Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54
  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    It is a fact. You speak like someone who has social anxiety. Shoot outs? Wtf do you think US is a war zone? Retard.
    couldn't this argument be used as a reason why you don't need to carry your guns around with you?

    of course, then I guess you wouldn't be able to shoot people you disagree with and claim self defense

  2. #17
    4000+ M.Easy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    bloodscar
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    357 magnum ain't in my way
    it's pointing the direction my face is looking

    fuck you pussies, all you bitchex who cry "guns aint need" have never been in a situation where their life has been threatened. and for all you fucks who expect another man to save your life, you're nothing but a pathetic piece of human filth.

    from a man to man, the world cold but never expect hell to freeze.

  3. #18
    7000+ EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    How are mental health checks the answer?



    That will tell you if someone is depressed. Not whether they are going to shoot up a shopping center.

  4. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Regulations tend to disenfranchise people from w.e they are regulating. You don't have to put a meter in your truck but if you don't we won't give you a tax break that your competition is sure to use. Such bs methods are used to control people indirectly where they know mandates are illegal. Same can be used with mental health checks.
    Not really. Nobody ever said coal and air regulations ever disenfranchised anyone, and I would agree since England isn't looking so sooty and grey any more.

    If you are honestly denying mental health checks as a good preventive and diagnostic tool, this is honestly daft. Either you don't believe they are useful, or that you think they won't help in preventing insane people from massacring people, either way there's no logic behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dankmon View Post
    There are a billion+ guns in the US. We would be safer if more lawful people carried them around. If you are afraid of someone shooting you, I'd suggest you get a carry permit. Guns aren't going anywhere. Gun control laws will not help make us safe. Get over it.
    You cannot honestly believe shoot outs are the solution to a problem we are trying to prevent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Shit we have more car crash fatalities then gun deaths.

    End government roads!
    Yes I remember that one mass-murderer who used a road to kill people with.
    Last edited by StrawberryClock; 08-06-2012 at 07:44.

  5. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunz View Post
    How are mental health checks the answer?

    That will tell you if someone is depressed. Not whether they are going to shoot up a shopping center.
    Battery tests can diagnose many illnesses where one is predisposed to violence, like say in a sadistic personality disorder, where one has weak to nil brain activity/responses activated in the areas associated with self-control and reasoning when presented with a test but much stronger responses in the region responsible for encoding fear-based learning(or that, it shows strongly the obvious reactions of sadistic people, in that though they cannot but help their impulses, they derive a heightened "fight-or-flight" state as well as pleasure).

    Imagine this, for example.

  6. #21
    11,000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK, obviously
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    I can't understand why anyone wouldn't support health checks and training in order to carry a gun. If my life was under threat by a madman and somebody decided to defend my life, I'd rather they knew how to use the gun and wasn't mental.
    Last edited by 88Chaz88; 08-06-2012 at 09:02.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brannoc View Post
    You are clearly awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Being socially progressive does not make you 'advanced'.

  7. #22
    Normal User Chalupas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    735

    Default

    I don't posess a firearm at my residence (loaded crossbow seems enough), but I do still believe that they're better as a deterrent than a phone call.
    Quit forcing safety on people. Just because you had a sheltered upbringing that made you naiive, it shouldn't make USA responsible for the imagined 'fixes' you tried to implement

    edit: yes YOU http://comics-x-aminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/600full-sgt.-
    I can't understand why anyone wouldn't support health checks and training in order to carry a gun. If my life was under threat by a madman and somebody decided to defend my life, I'd rather they knew how to use the gun and wasn't mental.
    slaughter.jpg

    I agree that potential carriers should be tested. I also think that potential drivers should be tested as vigorously (old people are just as much of a detriment as drunks) as the local community agrees to.

    When I say 'tested', I include testing that allows people to legally use firearms during situations that would normally be life/freedom threatening.
    Due to the heavy crime situation in urban sectors of major cities, we believe that most violent crime is the result of financial situations gone bad; lost turf, missing wages, rival encroachment, etc...
    Last edited by Chalupas; 08-06-2012 at 10:24.

  8. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatdane View Post
    if all that self defense requires is that I fear for my life and safety, and everyone around me is carrying a gun and it makes me feel unsafe, doesn't that lawfully justify me to start a killing spree and not get arrested?
    But of course. That would be the logical conclusion to that question. You are by the way the most sane poster here. You should have a medal.
    when you see a gunfight between 2 people going on, who do you help? do you wait to see who fires at you first, or do you pick the guy with a more similar skintone to assist? or shoot them both? what about when you get involved and someone else sees it and shoots at you? is it still self defense?
    When you see a fist fight between roid freaks. Who do you help? Come on now. YOU HAVE TO HELP ONE OF THEM!

    now with so many people here and their mindset of "we don't need a courtroom, just shoot them it's cheaper", how are you supposed to feel safe? is it ok to shoot suspected murderers? robbers? rapists? litterbugs? jaywalkers? meter checkers? anyone who doesn't agree with you?
    Still the most sane poster.


    guns don't belong on everybody, the country is too diverse and people would be naive to think that all the "bad" people would magically disappear
    Nobody is saying all bad people would disappear. Where saying we want to shoot the face off bad people if bad people tries anything bad.

  9. #24
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    Not really. Nobody ever said coal and air regulations ever disenfranchised anyone, and I would agree since England isn't looking so sooty and grey any more.

    If you are honestly denying mental health checks as a good preventive and diagnostic tool, this is honestly daft. Either you don't believe they are useful, or that you think they won't help in preventing insane people from massacring people, either way there's no logic behind it.
    It has been proven every time that regulation lag behind industry standards.

    And I agree this is a failure of getting to the insane people before they go off. However this has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with how we treat and identify these people in the first place. In the joker shooting there were many signs that were simply ignored.

    FBI had a report done on this and they concluded that there is no preventive measure that they can take. Since you are the elitists that likes to listen to this stuff maybe you should spend some time combing through it.


    You cannot honestly believe shoot outs are the solution to a problem we are trying to prevent.
    You are looking at the problem the wrong way. There is almost no problem. You are simply butt hurt about one type of death over others. 1 million Iraqi people died with US occupation but you bitch about 10k people dying every year in US. 40k die on the roads but you do not even blink an eye. I wonder how many die from preventable heart attacks or from accidents.

    Protecting one self is valuable and there is a study that says guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year. That is something that far outweighs all the massacres combined.


    Yes I remember that one mass-murderer who used a road to kill people with.
    What difference does it make? People are dead and more of them then gun crime. The costs of making roads safer would be a fraction of enforcing gun control.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  10. #25
    7000+ EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    Battery tests can diagnose many illnesses where one is predisposed to violence, like say in a sadistic personality disorder, where one has weak to nil brain activity/responses activated in the areas associated with self-control and reasoning when presented with a test but much stronger responses in the region responsible for encoding fear-based learning(or that, it shows strongly the obvious reactions of sadistic people, in that though they cannot but help their impulses, they derive a heightened "fight-or-flight" state as well as pleasure).

    Imagine this, for example.
    Is there any evidence that people guilty of mass shootings suffer from anything similar to what you just posted?


    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post

    FBI had a report done on this and they concluded that there is no preventive measure that they can take.
    I'm much more inclined to believe this. I think there are warning signs but nothing that a 'battery of tests' could show.


    In our society we don't allow guns to felons. You would assume anyone that would fail one of your tests would already be a violent felon, if they're prone to violence, like your test would suggest?

    And if there is no evidence that they are violent, regardless of your test, you still wouldn't allow them a gun? That seems extreme and violates the rights of many people who simply get off on BDSM.
    Last edited by Nunz; 08-06-2012 at 14:47.

  11. #26

    Default

    Maybe gun rates have no effect on crime positive or negative?

    “When you’re seeing declines [in violent crime] both in cities like Atlanta, which is in a relatively gun-friendly state, and in places like New York City, where it is essentially impossible for ordinary folks to acquire and carry especially handguns, then it’s not the guns that are driving the [statistics],” Mr. Kennedy says.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...hows./(page)/2

  12. #27
    7000+ EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wufiavelli View Post
    Maybe gun rates have no effect on crime positive or negative?



    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...hows./(page)/2
    I think this is more of how we need to look at it. Decreasing violence. Not trying to decrees gun violence.

  13. #28
    6000+ GRCPan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,401

    Default

    If you don't live in the US why would you care if americans can hold guns or not anyway.

  14. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    It has been proven every time that regulation lag behind industry standards.

    And I agree this is a failure of getting to the insane people before they go off. However this has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with how we treat and identify these people in the first place. In the joker shooting there were many signs that were simply ignored.

    FBI had a report done on this and they concluded that there is no preventive measure that they can take. Since you are the elitists that likes to listen to this stuff maybe you should spend some time combing through it.
    Its much easier to comb through insane people when they first apply for a mental health check. The problem of not getting to them first is solved when they have to come to the proper mental health authorities.

    You are looking at the problem the wrong way. There is almost no problem. You are simply butt hurt about one type of death over others. 1 million Iraqi people died with US occupation but you bitch about 10k people dying every year in US. 40k die on the roads but you do not even blink an eye. I wonder how many die from preventable heart attacks or from accidents.
    There's no point in saying "these problems are much bigger, let's ignore every other problem". While driving deaths are not caused by intention, gun crimes are, and which is why the US has the highest murder rate in the Western world.

    Protecting one self is valuable and there is a study that says guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year. That is something that far outweighs all the massacres combined.
    I did not say ban guns altogether, that's a messy topic I don't wish to go into. I did say better regulations.

    Look, Canada has gun laws and a rate of ownership not comparable but pretty high to the US. Yet Canada has almost no massacres, gun problems stem from the illegal gun trade in inner cities. The difference is that we take into fact what guns are good and bad.

    What difference does it make? People are dead and more of them then gun crime. The costs of making roads safer would be a fraction of enforcing gun control.
    My point was that road deaths are a secondary thing for driving and largely accidental. Whereas guns were designed for killing and killing they are used for.

    With that said, more people die from food-related health complications, but you can't really make it comparable to guns because driving and eating are more essential and more done in a day and by much more people than shooting.

  15. #30
    11,000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK, obviously
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRCPan View Post
    If you don't live in the US why would you care if americans can hold guns or not anyway.
    You realise that gun control isn't a U.S. specific issue right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Brannoc View Post
    You are clearly awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Being socially progressive does not make you 'advanced'.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •