This side is for people who have finally changed their minds and are now against gun control. That side ---> is for people who will never change their mind no matter how good the shooter looks shooting an assault weapon ;)
hey gun control crowd i have a question. if outlawing or "banning" something makes it go away why are we still haveing problems with the availability of illegal "banned" drugs in this country?
WOW. Finally something I think we both agree on! However, I wouldn't say the girl really played a role in me believing that assault riffles shouldn't be banned. ;)
1st: "assault rifle" is a buzz word, ambiguous and lacking proper definition.
2nd: A common feature of many "assault rifles" such as ratios which allow for rapid fire and accurate aiming would be useful for covering fire, sweeping a line of enemies, and hitting multiple areas in a target quickly to insure their death. Would be useful in case the right of revolution needed to be invoked. The people have a collective right to execute tyrants and their ability to go to war with the military or police is essential to preserve liberty, and maintain(and as a socialist I would say actually create) a government for, of and by the people.
So like when people have less bullets and less powerful guns they will magically be able to kill more people? Does being republican hurt your head? That's a lot of denial.
There are shootings all of the time in areas where having a gun is perfectly legal. Your theory this prevents violence is 100% incorrect, and frankly sounds like a child daydreaming about being a superhero.
The reality is that more powerful guns with more bullets for more people only leads to one thing, more dead people.
That is a fact.
All of your fanciful imagination doesn't change this.
From my perspective, you are the one that is over indulging in imagination. Taking away the rights to guns in our nation would not solve violance, it would just be hurting our freedoms. What makes you think that if a person is willing to kill someone, they are going to be intimidated by a law that says they can not use guns. Japan tried this gun control policy but it still did not stop a school massacre where 23 students were killed by one guy with a knife.
Taking away assault rifles would and has decreased violence. We've seen this. We know it for a fact. You've no piece of evidence to prove otherwise. And since you still have every right to have a gun (though I'm beginning to think those so gun crazy, like yourself obviously, should not have any guns) your rights are not being "taken away."
It's a dumb argument. Like 85% of the country agrees. It's gun idiots and those getting rich from gun nuts (the nra and gun sellers), who care nothing that psychos are able to kill dozens of kids at a time instead of only 1 or 2 now, who think otherwise. Everyone else sees through you false patriotism and your empty and thoroughly disproven arguments.
1) Even though i am supporting the right to have firearms, i do not have a gun myself nor do i have the intention of getting one, so do not be so quick to make assumptions you have no basis to make.
2)Calling your opposition nuts and idiots does not make your argument look better, it just makes it look like you have no other stance than to start mud-slinging. You say you have "disproven" my arguments, by tossing out "Like 85% of the country agrees" does not lend any credibility to your argument because you have cited not no source for that statistic, so you could very well be just pulling it out of your ass. You also failed to respond to the point i made about a school massacre occurring in a country that already uses a zero-gun policy.
And gun sellers should do background checks and when they don't and a crazy person buys a gun and kills people the seller should be an accessory to murder. You should also be allowed to sue the gun maker when this happens to you.
We won't do that though because along with a brainwashing campaign to make people like you think you're safer with a gun than without, even though every statistic says otherwise, they also have a money campaign where they pay lobbyists to make sure no measures that will save lives ever pass, because to that group you apparently worship since you spew off their points nearly word for word, cares a whole lot more about the money their guns make them then the lives their guns take.
You seem to be under the impression that you have a right to be free from potential harm. Life is a big unknown. You have absolutely no idea how or when you're going to go to that big liberal heaven in the sky ;)
If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you go to a country that has gun control. Why must you try and screw it up for the rest of us ;)
Not even the NRA handbook has been able to twist the numbers to say this. Now you're just making stuff up. There may be equal amounts of crazy people attempting violence if mental issues are not also addressed, but they are unable to shoot a bunch of people, since they don't have access to a high powered gun with shitloads of bullets. Again, does your head hurt from this logic?
The problem is crazy people. They are the ones getting their hands on guns and blowing people away. If they don't have access to guns, they'll use some other weapon. A car maybe. Are you really dense or are you just trolling me ;)
The reason this is confusing is because, as an engineer, when I am confronted with a problem, I fix the problem..., not something else.
The problem is crazy people killing a large number of people. The solution is to stop crazy people.
Placing a ban on assault riffles does NOT stop crazy people from killing a bunch of people. If a crazy person wants to kill a bunch of kids, all he has to do is drive to the school when they are letting kids in (or out) of school and plow them down. Alternatively, he can drive to the school during lunch/recess and drive through the fence and plow a bunch of kids down. He can run into the lunch room with a Katana and hack them up as they try to flee and trip all over each other in panic and chaos. Hack them up as they bunch up near the exit doors. He can plant pipe bombs in various classrooms. My God, the list is almost endless.
Banning assault riffles is (at best) a band-aid that doesn't solve the problem. It is the solution of a simple mind incapable of coming up with a real solution. It is the solution of people who claim they can be doctors ("If it hurts when you raise your arm, then don't raise your arm. There. Problem solved.").
Stating that no one needs a magazine that can hold lots of bullets or a riffle that can spit out a lot of bullets in one minute is besides the point. You might as well ban cars that exceed the national speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Goodbye Ferrari's, goodbye Lamborghini, goodbye Bugatti.
As an engineer you are also apparently unable to make clear real life correlations.
Here l0l0l0l000l0l0l0lll000ll00l0ll00l00l00l0l0l0ll0l0l0ll0l0l0l00l0ll0l0ll0ll0l0
Basically, there is a correlation between bullet count and fire power and innocent death from accidents and psychos. Since those guns are not a necessity and there is this correlation, we should regulate them better. Luckily we don't have to guess. We know it works already. It's just a matter of doing it.
I never said there shouldn't be background checks as well, there should be those. There background checks are about as difficult to pass as getting into a house party.
Sigh! There are more than one way for psychos to kill. If you really want to hamper psychos, target psychos. Don't target people that have nothing to do with the problem. Sane people do not mass murder people. There is not reason to penalize them.
But these kinds of guns are the easiest way. Other ways don't kill as many people.
And restricting guns isn't penalizing anyone. I believe that if having a certain type of gun is that fucking important to you, so much so that you are willing to see a few hundred extra kids die a year just so you can have that particular kind of gun, you probably are not the kind of person who should have any kind of gun at all.
Your position is immature. It's a child crying over a toy while other kids are dying. Get over it.
No. But I am willing to wear a seat belt, follow stop lights, renew my registration every year, etc. And if I don't pass a "background check" because of too many accidents, reckless driving, drunk driving, etc. the state has every right to take away my car. And I'm also not allowed to drive military vehicles like tanks.
So why are you not willing to do the same for guns?
Thanks for giving another great example of why you are wrong though.
You need to register your car whether you killed someone with it or not. You also are not allowed to drive a tank whether you've killed someone with one or not. Ignoring that stopping killing before it happens is the point of this debate, you've not even properly addressed your own analogy.
And there are many illegals who are not registered nor do they have drivers licenses nor insurance.
No, there are a few. Like maybe 1 car in 1,000. But if there were not laws concerning this it would be 1/2 or 3/5 without insurance, and the road would be more dangerous. Thus those laws save people. Again, for like the 5th time you've proven my point.
The point I am trying to make is that you are not entitled to be safe because life is inherently dangerous.
Typical entitled republican. And no, life is not "inherently" dangerous, and guns make life more dangerous, not less dangerous. For like the hundredth time it is a proven fact that if you have a gun you or someone in your house is more likely to accidentally shoot themselves than ever fend off an intruder. It's a poor reason to have a gun.
Besides, this debate is about how men like to watch a woman's butt shake when she fires an assault riffle ;)
No it isn't. You are saying that now because all of your reasons are obviously incorrect, and since there is no defense of your position you are trying to turn it into a joke so you don't have to think of all of the kids and innocent people who die every year because of your and others stubbornness, selfishness, and misinformation on this subject.
It's thousands Joe, thousands of kids and tens of thousands of adults.
So yeah, got it, you and gun nuts would rather live in your fantasy land, even knowing (some part of your brain must know) that it is a complete fantasy. You continuing to live in your fantasy is more important than their lives.
I get that. But luckily you are a small selfish and delusional minority. I just want to make sure you are not yelling your psychosis into an echo chamber. Someone needs to argue with this moronic perspective of yours or some may mistake it for a legitimate position.
You are completely wrong and this has been proven a hundred times and all over the world and in every state.
There are 0 facts backing up this claim you are making. Only NRA flyers... you know the NRA's sole purpose for existence is to sell more guns right? They don't care how many kids die.
Anyway. That guy who killed all those kids could not have killed half as many if his mom did not have an arsenal of guns lying around. Maybe he would have killed some if there are no background checks (which there are not any real background checks and there should be along with an assault rifle ban) but that guy would have been able to kill far fewer kids.
That's a fact.
There is no way around that fact.
I realize you gun nuts have been brainwashed and this is like trying to explain to a cult member trying to catch a meteor that it isn't magic juice it's rat poison,
but whatever, just try really really hard to think logically.
So just because some nut job killed some kids means all law abiding citizens must forfeit their right to self defense? How is that logical? What you gun grabbers don't understand is criminals don't care if Guns are illegal they will have them anyway this guy Adam Lanza he tried purchasing guns days earlier but he failed the background check (they do work) so clearly there was malice of forethought now lets think about what he could have done had his mom not owned any guns
. He could have gone to the school armed with pipe bombs
. He could have used Molotov cocktails
. Or he could have gone and bought guns illegally (I mean he was going to break the law anyway why would another law get in his way?) we need to be looking for ways to protect the children and signs and good intentions are not enough. PS drugs have been banned for over a decade now and they are a bigger problem than ever. Explain that.
You have the right to defend yourself, with a normal gun. A normal gun works just as well.
And the point is they will be able to kill less people. If this guy could not have gotten his mom's arsenal he would have found a normal gun and killed 4 or 5 kids instead of 20.
You don't need those guns with all those bullets for anything, and restricting them saves lives. So too bad. Live without it. Quit being a baby.
well a semi automatic fires only one bullet every time you pull the trigger whould that be exseptable. but any way what if your attacker has a fully automatic AR15 with a 100 round magazien what then?
You are insane. You state that "I realize you gun nuts have been brainwashed and this is like trying to explain to a cult member trying to catch a meteor that it isn't magic juice it's rat poison." You realize that you can't change anyone's mind and yet..., you try. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and again and expecting a different result. You are, therefore, insane by definition. You should just try really, really, hard to think logically ;)
Right. That or I'm simply making sure the small small minority of crazy gun nuts can't shout out the vast majority of sane people who know the difference between reality where you don't need 30 bullets and a semi-automatic for anything on earth and letting people buy them only leads to more dead people, and imagination where they think they need to defend from some black helicopters or whatever.
There's no reason for citizens to have those kinds of guns.
Stating that no one needs a magazine that can hold lots of bullets or a riffle that can spit out a lot of bullets in one minute is besides the point. You might as well ban cars that exceed the national speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Goodbye Ferrari's, goodbye Lamborghini, goodbye Bugatti. Who needs a car that can go in excess of 200 MPH? That's way too dangerous. People might get hurt. Might as well ban motorcycles or force manufacturers to lower their maximum top speed. And while we are at it, maybe we should reduce the maximum speed of computers in order to lower the number of computers hackers can hack in a given amount of time. Hell, let's ban stoves since we have microwaves and stoves burn people ;)
Stating that no one needs a magazine that can hold lots of bullets or a riffle that can spit out a lot of bullets in one minute is besides the point.
No it isn't. That's the exact point. You don't need them and you can't keep them out of the hands of psychos. So you shouldn't be allowed to have them. There aren't psychos stealing Lamborghinis and driving them into schools or buying Lamborghinis and driving them into schools. They are with assault rifles though.
I mean you have no probably telling others they cannot have an abortion right? No matter how much science says that thing aborted has no feelings or sense of self. Still, you feel righteous justification saying others need to feel your superstition deep in their heart and not abort.
However, take something you apparently like, high powered guns with shitloads of bullets. In this case we have proof they kill actual kids who are kids and not just your imagination.
Now though, now it's "How dare you tell me what to do with my body! It's not my problem kids are dying! My right to self is more important than kid's lives!"
Sure, you said that a bunch of times. You are changing your mind now because being a republican allows you a massive amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
You're also against gay marriage, which is penalizing a large group of people because of a few crazies.
However, that is a strawman. Background checks and limiting military arms in the hands of citizens is no more punishment than not letting people build biological weapons in their basement. It's the same argument. You either can't see that because you are too personally invested in your ridiculous ideology, or you are being purposefully obtuse for the sake of supporting an agenda you see as a father figure.
Everything I have ever typed into CD is on record. Feel free to dig out contradictory comments I have made to present your case. Otherwise I will just assume that you're talking out your ass 'cause your mouth knows better ;)
Maybe I haven't made myself clear so I'll try one more time.
The number of school shooting per year are less than 3 but I'll take 3.
The number of kids shot per school shooting is less than 30 but I'll take 30.
So we now have 90 kids per year. Now let's throw in other gun related deaths. I really don't care what number we pick, let's say 30,000. So now we have 30,090 deaths per year.
Now, let's look at oppressive regimes. They impact/suppress a hell of a lot more than 30,090 people a year.
Now, given the number of assault weapons already owned by citizens, I don't see how restricting further sales will be of much good. Maybe if the government took it upon itself to confiscate the weapons, that still leaves a lot of weapons that were never registered. So that won't work either.
So when I'm asked if I'm for gun control, my first thought is, "It is an expensive waste of time that won't work." My second thought is, "I rather sacrifice 30,090 people a year than risk a government that can suppress at least 50% of the U.S. population (Roughly 156,957,020 people)."
I really don't know how else to express what my preference is.
I also don't know how to convey to you that there is nothing you can say to change my mind.
And I don't understand why you keep on trying to change my mind because I have no power to effect legislation. If you want gun control, petition your congress person. ;)
I don't believe hiding the guns will cause the shootings to decrease. Sure it'll be harder to attain the weapons, but when people set out to commit a crime using a gun, they find a way to get a gun. Just look at all of the guns sold on the black market now. Not to mention that if gun control laws ARE put into place, the people who DO follow rules will now be gun less against people who don't follow rules.
Personally I think shooting a person is no way to go in general ever, any really big dispute can be settled by a few rounds in the boxing ring, but so long as guns exist, which they do, bad people will find ways to get them.
Also this particular argument is just silly, I like the look of the gif but the issue is important.
Haha not quite, but as I think someone pointed out, there are things called 'porn sites' very easy to use you know. And oddly enough I find the whole 'children being shot in their stomachs and trying to shovel their intestines back in to them' thing, a little dis-arousing.
