Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...
  • Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...
Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...


Posted by: GohanRules 12
The population of China far surpasses the number of chinese soldiers and supplly of bullets.


The number of grass seeds in the world surpasses the number of bushes grown on this planet.

So, what were you talking about again? What does that has to do with anything? Are you suggesting China unite into a massive horde and rush against fortified army bases? I'm not sure... what is... ... Never mind.

  • 12.15.2012 7:37 PM PDT

I would support an assault rifle ban and that's cause I'm pro gun. I've been hunting with my dad since i was 7, and I've never seen why people think think they need an AR class weapon with a 30 round magazine and a suppressor to hunt deer and hogs, I mean are they that bad of a shot? But anyways, if I remember correctly an assault rifle ban restricts the magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds and restricts flash suppressors and other components; it doesn't restrict the purchase of AR Class Weapons but makes them tough to purchase. Personally I would completely ban AR class weapons altogether, AR weapons are just bad news. I've been hunting all my life and you simply do not need AR weapons to shoot deer. Bolt-Actions (what I use), Break actions or lever actions work just fine for downing your bounty. I'm sure they won't repeal the 2nd amendment but I'm still worried that these nutcases will one day succeed in ruining gun ownership for me and the tens of millions of responsible gun owners across the country.

  • 12.15.2012 7:42 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
WEll said sir. Repeating what I accused you of doing. Nicely done.

ALrighty. ....

I'm not going to lie, those stats were pretty bad. It was just from what I had seen in the news. People in my ghetto as- school always say how their friend got shot or something, so I went ahead and guessed the a portion of people with guns use them just because they can.

No guns means less crimes. Hunting rifles, bolt action, can be allowed as they are only highly effective against animals.

That's just my proposition, and I feel as if I'm missing something, but I can add later. IT's just my own suggestion. IF you think that is all wrong, and that these murders and massacres should continue, go ahead. Let our prosperity die before they even had a chance in this world.

I try to persuade you guys to find a solution to end these unnecesary shootings.

You guys call me idiotic.

Where is your morale? Do you WANT children to die? What if that was YOUR child out in that school? Huh? How do you end these gun shootings? Try to answer that, please, and come back to me if you still absolutely try to refute my argument to save lives.

Considering I have been saying the same thing from the start it isn't repeating what you said back at you. I have been questioning your "facts" from my first post ITT. As for the statistics you made up I am glad you are finally saying they were bad because they are completely off and that really is an understatement. As for bolt action rifles I don't think you realize what that means at all. You do know that bolt action rifles were used in wars and are effective at killing people? Then I hate to break it to you, but an animal that is bigger and stronger than a human can take a lot more damage than a human. So you saying hunting rifles are only effective against animals is really funny. Then regarding people dying people will die with or without guns as they have been doing so for thousands of years. Guns are just a more effective way of killing. Also people can easily obtain guns if they desire laws mean nothing in that regard. Then the end of your post is nice, but personally I don't care much for people that take the guilt/blame game approach to an argument since it just shows a lack of support in their argument.

  • 12.15.2012 7:42 PM PDT

" 'I always channel my emotions into my work. That way I don't hurt anyone but myself.' "

*Puts a loaded 92fs on table*
"Oh man! My nonexistant neighbor just took a step on my property! (Refers to Beretta) Attack! Go get em boy! Go on! You can do it! TOTEN SIE!"
*Nothing happens*
*Pulls out Saiga*
"You can succeed where the Beretta has failed me! TOTEN SIE!"
*Nothing happens*
I fail to see your logic OP. Weapons are machines. Without input from an outside source, nothing will happen. The same go for your toaster. You can stand there all you want, but untill you press a button, nothing will happen.

  • 12.15.2012 7:43 PM PDT


Posted by: Eag1e12
I would support an assault rifle ban and that's cause I'm pro gun. I've been hunting with my dad since i was 7, and I've never seen why people think think they need an AR class weapon with a 30 round magazine and a suppressor to hunt deer and hogs, I mean are they that bad of a shot? But anyways, if I remember correctly an assault rifle ban restricts the magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds and restricts flash suppressors and other components; it doesn't restrict the purchase of AR Class Weapons but makes them tough to purchase. Personally I would completely ban AR class weapons altogether, AR weapons are just bad news. I've been hunting all my life and you simply do not need AR weapons to shoot deer. Bolt-Actions (what I use), Break actions or lever actions work just fine for downing your bounty. I'm sure they won't repeal the 2nd amendment but I'm still worried that these nutcases will one day succeed in ruining gun ownership for me and the tens of millions of responsible gun owners across the country.


Words can't describe how happy I am to see this post.

  • 12.15.2012 7:45 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: GohanRules 12
The population of China far surpasses the number of chinese soldiers and supplly of bullets.


The number of grass seeds in the world surpasses the number of bushes grown on this planet.

So, what were you talking about again? What does that has to do with anything? Are you suggesting China unite into a massive horde and rush against fortified army bases? I'm not sure... what is... ... Never mind.

You said if China had guns they could do nothing, when they infact could. While there would be heavy losses they could overwhelm the government. If 3 billion people started rushing you there would be nothing you could do but nuke them.

  • 12.15.2012 7:45 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: Eag1e12
I would support an assault rifle ban and that's cause I'm pro gun. I've been hunting with my dad since i was 7, and I've never seen why people think think they need an AR class weapon with a 30 round magazine and a suppressor to hunt deer and hogs, I mean are they that bad of a shot? But anyways, if I remember correctly an assault rifle ban restricts the magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds and restricts flash suppressors and other components; it doesn't restrict the purchase of AR Class Weapons but makes them tough to purchase. Personally I would completely ban AR class weapons altogether, AR weapons are just bad news. I've been hunting all my life and you simply do not need AR weapons to shoot deer. Bolt-Actions (what I use), Break actions or lever actions work just fine for downing your bounty. I'm sure they won't repeal the 2nd amendment but I'm still worried that these nutcases will one day succeed in ruining gun ownership for me and the tens of millions of responsible gun owners across the country.


Words can't describe how happy I am to see this post.


Lol why?

  • 12.15.2012 7:48 PM PDT


Posted by: What Is This1
Considering I have been saying the same thing from the start it isn't repeating what you said back at you. I have been questioning your "facts" from my first post ITT. As for the statistics you made up I am glad you are finally saying they were bad because they are completely off and that really is an understatement. As for bolt action rifles I don't think you realize what that means at all. You do know that bolt action rifles were used in wars and are effective at killing people? Then I hate to break it to you, but an animal that is bigger and stronger than a human can take a lot more damage than a human. So you saying hunting rifles are only effective against animals is really funny. Then regarding people dying people will die with or without guns as they have been doing so for thousands of years. Guns are just a more effective way of killing. Also people can easily obtain guns if they desire laws mean nothing in that regard. Then the end of your post is nice, but personally I don't care much for people that take the guilt/blame game approach to an argument since it just shows a lack of support in their argument.


I just tacked the end on, because I realized what the main goal of my post was. To tell people that these massacres need to be stopped. And I thought that to stop them, or at least reduce them, guns need to be banned, or at least the automatic ones.
People keep distracting my main goal of this post.

Flash back to WW1. Some guy with a bolt action rifle shoots across the trench, and kills a guy. He ducks down, reloads and continues shooting while his comrades cover him.

That's not this. A guy with a hunting gun, not a WW1 gun, a hunting gun, runs into a school and shoots it up. He's going to be far less successful than a guy with a fully autmatic assault rifle.

  • 12.15.2012 7:48 PM PDT


Posted by: Eag1e12
Lol why?


Because you hunt, and you agree with some of what I said. Ban the guns that deal huge damage against groups of humans. It makes sense, nobody needs that power guns. And you know a lot about guns. So you know your stuff. I only know so much from those history and gun books I got from the library and the news, but for the most part, this is your ball game right here.

  • 12.15.2012 7:50 PM PDT


Posted by: GohanRules 12
You said if China had guns they could do nothing, when they infact could. While there would be heavy losses they could overwhelm the government. If 3 billion people started rushing you there would be nothing you could do but nuke them.


Life isn't a video game. Nobody wants to lose their life that badly. That'd be plain dumb. Would you and the rest of America run in and commit suicide, while the government nukes you? That's very absurd.

  • 12.15.2012 7:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I take offense to the Illuminati reference.

  • 12.15.2012 7:53 PM PDT

I am the God Emprah of Mankind.

Deal with it.

When you said that we don't need guns, because we have Law Enforcement. Did it occur to you that cops aren't always going to be there to help you? The only way to stop all crime would to have a police state, which nobody would want.

  • 12.15.2012 7:53 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: What Is This1
Considering I have been saying the same thing from the start it isn't repeating what you said back at you. I have been questioning your "facts" from my first post ITT. As for the statistics you made up I am glad you are finally saying they were bad because they are completely off and that really is an understatement. As for bolt action rifles I don't think you realize what that means at all. You do know that bolt action rifles were used in wars and are effective at killing people? Then I hate to break it to you, but an animal that is bigger and stronger than a human can take a lot more damage than a human. So you saying hunting rifles are only effective against animals is really funny. Then regarding people dying people will die with or without guns as they have been doing so for thousands of years. Guns are just a more effective way of killing. Also people can easily obtain guns if they desire laws mean nothing in that regard. Then the end of your post is nice, but personally I don't care much for people that take the guilt/blame game approach to an argument since it just shows a lack of support in their argument.


I just tacked the end on, because I realized what the main goal of my post was. To tell people that these massacres need to be stopped. And I thought that to stop them, or at least reduce them, guns need to be banned, or at least the automatic ones.
People keep distracting my main goal of this post.

Flash back to WW1. Some guy with a bolt action rifle shoots across the trench, and kills a guy. He ducks down, reloads and continues shooting while his comrades cover him.

That's not this. A guy with a hunting gun, not a WW1 gun, a hunting gun, runs into a school and shoots it up. He's going to be far less successful than a guy with a fully autmatic assault rifle.

From what I've been told the gun man didn't actually use the "assault" rifle. He used to handguns. Automatic rifles kill less than 500 people a year and almost all of which are illegally obtained.

  • 12.15.2012 7:54 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
I just tacked the end on, because I realized what the main goal of my post was. To tell people that these massacres need to be stopped. And I thought that to stop them, or at least reduce them, guns need to be banned, or at least the automatic ones.
People keep distracting my main goal of this post.

Flash back to WW1. Some guy with a bolt action rifle shoots across the trench, and kills a guy. He ducks down, reloads and continues shooting while his comrades cover him.

That's not this. A guy with a hunting gun, not a WW1 gun, a hunting gun, runs into a school and shoots it up. He's going to be far less successful than a guy with a fully autmatic assault rifle.

Out of curiosity do you think all bolt action rifles have one round clips? As for the end of your post that is true, but that really doesn't help the whole "ban all guns" argument. I can see guns being regulated more or have better background checks, but to ban guns isn't necessary. Even then as I said if you want a fully automatic assault rifle you can get one with relative ease.

  • 12.15.2012 7:54 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: GohanRules 12
You said if China had guns they could do nothing, when they infact could. While there would be heavy losses they could overwhelm the government. If 3 billion people started rushing you there would be nothing you could do but nuke them.


Life isn't a video game. Nobody wants to lose their life that badly. That'd be plain dumb. Would you and the rest of America run in and commit suicide, while the government nukes you? That's very absurd.

1) Ever heard of Kamikazes? They were told to commit suicide and get as many casualties as possible. Also to avoid capture people would run off cliffs and commit suicede.
2) They wouldn't use nukes because then the UN would step in.

  • 12.15.2012 7:56 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: Eag1e12
Lol why?


Because you hunt, and you agree with some of what I said. Ban the guns that deal huge damage against groups of humans. It makes sense, nobody needs that power guns. And you know a lot about guns. So you know your stuff. I only know so much from those history and gun books I got from the library and the news, but for the most part, this is your ball game right here.


Happy to help :)

  • 12.15.2012 7:57 PM PDT

Check out my youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/ultratog1028

Funny. Every time someone dies to a drunk driver, there isn't talk about banning Automobiles.

  • 12.15.2012 7:58 PM PDT


Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
I just tacked the end on, because I realized what the main goal of my post was. To tell people that these massacres need to be stopped. And I thought that to stop them, or at least reduce them, guns need to be banned, or at least the automatic ones.
People keep distracting my main goal of this post.

Flash back to WW1. Some guy with a bolt action rifle shoots across the trench, and kills a guy. He ducks down, reloads and continues shooting while his comrades cover him.

That's not this. A guy with a hunting gun, not a WW1 gun, a hunting gun, runs into a school and shoots it up. He's going to be far less successful than a guy with a fully autmatic assault rifle.

Out of curiosity do you think all bolt action rifles have one round clips? As for the end of your post that is true, but that really doesn't help the whole "ban all guns" argument. I can see guns being regulated more or have better background checks, but to ban guns isn't necessary. Even then as I said if you want a fully automatic assault rifle you can get one with relative ease.


Do you have a friend close to the Black Market? Can you go buy one? I know I can't.

I'm sorry. I don't want all guns to be banned. THat was very naive. How about.... the fully automatic ones banned, and the pistols that are semi-automatic. IS that an outrageous offer? IF the government were to ban those, would you be angry?

  • 12.15.2012 7:58 PM PDT


Posted by: ultratog1028
Funny. Every time someone dies to a drunk driver, there isn't talk about banning Automobiles.


No, but they have more regulations on who buys beer and tests on how much you've been drinking. There are plenty comericals threatening heavy drinkers that the interstates are being watched for drunk driving. Drunk driving is hard to do, but they are definitely doing something about it.

Gun possesion has nothing being done to it. No more restrictions or bans compared to the last decade, I think.

  • 12.15.2012 8:00 PM PDT


Posted by: GohanRules 12
1) Ever heard of Kamikazes? They were told to commit suicide and get as many casualties as possible. Also to avoid capture people would run off cliffs and commit suicede.
2) They wouldn't use nukes because then the UN would step in.


Holy crap dude, ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! rarguarshsmarguorsh what the heck.

  • 12.15.2012 8:00 PM PDT


Posted by: ultratog1028
Funny. Every time someone dies to a drunk driver, there isn't talk about banning Automobiles.

Alright, I'm pro-gun and I find this argument horrible.

Cars aren't made to kill people. Guns are. You cannot compare the two in that sense when they aren't even made for remotely the same purpose.

  • 12.15.2012 8:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"The meaning of justice can change from one day to the next. A professional soldier never brings justice into the mission. Politics are fickle, they change with the times. So long as we remain loyal to our countries, soldiers like us need nothing to believe in." - Snake


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
I'm sorry. I don't want all guns to be banned. THat was very naive. How about.... the fully automatic ones banned, and the pistols that are semi-automatic. IS that an outrageous offer? IF the government were to ban those, would you be angry?


Learn something about guns before you base your opinion.

Do you know its almost impossible to get fully automatic guns in america.

Look up how hard it is.

and what on earth is wrong with semi auto pistols?

  • 12.15.2012 8:01 PM PDT