Shooting at Virginia Tech 32 Dead 295 replies

Please wait...

jeff & eddie

Spreading the Word.

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

412 Posts

0 Threads

#281 14 years ago

Rich19;3641836I'm sorry, but I must say this. I know disarming the US won't work, etc etc etc.

The main argument for legal guns seems to be "criminals don't care about the law, therefore we need to arm ourselves. We can never totally get rid of guns". [/quote]

Your circular reasoning doesnt apply to the discussion at hand. You are under the assumption that there are no gun laws whatsoever, this is not the case. There are over 20,000 on the books. Firearms are heavily regulated.

Rich19;3641836Well, why not apply the same argument to murder? We won't ever eliminate it, so let's legalise it instead. That way, you're allowed to murder a person you think might be a murderer. Voila, crime rates will go down. :rolleyes:[/quote]

Again, your backward reasoning isn't going anywhere. You're comparing an object to an act. Try again.

[quote=Rich19;3642895]Guns in the hands of bad people are BAD as well, y'know. And the gun shops don't seem to mind about that (gunman used a legally bought weapon).

Your own words suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Buying a gun from a dealer is like buying a car. You have a LOT of paperwork that goes into it, a background check is conducted, and depending where you live, be prepared to wait a 3-5 day "cool-off" period. The gun dealers in this case did nothing wrong.

You might as well look at a situation in which some nut drives his GM pickup truck through a group of people and kills 10. And then say "clearly the salemen who sold him the truck didn't care if he kills people".

Nonsense.

[quote=DnC;3642948]No, unfortunately the guns loose on this argument since they serve no purpose other than to kill.

The purpose of the item has no basis of whether or not it should be "legal".

Otherwise, perhaps we should be considering the legality of things like alcohol, cigarettes, or anything else. But even ignoring that--Just because you yourself don't find a "purpose" of a firearm, doesn't mean you can apply that line of reasoning to everyone else. Im sure there are things you own that I would find no purpose. Doesn't mean im going to be pompous or arrogant enough to tell you "you shouldn't own X or Y because I personally dont see a purpose..".

Next?




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#282 14 years ago
DnC;3643222A gun's design is to kill. Cars are designed to get you from A to B but many are used in racing and collecting.

That's funny, considering cars kill more Americans every year than all crimes involving firearms. The same can be said for Doctors as well.




BladeV2

Twisted God

50 XP

6th April 2004

0 Uploads

534 Posts

0 Threads

#283 14 years ago
WiseBobo;3643498That's funny, considering cars kill more Americans every year than all crimes involving firearms. The same can be said for Doctors as well.

That's due to ubiquity. Percentage-wise, a gun causes more harm than a car. If everyone carried around a gun like a car, and used it as often as a car, things would be different.

Again, your backward reasoning isn't going anywhere. You're comparing an object to an act. Try again.

Still applies to drugs, illegal immigrants, terrorists, etc.

Your own words suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Buying a gun from a dealer is like buying a car. You have a LOT of paperwork that goes into it, a background check is conducted, and depending where you live, be prepared to wait a 3-5 day "cool-off" period. The gun dealers in this case did nothing wrong. You might as well look at a situation in which some nut drives his GM pickup truck through a group of people and kills 10. And then say "clearly the salemen who sold him the truck didn't care if he kills people". Nonsense.

VA shooter kid did the paperwork, and it still wasn't effective enough. The dealer did jackshit to actually make sure he was clean.

i dont think the comparison of guns to cars is lacking at all. a much greater percentage of people with cars use them to break the law and do things that result in people dying than gun owners do with their guns. you just hear a lot more about the few people who do it with guns because of media sensationalism.

Breaking a law via car is different because A) its less lethal and B)ubiquity (see above) If you had a car and used it twice in your life, you probably wouldn't break the law with it either.

BTW, why don't we just severely limit the sale of ammunition? It seems to solve most of the arguments on both sides. Sell about 2-3 rounds tops to a given person.




jeff & eddie

Spreading the Word.

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

412 Posts

0 Threads

#284 14 years ago
BladeV2;3643538That's due to ubiquity. Percentage-wise, a gun causes more harm than a car. If everyone carried around a gun like a car, and used it as often as a car, things would be different.

69,825 injures due to firearms in 2005. 4,384,738 injuries due to vehicles in 2005.

Next?

VA shooter kid did the paperwork, and it still wasn't effective enough. The dealer did jackshit to actually make sure he was clean.

Pay attention, closely. MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY is not included in background checks due to patient-doctor confidentiality agreement. A background check is for CRIMINAL RECORD. The dealer did nothing wrong.

Its obvious at this point you are literally making things up as you go along. The reality of gun policy and gun law isnt the fantasy that's been indoctrinated into your head through the media and other pro-criminal sources. I highly suggest you at least look into this topic before embarrassing yourself further.

Breaking a law via car is different because A) its less lethal and B)ubiquity (see above) If you had a car and used it twice in your life, you probably wouldn't break the law with it either.

You dont have the numbers for anything here. So i'll move on.

BTW, why don't we just severely limit the sale of ammunition? It seems to solve most of the arguments on both sides. Sell about 2-3 rounds tops to a given person.

False.

First, I need to correct you. You are suggesting things to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist.

Second, you have no idea how laws work. If something like that were to ever pass(which it would not.), it would take full effect after about 6-12 months. Meaning people will simply stock up on ammunition before the law goes into effect. Finally, most serious shooters simply reload their own ammunition. And there are so many variables into reloading to make it better than buying from the store.




Flodgy

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

27th May 2004

0 Uploads

6,034 Posts

0 Threads

#285 14 years ago
fitzsimmons.jpg



WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#286 14 years ago
BladeV2;3643538That's due to ubiquity. Percentage-wise, a gun causes more harm than a car. If everyone carried around a gun like a car, and used it as often as a car, things would be different.

Percentage-wise, a car causes more harm than a gun too. Don't going throwing around statistics when you have not done the research.




BladeV2

Twisted God

50 XP

6th April 2004

0 Uploads

534 Posts

0 Threads

#287 14 years ago
WiseBobo;3643624Percentage-wise, a car causes more harm than a gun too. Don't going throwing around statistics when you have not done the research.

Yeah, but you don't use a gun for 3 hours a day either. When a gun is used, it has a high chance of killing someone.

Pay attention, closely. MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY is not included in background checks due to patient-doctor confidentiality agreement. A background check is for CRIMINAL RECORD. The dealer did nothing wrong.

erm... doesn't that mean we've got something to fix... yeah i guess i forgot to say that...

You dont have the numbers for anything here. So i'll move on.

Put that in context. The argument I'm answering and making doesn't call for numbers. Just a bit of common sense.

Second, you have no idea how laws work. If something like that were to ever pass(which it would not.), it would take full effect after about 6-12 months. Meaning people will simply stock up on ammunition before the law goes into effect.

Valid point, but no worse than the status quo. Only a risk for improvement.

First, I need to correct you. You are suggesting things to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist.

Solving complaints and arguments about gun laws? Read it in context dude...

Finally, most serious shooters simply reload their own ammunition. And there are so many variables into reloading to make it better than buying from the store.

Reload? You're going to have to explain what you're talking about. Do you mean they'll make their own bullets or something? If that option is open now, there's still no disadvantage to taking action.

69,825 injures due to firearms in 2005. 4,384,738 injuries due to vehicles in 2005. Next?

That doesn't respond to my argument. But take a breather. My discussion with you really isn't going anywhere, and WiseBobo does a much better job at actually answering my arguments anyway.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#288 14 years ago
BladeV2;3643634Yeah, but you don't use a gun for 3 hours a day either. When a gun is used, it has a high chance of killing someone.

Again this assertion would never have been made if you had done your research. A firearm is used over 2-3 million times for self-defense every year in this country; of those millions of situations, the gun is fired less than 2% of the time. If you want to discuss gun violence that is fine, but lets get down to the nitty gritty. 75% of all gun crimes are criminals shooting at other criminals, with 50% of their victims being innocent bystanders. If you want to crack down on gun crime the answer is not gun control but harsher punishments for criminals who don't follow the law, considering they are criminals that should be an obvious leap in logic. The USAs gun violence statistics are inflated as a result of a huge amount of violent and criminal street gangs running rampant with law enforcement incapable of dealing with the scumbags because morons think those kinds of people deserve "rights". The end result of all of this is that law-abiding gun owners such as myself have to repeatedly justify our right to own a gun thanks to a bunch of MS-13 morons or Norteno gang bangers making the evening news and sunday paper on a consistent basis.

P1010039-1.jpg

I own all of the above because they are fun and I enjoy the history that all of them provide (save for my new 1911 on the wall). I collect and shoot. Others like to get new AR-15s or FN FALS and build from a lower receiver on up. Law-abiding gun owners get nothing but shafted thanks to politicians who think people such as myself will go on a murderous rampage simply because I own guns. It's a ridiculous assertion and as I have already stated, I am sick of having to say it over and over.

More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens = less crime because the citizens can now stop the gangbangers right in their tracks. Everything else is a reactive approach by Law Enforcement after a crime has been committed. If scumbags think they might get shot they will be less inclined to commit crime. That's both simple logic and the result of every study done in states that are "shall-issue" for CCWs (concealed carry permits).




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#289 14 years ago
BladeV2;3643634 Reload? You're going to have to explain what you're talking about. Do you mean they'll make their own bullets or something? If that option is open now, there's still no disadvantage to taking action.

That’s exactly what he means, and I know several people who do just that. In fact my brother in-law has thousands of shells of many calibers in one of his sheds right now, and none of them were bought from a store by him, but rather homemade from spent shells and the appropriate tools and machines. Apparently he got into as teenager, as him and his dad would go to gun ranges and collect spent shell casings for his fathers weapons and ammunition collection. Take note that homemade bullets are some times far better then store bought ones. I really, really, really hate to agree with Jeff & Edie, but I have too. He hit it on the head with many of his points. Some of you should seriously consider researching weapons, ammunitions, and laws surrounding them before you continue posting about them. Constructing your own ammunition can be done by just about anyone with access to the right tools and equipment. Equipment which many, many people have, and can easy come across. Regulating ammo, would be almost as pointless as regulating dealers on street corners. There are simply too many guns in existence out there, and far too many ways to acquire both them and ammo for them.




Teqila

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

28th June 2006

0 Uploads

427 Posts

0 Threads

#290 14 years ago

Most of you support gun control in a country you don't live in and you don't know anything about what you want banned.

Kind of like the person in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA