun of Holocaust victims, and that I should see it as being therapeutic. It was pretty f-ed up. So if he's arguing with me I don't know it. But I told him he was foed the very day that I foed him... so if he is arguing with me, he's doing it knowing that he can say whatever he wants and I can't defend myself.
I don't consider him an intellectual equal, and you shouldn't either. Anyone who finds genocide to be hilarious is a stupid jerk, and a bully.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:28 pm

Night Strike wrote:Image



Explain this comic.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:37 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Image



Explain this comic.


Easy, the attackers with the first three weapons are blamed for the attack. But when a gun was used, all of society and all legal gun owners are blamed for the attack and must have their guns taken away.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:44 pm

Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:09 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.


Where are all the conversations about banning knifes after people are stabbed? Why do we have to ban guns after people commit already-illegal crimes with them?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby kentington on Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:15 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.


Where are all the conversations about banning knifes after people are stabbed? Why do we have to ban guns after people commit already-illegal crimes with them?


Because there is always something you can use to stab, beat or strangle someone. It would be impossible to stop. Their point of view is that unlike knives, ropes, and hammers; guns do not have a necessary alternative purpose.

I do understand their point of view, but if someone wants to kill someone, then there are easier ways to mass murder than guns. Insane people will find a way to kill if that is what they want to do.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:05 pm

kentington wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.


Where are all the conversations about banning knifes after people are stabbed? Why do we have to ban guns after people commit already-illegal crimes with them?


Because there is always something you can use to stab, beat or strangle someone. It would be impossible to stop. Their point of view is that unlike knives, ropes, and hammers; guns do not have a necessary alternative purpose.

I do understand their point of view, but if someone wants to kill someone, then there are easier ways to mass murder than guns. Insane people will find a way to kill if that is what they want to do.


We could make a game out of hypothetical weapons and how a criminal mastermind could use them, but it wouldn't be a reflection on reality or sensible gun laws. It's like when the DoD hired Hollywood film writers to think up ways that terrorists could attack America.
This is all a question of basic common sense and human decency. Guns have no alternative use other than killing people. And guns are the weapon of choice in homicides, not knives, which do actually have an acceptable alternative function to murder. Now, as I understand it, knives are the 2nd most common weapon used in homicides in America, while guns are obviously #1. And guns are always the weapon of choice in multiple homicides. But the ratio is ten to one against knives. 10 to 1. So to me, this isn't a logical comparison to make, everyone.
So 11,000 people are shot to death every year in this country. And what does the gun enthusiast do to prevent it? Nothing. He claims ropes are just as dangerous of weapons as guns are. 11,000 dead people, that's 34 in a single day, and we've not touched upon suicides or just general gun violence either. Is that the price of your freedom? 34 dead people a day and 2 school shootings a year....?
If you're going to claim, seriously, and stupidly, that knives are as dangerous as guns are, then you have already defeated your argument. There's no reason for you to fight for your right to buy any gun if you can get the same results you're looking for with with a much-cheaper knife. You have no reason to own a gun.


When it comes to mass killings, which haven't been the focus of this thread, "ease to kill" isn't really relevant. These shooters aren't the brainiest bunch, and almost all of them kill themselves after they run out of victims. They're not trying to kill people in an easy way, they're trying to have an experience. But that does bring up another point that's been missed.
After the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress made new laws and restrictions on how much bomb-making material a single person could purchase. And we got a new licensing and distribution system to ensure that it never happened again. After the Columbine School shooting, what did we do? Nothing. The GOP has de-funded mental health services and we all allowed the assault rifle ban to expire. Hence the Aurora shooter went into the theater armed with an assault rifle. Where is the logic in this? Columbine even had an armed guard, and the NRA is proposing that we put armed guards in all of the schools... and in addition to that glaring fact a murderer walked into Fort Hood and killed 13 people, and wounded 29 more. Nobody on the other side of this discussion is even serious about gun restrictions. They don't care about any of these victims.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby kentington on Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:30 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
kentington wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.


Where are all the conversations about banning knifes after people are stabbed? Why do we have to ban guns after people commit already-illegal crimes with them?


Because there is always something you can use to stab, beat or strangle someone. It would be impossible to stop. Their point of view is that unlike knives, ropes, and hammers; guns do not have a necessary alternative purpose.

I do understand their point of view, but if someone wants to kill someone, then there are easier ways to mass murder than guns. Insane people will find a way to kill if that is what they want to do.


We could make a game out of hypothetical weapons and how a criminal mastermind could use them, but it wouldn't be a reflection on reality or sensible gun laws. It's like when the DoD hired Hollywood film writers to think up ways that terrorists could attack America.
This is all a question of basic common sense and human decency. Guns have no alternative use other than killing people. And guns are the weapon of choice in homicides, not knives, which do actually have an acceptable alternative function to murder. Now, as I understand it, knives are the 2nd most common weapon used in homicides in America, while guns are obviously #1. And guns are always the weapon of choice in multiple homicides. But the ratio is ten to one against knives. 10 to 1. So to me, this isn't a logical comparison to make, everyone.
So 11,000 people are shot to death every year in this country. And what does the gun enthusiast do to prevent it? Nothing. He claims ropes are just as dangerous of weapons as guns are. 11,000 dead people, that's 34 in a single day, and we've not touched upon suicides or just general gun violence either. Is that the price of your freedom? 34 dead people a day and 2 school shootings a year....?
If you're going to claim, seriously, and stupidly, that knives are as dangerous as guns are, then you have already defeated your argument. There's no reason for you to fight for your right to buy any gun if you can get the same results you're looking for with with a much-cheaper knife. You have no reason to own a gun.


When it comes to mass killings, which haven't been the focus of this thread, "ease to kill" isn't really relevant. These shooters aren't the brainiest bunch, and almost all of them kill themselves after they run out of victims. They're not trying to kill people in an easy way, they're trying to have an experience. But that does bring up another point that's been missed.
After the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress made new laws and restrictions on how much bomb-making material a single person could purchase. And we got a new licensing and distribution system to ensure that it never happened again. After the Columbine School shooting, what did we do? Nothing. The GOP has de-funded mental health services and we all allowed the assault rifle ban to expire. Hence the Aurora shooter went into the theater armed with an assault rifle. Where is the logic in this? Columbine even had an armed guard, and the NRA is proposing that we put armed guards in all of the schools... and in addition to that glaring fact a murderer walked into Fort Hood and killed 13 people, and wounded 29 more. Nobody on the other side of this discussion is even serious about gun restrictions. They don't care about any of these victims.


Re-read my first paragraph and pay attention to the semi- colon. I said something very similar to what you said. I did not say knives are as dangerous as guns, I did say they have a necessary purpose other than killing.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:32 am

34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby kentington on Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:53 am

chang50 wrote:34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.


Land of the frightened in what way?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:58 am

kentington wrote:
chang50 wrote:34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.


Land of the frightened in what way?


Frightened to speak out against bully boy yobbos like Jones.Why wasn't this forum jammed with decent Americans rushing to dissociate themselves from this barbarian?Or do many quietly agree with him?Or is it worse,don't they care?
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users