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.
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.
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.
Last edited by StrawberryClock; 08-06-2012 at 07:44.
Imagine this, for example.
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.
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 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.
When you see a fist fight between roid freaks. Who do you help? Come on now. YOU HAVE TO HELP ONE OF THEM!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?
Still the most sane poster.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?
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.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
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 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.You cannot honestly believe shoot outs are the solution to a problem we are trying to prevent.
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.
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.Yes I remember that one mass-murderer who used a road to kill people with.
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.
Maybe gun rates have no effect on crime positive or negative?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...hows./(page)/2“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.
If you don't live in the US why would you care if americans can hold guns or not anyway.
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.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.
I did not say ban guns altogether, that's a messy topic I don't wish to go into. I did say better regulations.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.
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.
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.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.
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.